« The Secret Vote Club | Main | Market Regulations in Everything »

June 19, 2007

JFK and Liberalism

This idea that JFK's murder shattered liberalism by "by compromising the faith of liberals in the future [and] by undermining their confidence in the nation" is very peculiar. It's peculiar not only because Lyndon Johnson rapidly galvanized liberals behind cherished -- and previously unattainable -- goals like the Civil Rights Act and Medicare, but because RFK was a liberal icon in a way his brother never could be. His assassination still resonates with every older liberal I know. That's where the movement's dreams were lost. JFK's death was, in contrast, a national tragedy, not a tragedy local to a particular party or creed.

June 19, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

I think it is funny that JFK has become a sort of liberal hero after all these years, after all, a lot of the people in his administration were Republicans. A main example being McGeorge Bundy.

Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Jun 19, 2007 10:03:37 AM

JFK's death was, in contrast, a national tragedy, not a tragedy local to a particular party or creed.

Honestly I never considered it much of a tragedy at all.

The loss of a man who ran to the right of Richard Nixon, was a young acolyte and admirer of Joseph McCarthy, brought us the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile crisis, and sat on his hands in the face of southern intransigence on segregation?

Good riddance.

Posted by: moron | Jun 19, 2007 10:25:36 AM

Nevertheless, the fact that this country elected John F. Kennedy at all in 1960 still amazes me.

Posted by: sangfroid826 | Jun 19, 2007 11:26:14 AM

Hesitant thought I am to tangle with a commentator canny enough to name himself "moron," to say that Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon in 1960 is a gross oversimplification, and it was Bobby Kennedy who served on McCarthy's congressional committee staff. President Kennedy's third year in office was full of promise from a liberal perspective, but Ezra is absolutely correct that it was felt as a national tragedy, and yes, Bobby became the liberal voice his brother never was.

Posted by: Leah | Jun 19, 2007 11:33:04 AM

"Honestly I never considered it much of a tragedy at all."

There was a narrative for RFK in 66-68, a story of increased compassion out of inconcievable loss. There is plenty of video documentation, whatever the reality was, the man had the charisma of a saint. I am not kidding, many of us could not look at RFK without crying. We needed a savior.

However, Ezra is mostly wrong, and/or the people he talks to are focusing their memories on a particular symbol. 1968 was hell, and there were so many tragedies and disappointments. For instance, RFK was an excellent compromise candidate who could appeal to labor, blue collar ethnics, blacks, NY elites, even Richard Daley & the machines. The fracture of the Democratic party was inevitable, RFK was the desperate hope, but really only brought the despair to consciousness.

Max Sawicky knew better than Stoller. The story is not so different today than 40 years ago. The military-industrial-capitalist-imperialist complex has a grip on centrist Democrats, and tactics or charismatic leaders or vanguardism aren't going to change the country in the short-term. I noticed some MYDD guys are changing their strategies.

If a parliamentary socialism is the goal, you can look at some European models. I don't remember any great leftish icons who gave England, France, or Denmark their systems. Grass roots then Congress is the way to go.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 19, 2007 11:41:02 AM

Strange interview. Piereson attempts to make his thesis plausible by conflating several distinct political trends under the heading of Liberalism. New Deal Liberalism, Cold War Liberalism, student liberals committed to civil rights and the New Left. Certainly Kennedy's assassination was traumatic but its impact was not equally felt by all these tendencies. The New Dealers, for example, hadn't wanted Kennedy in the first place, prefering to have a third try with Adlai Stevens.

In any event, as you suggest, the constituencies Piereson labels as "Liberalism" were actually galvanized by the assassination to the extent that they unified behind LBJ's domestic push on civil rights and poverty. Albeit in the case of the budding radicals of the younger generation, that support was less than starry eyed("Part of the Way with LBJ").

It seems to me that Piereson's analysis has more to do with the obsessions of the Right than it does with those of Liberalism. He emphasizes repeatedly that Oswald was a "communist" and puts all questions about the official explanation of the assassination down to Liberal reluctance to accept the political identification of Kennedy's killer.

The problem with this analysis is that the widespread scepticism about the Warren report only grew over time. There was no immediate rush by Liberals to debunk the official report. Radicals of the New Left were more inclined to theorize about conspiracies but until the murders of M.L. King and Robert Kennedy in 1968 their views were seen as, well, ...radical.

Interesting that the assassination of King apparently plays no part in Piereson's scheme. Perhaps because the white supremacist politics of King's ostensible assassin don't mesh easily with Piereson's narrative of liberal denial leading to anti-Americanism?

This seems to be the root obsession of Pierson's "analysis". He fully imbibes the conservative penchant for locating the cause of political developements in bad ideas rather than objective events and conditions. In his perspective, JFK's death is the origin of the "Liberal anti-Americanism" because "Liberals"(presumably everyone to the left of Barry Goldwater, including SDS)were ideologically incapable of accepting that the President's assassin was a commie.

This is a very convenient position for someone on the Right to hold. With one swoop it paints "Liberalism" (that ever elastic term)as delusional dogmatism and eliminates the unpleasant necessity of dealing with the ugly realities of the Vietnam War, the war against domestic dissent,the murder of King, etc.

One doesn't have to be a militant materialist to suspect that four years of escalating military conflict abroad, combined with the assassination of leading figures identified with progressive causes and increased political repression at home, had more to do with any subsequent rise in "anti-Americanism" than JFK's death 5 years earlier.

This all leaves aside the question of what Piereson means by "anti-Americanism". Judging from his creative use of Liberalism, it may encompass anything less than a full blooded embrace of manifest destiny.

Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jun 19, 2007 11:46:06 AM

looking back through the lens...

when i was growing up in the fifties, there was a feeling, in the middle class community where i lived, that anything was possible, and though there was not too much delving beneath the veneer...things were good.
...science seemed to hold promise for everything. there were new kinds of stoves and dishwashers...television and telephones. and yet,the newness didnt feel scary in the way that we now see the effects of science, technology, consumption and health hazards.
as children, we would actually look through x ray machines in shoestores at the bones in our feet!
...there were cars with chrome gills and airplanes with gangplanks and postcards in the airplane pockets for passengers to send of the shiny and amazing boeing plane they were on!
there were brand-new hotels on a sparkling and at that time, pristine coast in florida...resources seemed limitless. who would have considered global warming or envisioned condominia lining the perfect sandy beaches? and for the first time, skyscrapers,that very much represented the infallible, glittering ascension that seemed the hallmark of that era.
..."regular" neighbors were starting to "visit" gemlike islands like jamaica and nassau...and no-one looked beneath the veneer.
...people on our street were actually visiting europe..and there was still a great sense of romance in the chance to travel on an airplane to europe.
...when we studied holland in school, it was still with pictures of windmills and fields of tulips.
....and somehow, the era of jfk and jacqueline expanded this into a new paradigm...still hopeful, but more worldly...
jfk and jacqueline brought a brilliance,an appreciation for cultural literacy, for diplomacy...they helped us to move comfortably into a broader world of ideas and ideals, with a sense of context, intellect and creative, collective purpose
whatever was growing under the veneer, there was a sense of expansion of horizons, attainable beauty, opening up to the world of new ideas.
....that presidency represented a paradigm shift that led us without fear from the fifties, into a more sophisticated world-view that was inclusive, broadening, spirited, culturally rich and also very beautiful.
....i think jacqueline kennedy had something to do with that also.
in our neighborhood, it was exciting to see her talk about art and beautiful things. her appreciation of music and travel, her appreciation for intelligent and talented people had a grace, depth and elegance that was actually inspiring...
it was wonderful to see her "holding her own" with grace, intelligence and wit...with the likes of john kenneth galbraith and charle de gaulle....or off on her own riding an elephant in new delhi.
she was an independent and beautiful spirit, and she worked toward the good.
it didnt feel unreachable...it felt attainable for all of us. it was so inclusive and rich.
there was a great richness to that time that felt so perfectly seamed to the fifties with a new worldview that we could celebrate and participate in.
.....although there were crises and it wasnt perfect, it was a time of hope and expansiveness of ideas, a celebration of intelligence and contribution.
......the assasination was like the destruction of personal innocence.
when one individually starts experiencing loss, disillusionment, heartbreak and broken promises...there is a dark night of the soul. it changes the way one sees the world, and one's place in it.
i think that all of that happened when jfk was assasinated. it became a dark night of the soul, collectively.
and it changed the lens, and the way we saw the world and experienced our life as a nation.
.....it was the loss of innocence for this nation.
when 9/11 occurred, we already knew that bad things could happen.
that circumstances could try to extinguish hope, beauty, plans, faith in the future, a sense of direction.....the bridge of dreams into the future had already been lost.

Posted by: jacqueline | Jun 19, 2007 11:48:14 AM

I just hate this godawful focus on the President, be it the candidates RFK or Edwards. Much of what progressives appreciate was enacted by Congress in the Nixon administrations. I am not clear on the history, but I would guess even the LBJ accomplishments came from dogged coalition-building rather than Lyndon's charisma and determination, and the roles of people like Humphrey & Mondale are really being horribly overlooked.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 19, 2007 11:53:41 AM

iconic people can represent and deeply influence the feeling of a moment in time.
they create and become the legacy.
world leaders, writers, film-makers, artists...
jfk was larger than the sum of the historical parts.
right or wrong, the hopefulness, activism, rich exuberance and expansiveness of commitment and world-view of that era became his legacy.
....when he was killed, there was a vision, (real or perceived) that gave us a sense of positive direction...and i think that was lost.
...the nation was brokenhearted and fractured.
at that time,we seemed to be crossing the same bridge over the waters, and since then, we still cant seem to rebuild it again.

Posted by: jacqueline | Jun 19, 2007 12:07:01 PM

Last one:Reading the interview, the guy is an idiot. The rise of the conservative movement during the 60s does have a strong connection to the rise of the new left.

I think the key to understanding the 60s is realizing that the vast majority of the young leadership came from the cohort born 1935-45. Look up some names, from Slick & Jagger to Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, Bobby Seale. This was one of the smallest cohorts in American history (world?) but achieved maturity at the point America reached its peak of power & influence. They had little competition from each other, but had tough opposition from the entrenched "Greatest Generation." The boomers simply provided a supply of cannon fodder &worker bees for all factions & movements.

The Port Huron Statement was written in 1962, and the revolutions and insurgencies were on the way. If anything, JFK united and made intransigent the older generations of the left. He was a symbol for WWII vets, an icon of the New Deal and Imperial America, not the leader of anything new. The other side of change.

Which is why Bobby struck a chord. Bobby changed sides.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 19, 2007 12:24:44 PM

My father will tell you to this day that "the US went to hell in a handbasket after JFK was shot."

A "Kennedy for President" hat and a copy of the NY Times from the day Kennedy was elected still sits in his closet.

Posted by: fiat lux | Jun 19, 2007 12:57:32 PM

Lee Harvey Oswald did progressives a great favor by eliminating the reactionary moron JFK and elevating the far more progressive LBJ to the Presidency.

Honestly, JFK reminds me a lot of George W. Bush: the not-too-bright (but Harvard-educated) scion of a wealthy and powerful family with a strong sense of entitlement and the willingness to use electoral skullduggery to steal the presidency. As another commenter mentioned above, JFK ran to the right of Nixon in 1960, especially on the "missile gap." He damn near blew up the world in the Cuban Missile Crisis - a piece of foreign policy recklessness to rival anything Bush ever did. He believed the lies about Reconstruction that were taught to him by the Dunning School professors at Harvard, and he repeated these lies in Profiles in Courage (or his ghostwriters did - so much of the book was plagiarized that it was hard to tell.) He would never have done anything on civil rights other than talk.

In the popular imagination, JFK gets credited for all of LBJ's accomplishments, while LBJ gets blamed not only for his own missteps but for JFK's as well. Going back to an older historical example, it's similar to the situation in England with King Richard the Lion-Hearted versus King John Lackland. By any objective standard, John was a far better monarch than Richard, but Richard was more charismatic, died young in battle, and gave some good speeches, so he gets remembered well, while John became the villain in Robin Hood. Totally silly, but our historical perceptions are often grossly skewed by the biases of men long dead.

I trust the objective historical record over the bamboozled recollections of old men.

Posted by: Josh G. | Jun 19, 2007 3:09:16 PM

fiat lux....

i agree with your father.
i was just another person in my neighborhood.
i read the local evening news and ate popsicles, so i know my recollections were not politically profound...
but i do know how life felt in my neighborhood, and we were by no means rich. just worker bees.
in spite of all of the work that still needed to be done at that time, it seemed to me that there was consensus, vision, enthusiasm and courage. there was talent and brilliance surrounding the leadership. there was an appreciation for activism and creative and intellectual accomplishment.
there was no "dumbing down" at that time.
that was another great thing....people really valued learning and the chance for education.
.....the last time i think i felt that sense of unity and exhilaration was when we all held our breath and breadth, for one collective moment, and watched the first footsteps on the moon.
...that was another moment in time when it truly felt like the sky was the limit.when one felt almost rapturous at being an american.
.......after the deaths of robert kennedy and martin luther king, the agony of viet nam, watergate...we lost our ideals, our unity of vision and most of all, a sense of trust.
......now, it seems, even great accomplishments like the genome map seem fraught with bio-ethical confusions and our science has come back to bite us, it seems.
....whether the exhilaration of that time was real or imagined, it did seem to exist as i was living through it. and it did feel like a shining moment in time.

Posted by: jacqueline | Jun 19, 2007 3:22:27 PM

The Viet Nam war, combined with the backlash against the civil rights movement and the civil unrest that followed in the wake of both is what killed liberalism. Liberalism was absolutely triumphant in the wake of Kennedy's assassination and Johnson masterfully used the political space created in the wake of the 1964 landlslide to pass the greatest legislative agenda since the first 100 days of the New Deal. Viet Nam, and all that followed, just obliterated this in a few short years.

As for the suggestion that JFK was similar in intellect to our current president, I invite you to watch a few of Kennedy's press conferences and then make that claim. It's a really stupid and superficial analogy.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Jun 19, 2007 3:37:19 PM

"lee harvey oswald did the progressives a great favor by eliminating the reactionary moron, jfk..."

lee harvey oswald did not do a great favor by eliminating jfk.
whether you respected him as a political leader or not, i can assure you that his death was the darkest day in american history in my lifetime.
....the dislocation and collective grief that resulted from having a president murdered on an ordinary day, was a tragedy.
...after 9/11, for a brief moment, americans stood in unity together, after the death of jfk, everyone stood alone with their thoughts. it was an attack from within, not from without.
there was no identifiable enemy.
we all felt dismembered, and the country felt dismembered.
....to refer to his murder as a "favor" to the american people is a misfortune for you.

Posted by: jacqueline | Jun 19, 2007 3:38:26 PM

just digressing and thinking about the differences between 9/11 and the death of jfk...something else comes to mind...
with the advent of violent and larger than life films, watching the planes go into the twin towers seemed at first, like it had already been seen before in a theater. cnn created music,there were replays of the bright sky, the shattering glass towers.
the experience of it was seized and redesigned by the media.
it seemed to feel less personal.
they formatted it as if it were the olympics...with somber musical themes and still photos at the commercial breaks...endless commentary.
as if we can no longer suffer quietly.
in spite of its horror, one of the other horrors, was that at first, it looked like a scene from a movie.
........but when jfk was killed, it was nothing that we had experienced before in such a way.
even though we watched it on television, there seemed to be a very private grief in the way that each person experienced it.
....television did not create the experience for us.
it didnt turn into inescapable noise.
even as we all gathered around the television, there was a painful and lonely feeling that everyone seemed to have. somehow it felt like a very quiet experience.
it was still possible to watch television and look inward at the same time.

Posted by: jacqueline | Jun 19, 2007 4:04:07 PM

I think it is funny that JFK has become a sort of liberal hero after all these years - JK's conscience

I never thought of JFK as a liberal hero. I thought of him as the hero of self-styled MSM liberal types as well as someone conservatives would frame as the liberal hero (either in making a "why doesn't the Dem party go back to the spirit of JFK" argument in favor of a bland, centrist sort of "liberalism" that won't threaten the conservative stranglehold on the political discourse, or in bashing liberals using JFK's failings, family background and personal life as an example par excellance of who liberals are).

Perhaps people of generations past who were alive for the JFK presidency see it differently? But I never got the JFK mania of some ...

Posted by: DAS | Jun 19, 2007 4:16:53 PM

especially on the "missile gap." - Josh G.

I always figured that the "military-industrial complex" speech was, in part, Ike warning us about JFK.

Although, IIRC the history of my religionists in England, I think I have to disagree with you on Richard vs. John. ;)

Posted by: DAS | Jun 19, 2007 4:20:50 PM

A lot of people just don't get it. Kennedy ran against Nixon. When Eisenhower was asked if Nixon had done anything worthwhile in the 50s, he said "If you give me a week, I might think of something."

With Kennedy in office, RFK went after the Mob- the criminals who made Americans flee their cities and build suburbia, making a mighty effort to keep the big-city mobs out.

Kennedy was blindsided by the Bay of Pigs invasion, which had been planned before he took office and was intended to make him responsible for an American invasion of Cuba. He stood up to those guys and refused to support the invasion. For this he got killed, and the closest thing we've seen to his courage since then was Carter's refusal to send troops in to support the Shah.

In a very real sense Kennedy challenged us to be better than we were and put his money where his mouth was. He said we could work for peace by sending a Peace Corps instead of an army, and formed a Peace Corps for us to join. He said we could be lean and fit instead of fat and old, and was himself lean and fit. He said we could be honest instead of corrupt and sent the Justice Department to fight the Mob.

This may all seem old hat today, but at the time it was new and inspiring. That's why most of the people who were alive then either love or hate his memory.

Posted by: serial catowner | Jun 19, 2007 5:50:59 PM

serial catowner: "A lot of people just don't get it. Kennedy ran against Nixon."
serial catowner: "With Kennedy in office, RFK went after the Mob- the criminals who made Americans flee their cities and build suburbia, making a mighty effort to keep the big-city mobs out."

Wow. The level of historical ignorance in this statement is breathtaking.

First of all, it was really Estes Kefauver who brought organized crime as an issue into the public consciousness. JFK did little or nothing new in that regard.

Secondly, you give the Mob far too much credit. It wasn't because of organized crime that Americans left the cities for the suburbs in the post-war era. Most Americans who lived in the city never had any real interaction with such activities and were not directly affected by them. The suburban housing boom can be credited to President Eisenhower (for pushing through the national interstate highway system) and Bill Levitt (for building the first affordable suburbs using mass-production techniques, which others would later follow).

serial catowner: "Kennedy was blindsided by the Bay of Pigs invasion, which had been planned before he took office and was intended to make him responsible for an American invasion of Cuba. He stood up to those guys and refused to support the invasion. For this he got killed, and the closest thing we've seen to his courage since then was Carter's refusal to send troops in to support the Shah."

I'm sorry, but this whole paragraph is just batshit insane. Kennedy wasn't "blindsided" by anything; he was a fervent Cold War hawk, and there is no reason to think he did not really believe what he said in public about the Red menace. If he didn't want to support an invasion of Cuba, then he shouldn't have sponsored one. He was the President, and he could have called off the Bay of Pigs if he had wanted to. Sponsoring it and then refusing to provide support was the worst of both worlds, and it hurt America's credibility to the point where Kennedy nearly had to blow up the planet in the Cuban Missile Crisis to get it back.

As for your comment that "for this he got killed," what utter nonsense. I've found that support for JFK assassination conspiracy theories is generally inversely related to a person's actual knowledge of the subject. Few legitimate historians take such speculation seriously.

serial catowner: "In a very real sense Kennedy challenged us to be better than we were and put his money where his mouth was. He said we could work for peace by sending a Peace Corps instead of an army, and formed a Peace Corps for us to join. He said we could be lean and fit instead of fat and old, and was himself lean and fit. He said we could be honest instead of corrupt and sent the Justice Department to fight the Mob."

So what? This is all standard politician-speak. What did JFK actually do - as opposed to talk about - that was so great? OK, the Peace Corps is a real achievement. But it pales next to LBJ's Civil Rights Act and Medicare.

serial catowner: "This may all seem old hat today, but at the time it was new and inspiring."

No, it wasn't. Politicians have been talking like this since time began.

Posted by: Josh G. | Jun 20, 2007 12:18:23 AM

Josh G. you realize LBJ "stole" his first election to the Senate right? Right? I was a bit concerned that some serious progressive was asserting that the assassination of JFK was a good thing. After reading both your posts I now realize you are nothing more than a halfwit and a pompous one at that. You would be better served if you avoided the comment section and concentrated on your treatsie that will 'change the world.'

Posted by: ghost of RFK | Jun 20, 2007 9:18:51 AM

Ghost of RFK,

Please note that demonizing LBJ is no longer becoming for anyone who thinks of himself or herself as a progressive. LBJ lost his first senate seat because a racist, reactionary candidate, Coke Stevenson, stole it from LBJ. LBJ's first victory came as a result of payback, and learning how to win elections in Texas, which included stuffing some ballots--just as the opponents did.

My take on this thread is this: JFK's death did not harm the nation the way RFK's death did. LBJ was more effective than JFK in getting important civil rights and war on poverty legislation passed, and one may reasonably conclude he used JFK's martyrdom as one of his methods to pass that legislation. And I will also say I find the "JFK would have avoided Vietnam" thesis far less than compelling. A careful review of JFK's statements show he was not even thinking of removing significant military forces there until after his re-election campaign, and his statements were predicated on a belief that the US could leave as the South Vietnamese generals stabilized the situation. Now, that's a big assumption to make in order to draw the conclusion that JFK would have avoided what LBJ did not avoid.

As for RFK, and 1968, there is a far different story. JFK's martyrdom affected how RFK began to see the world, which made RFK far more progressive on a variety of levels than his older brother. RFK was also far more intense and a deeper believer in right and wrong than JFK. RFK was less glamorous and more willing to put himself on the line than JFK. This is what made RFK so important to holding together the New Deal coalition. As RFK became almost a Popular Front New Dealer by 1967, and into 1968, RFK was also speaking of a populism that appealed to white union workers, minorities and those growing increasingly concerned with the Vietnam War and the environment. 1968 was a cross-roads year in history, with political, economic and cultural currents in flux. RFK had lived the Sixties to that point, and had ingested its contradictions and tendencies better than nearly any other politician of his time, which made his appeal far more effective than any other national politician from the Democratic Party. It is why the anti-war leaders sought him out first, after all...

If anyone wonders who the heck am I to offer this overview, I wrote an alternative history of RFK surviving bullets directed his way in June 1968, and becoming president. The book is called "A Disturbance of Fate" and is available through Amazon.com.

Posted by: Mitchell Freedman | Jun 21, 2007 10:33:45 AM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: judy | Oct 8, 2007 9:12:09 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.