Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Measure of Right and Wrong By Rivalry

While it’s true that the Clint Eastwood Chrysler commercial debuted during the Superbowl casts a positive light on Obama’s decision, the criticism of prominent Republicans reflects a pathological unwillingness to acknowledge the rightness of any decision that Obama makes, a pathological unwillingness that puts them at odds with themselves and people who simply believe, for one reason or another, that the decision to rescue Detroit was the right idea.

Clint Eastwood, who has declared himself as a Republican and a Libertarian, who supported McCain in the previous election, has somehow been added to the list that the pundits of the right keep nowadays of fallen souls, a list that seems to bestow instant socialist status on those written upon it.

The question I got to ask, is that once you've exiled Dirty Harry, who's really safe?

The Party of Lincoln has become the part of Rove, Norquist, and Gingrich, a party where ideological litmus tests and rigid opposition to Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, has become the mark of a true Republican.

The position they took on the Detroit bailout was a terrible one, to be sure. My general rule would be that the less you have to convince people about and explain to get them to like a policy, the better off you will be.

Republicans have to explain what's so good about the destruction of millions of jobs. They have to explain why foreign automakers can get their help, and not their homeland counterparts, here in America.

Here's another thing they have to explain: GM's doing well, whether or not it's got first place as claimed. Obama's policy set it on the road to self-sustainability, arguably the opposite of the message Republicans are sending of excessive dependence. They'll go after Chevy Volt sales, which they helped suppress with notions that every hybrid there was a virtual pinto, and say this proves it was all a failure.

Failure is the word, of course. After the last Republican President, Republicans need to keep the contrast to a minimum. Bush did barely anything right. He started two wars he failed to finish, promised to capture dead or alive somebody it was left to his successor to finally catch, began and ended his administration on recessions that killed several million jobs altogether, leaving us in a pretty pickle from the very beginning of this current administration. Nobody's talking about the hurricanes during Obama's administration the way they talk about Katrina.

So Obama must be undermined at all points. If not prevented from implementing his policies, he must be made to look like as much of a failure as his predecessor. Otherwise, his successor won't be able to squirm out from under his predecessor's terrible record to avoid being defeated by Obama, who doesn't really have to be all that much better to present a stark contrast to Bush.

Which is why Republicans are making a car commercial that takes no more political a message, on behalf of a still private company, than "we're back from the brink, let's work together to have a greater future."

That's Obama's message, really. No point in disputing that. But it isn't his alone, and never was. That's a fundamentally American message, especially for the America whose modern political mythology revolves around how the greatest generation saved their country, and brought it back from the depths of the world's deadliest war, and the deepest depression of modern times.

Chrysler has chosen to sell it's brand based on the same kind of notion, on American recovery. It's a very capitalist sentiment to take, a very stars-and-stripes/apple pie sort of message: economically hard hit portions of the the country recovering and being productive again, America being an economic powerhouse again.

The best messages are those whose basic premises are already shared as conventional wisdom. That's how morning in America beats malaise, even if the guy talking malaise has a better case on the substance. It's one thing, a magical thing to be sure, to get somebody to feel something they weren't feeling before, but it's often as effective, if not more, to give people a message they really want to feel.

Republicans have chosen the message of malaise, of paranoid fear. They've chosen to sell people on the idea that it might have been better to let those factories shut down, let the millions be laid off.

I think that was a queasy enough message to sell people on when folks had hopes of getting better jobs, but nowadays? I think now people, if pushed, will find it very hard to justify exchanging a pair of thriving companies making cars here and competing with foreign automakers for the collapse of the domestic car industry, for millions of jobs lost, or companies in continual financial limbo.

Find me the inspiration in that!

Both Detroit and the White House understand this: People want to be happy. They want the conflict and discord that's torn this country apart to end. People want a better tomorrow.

So much of what the Republicans depend upon now to sell their political efforts is about holding somebody else back. They've forgotten something, or more accurately, they've talked themselves out of providing something crucial: the alternative plan.

Part of their problem is, everything has to be different, and everything has to be written according to the dogmas of the current party leadership. They've convinced themselves that they can sell their political worthiness to voters on the basis of being against Obama.

The problem is, Obama isn't against everything they are for, so they end up even dumping their own old policies. Just look at Mitt Romney, who can't mention one of the big programs he created as governor of Massachusetts. The awkwardness of his candidacy, and the way he has to forsake so many of the positions he took as governor just highlights what a terrible price the GOP's paid for the way it's tried to come back to power.

Resentment is not enough. Opposition is not enough. A real political movement, to get somewhere, has to have motivating force of its own. Small government concerns aside, it's got to have more to do with the power people give it than to just cut government. When nihilism about government's all you got to share, and the other side can talk about saving and creating jobs through actual policy, who's going to have the advantage?

Republicans have had to become basic subversives, arguing down, explaining away, minimizing, or ignoring everything Obama's tried to do.

This time, though, that meant that they had to go after an icon not of the left, but of the center right, a man not exactly known for his touchy-feely liberalism. That's a messaging backfire, if you haven't noticed. There's a good argument here to be made that Eastwood never meant his message to be interpreted as a liberal one, that the saving and restoration of Detroit as an industrial power was not a partisan matter for him.

Well, now explained that way, folks might start to think that maybe what Obama did wasn't a particularly partisan thing to do either, which, in truth, can also be argued. There's a good argument to be made that Obama did what he did on functional grounds. Bit by bit, the Republicans lose the argument, having chosen it poorly in the first place. Having not conceded or ignored the matter, Republicans are either making painful concessions bit by bit, or getting beat bloody by the bad press they get from doing things, say, like attacking Clint Eastwood.

I think some people are getting the impression by this point that the Republicans won't concede a single success to the President, and by the converse of that argument, they are accepting exactly the conclusions that Republican don't want Americans accepting, that this President has done his job well, and at the very least can be credited for trying to come to their aid.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2012 10:14 AM
Comment #335771

Conservatives seriously miscalcuated by reacting so negatively to one of the most powerful ads ever made. Everyone saw that ad. What’s not to like? Football, cars, a comeback by an underdog, getting up again after taking the hit, Clint Eastwood- it just doesn’t get much better:

“All that matters now is what’s ahead: how do we come from behind? How do we come together? And how do we win? Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And what’s true about them is true about all of us. This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again, and when we do the world’s gonna hear the roar of our engines.

Yeah. It’s halftime, America. And our second half’s about to begin.”

Wow. It doesn’t get much better. Here we are on the Tuesday after the Superbowl, still discussing the ad. An article appeared on the front of the local paper- a paper owned by a conservative- referring to that ad. It also puts that comment by Rove on the front page: Karl Rove is “offended” by that ad.

Other conservatives joined the criticism of the ad. Wrong move. Americans- especially American guys- like football and cars and comebacks and Clint Eastwood. And when Karl Rove is “offended” by that, well, that’s a serious miscalculation. People notice it. Even people who don’t normally care about politics notice that. And they remember that negative approach. No one likes that kind of negativity, especially when it involves subjects and attitudes so close to the core of who we are.

Americans like the “roar of our engines.” Not the whine. Get a new attitude, conservatives, or get out of the way.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2012 2:13 PM
Comment #335778

I have no problem with the ad itself really. Eastwood is free to make whatever kind of commercial he wants.

The problems I do have is all this promoting that government was the only option; that they are better off than they would have been; that the entire auto industry would have failed without government intervention; and why in the hell is a company buying Superbowl time when it owes billions of dollars to millions of Americans?

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2012 2:55 PM
Comment #335789

America is resilient. We should celebrate that.

We have to avoid politicizing things too much.

Speaking of politicization, Grand Torino should have won Academy Awards. The character Eastwood played was a true American hero. He had PC flaws, but really was fair minded. It was interesting to see and hear that kind of thing, without having the main character made into a cartoon villein. My father was an “old pollock” like that. He gruffly called everybody names, but treated them all fairly. He fought for his country in WWII and never made a big deal of it. Worked his whole life in factories, raised a family and didn’t expect handouts. Unfortunately, we don’t produce such men like that in great numbers anymore.

Posted by: C&J at February 7, 2012 4:03 PM
Comment #335793


“and why in the hell is a company buying Superbowl time when it owes billions of dollars to millions of Americans?”

Just how many “billions” do you think Chrystler owes the American Taxpayer?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 7, 2012 5:09 PM
Comment #335794

1.3 billion Rocky according to CNN Money July 11, 2011.

Posted by: KAP at February 7, 2012 5:16 PM
Comment #335795


OK so the American taxpayer has been paid back around 90% of what we put into the company.

At what point do we “allow” a company on the rebound to advertise during the most watched program on the planet?

I have seen the add. There isn’t anything political about it. Seems to me it is much like any halftime speech given by a coach.

BTW, Eastwood said that his pay was donated to charity.

This is much ado about nothing.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 7, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #335797

They’ve repayed the loan already, replacing it with private debt financing. America got 5.9 billion dollars back from them. We might not get everything back directly, but having Chrysler as a functioning company will probably pay taxpayers back dividends in terms of all the workers and businesses who can pay their share instead of depend on assistance.

As for the intervention? On their own, Chrysler and GM were too deep in the hole to justify a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which would be a reorganization of debt and a continuation of the business. Chapter 7, that is, liquidation of the companies would have been the only real outcome available to them.

Of course, we could have engaged in long term bailouts, dipping again and again into the treasury to save their butts, or just make permanent government concerns of both companies. Or we could have let millions lose their jobs, killing other companies and jobs beside that, at one of the more sensitive points in our recent economic troubles.

Can you justify that kind of argument, that people becoming unemployed and companies failing is some sort of penalty-less event? Too many Republican and Right Wing arguments seem to imply that greater unemployment in absolute terms, as caused by austerity policies in the public sector, and collapses in the private sector will have no effect on the economy, when in fact the evidence says that this is one of the strongest factors in the current downturn.

The Arguments on the right seem to forget important things like the repaying of the treasury for the loans or the economic results of massive layoffs. Everything is supposed to revolve around the moral hazards of supporting businesses that have proven themselves unworthy. Problem is, conservative policies also disdain the anti-trust laws and enforcement that prevents the markets from becoming dominated by so few players, that the collapse of just a few would meant the destruction of the entire industry.

They create the very problems government is needed to get private industry out of.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2012 5:29 PM
Comment #335798

My Grandfather, who I greatly admire, is one of those soldiers who fought in WWII, and he regards it as his most important defining experience of his life. Those men and women are disappearing from this world way too fast.

But I will have to respectfully disagree with the implication of what you say. While the people of that time are undoubtedly unreplaceable, I’m pretty fed up with that continued drumbeat about “they don’t make them like that anymore”.

Not because there isn’t a lack of people stepping forward and being that brave and that tough, or whatever. It’s more because I think we’ve steadily adopted this inferiority complex sort of attitude about our nation and each generation, where we’ve discouraged ourselves from rising to meet challenges. Rather than have ambitions of greatness, we are encouraged to accept and even embrace mediocrity. Can’t be too smart, or stand up for principles. Everybody’s got to arrange society in fear of somebody shipping your job overseas to some place where they don’t mind polluting, or paying people chump change to work under dangerous, grueling conditions.

If there is a difference between our generations and theirs, it’s that our generation has been taught to defer and bow our heads to the elites of the country, while they were taught to stand up for their rights.

Rather than simply mourn the greatness that passes from our world, we ought to endeavor to bring our own greatness forth. We should live up to their example, rather than try all our lives to live down our failure to be just like them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2012 5:39 PM
Comment #335799

Yes, today’s version of the character could possibly be a conservative chicken hawk that denounces his union as worthless, denounces his fellow workers as lazy good for nothings protected by the union, and votes for Republicans who promote right to work laws and other anti-union legislation. They consider themselves American Hero’s.

Posted by: jlw at February 7, 2012 5:46 PM
Comment #335800

Is this much ado about nothing? I disagree. This is about the way we fundamentally perceive ourselves, and conservatives have just disparaged that perception. Pardon an anaology, but it’s as if Rove went on TV and said ‘I hate the 4th of July, I really hate apple pie, and when it comes to your mother, you don’t even want to know.’ That kind of negativity, being “offended” by a Superbowl ad about Chrysler coming back, gets noticed, even by people who don’t normally care about politics.

When Clint Eastwood is not conservative enough, you know the GOP has gone too far to the right.

The negativity has another effect. Republicans chose to oppose everything Obama did from the day he entered office. “Obama must fail,” Rush Limbaugh said. The leader of the party in the Senate, McConnell, said the most important single thing he could do in office was make sure Obama did not get a second term. As a result, the GOP has denounced virtually everything, blocked everything, stalled, been sour grapes about good news, and placed all their bets on winning the 2012 elections as Not Obama.

The problem with that approach- one problem, anyway- is that it leaves no outs. If the economy improves and other things go well, the GOP loses. Period. Another problem is that people don’t like negativity. The low GOP primaries turnouts reflect that dislike. If the GOP took a different approach, claimed bipartisan credit for coopertating on some difficult decisions and compromises, and then stood for a positive alternative, they could withstand positive developments that seem to favor Obama, such as an improving economy.

I’m amazed at how tone deaf the Republicans have become recently. Maybe it’s made worse by the primaries. They’ve come out against birth control, PP, and “Halftime in America.” Bad mouthing an ad may be merely symbolic and seemingly lack substance, but symbols do matter.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2012 5:48 PM
Comment #335802

Stephen: “Or we could have let millions lose their jobs, killing other companies and jobs beside that, at one of the more sensitive points in our recent economic troubles.”

Somehow I think folks like Rove would enjoy that simply because then they would turn around and say Obama failed again. When I see the phrase “Rove offended” I can’t help but say out loud: Good! Great!

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 7, 2012 5:51 PM
Comment #335803


“When Clint Eastwood is not conservative enough, you know the GOP has gone too far to the right.”

My much ado comment has to do with the fact that this was a car commercial, not a political add. Anybody that makes it more than that needs a hobby.

I agree that too much has been made about this commercial, and the reaction by the right is way over the top.

As an aside, I heard an interesting comment from David Feherty the other night. I can only paraphrase, as I can’t remember the direct quote.

“Never hire someone that has no sense of humor as it will mean they have no sense of perspective either.”


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 7, 2012 6:07 PM
Comment #335805


Every generation has its heroes.

But character is revealed and built by challenges and hardships. I understand that our generations feel that they live in the worst of times, but our “hard times” are a cake walk compared to that generation’s. I hope we do not need to create those kinds of heroes.

“If there is a difference between our generations and theirs, it’s that our generation has been taught to defer and bow our heads to the elites of the country, while they were taught to stand up for their rights.”

I agree, but for different reasons. I think we have become way too PC. The Clint Eastwood character is much like my father. I guy like that is not welcomed today in society.

I think we have become wimpier. In fact, we cannot use words like wimpier. I recently got verbally reprimanded for asking a group of young people waiting to take an elevator up two floors if the stairs were out of order. They complained that it was unfair to those who were physically challenged. Of course, none of them was physically challenged except by being fat and too lazy to climb the stairs.

On the other hand, I agree too that young people hunger for challenge and responsibility that we often refuse to give them. I was speaking to a group of college students the other day. One of them asked about the “secret of success” and how they could be successful and still “be themselves”

I told them that “being yourself” is not good enough. You have to strive to be better than you are and that being successful meant nothing more and nothing less than doing your duty to God, man and country. And that only those who did these things could really achieve self-respect and the deserve the respect of others. I thought I might have overstepped, but the kids liked it. IMO young people are starved for meaning that our society does not easily give them.

We ask to little of ourselves and our society allows us to make excuses.

Posted by: C&J at February 7, 2012 6:11 PM
Comment #335812

Never thought it was political Rocky, when do we allow a company to advertise? after it has paid it’s debt. Especially when it is advertising on the most expensive time slot.

Posted by: KAP at February 7, 2012 7:31 PM
Comment #335817


“after it has paid it’s debt. Especially when it is advertising on the most expensive time slot.”

Common sense would dictate that if you truly wanted to be paid back you would “allow” the company to advertise in the venue that reached the highest number of potential buyers.

BTW, the American taxpayer now has maybe a 7% stake in Chrysler, hardly a controlling interest. Fiat has about 55%. I guess that means they get to make that decision.

Oh, and the question was rhetorical. Since when do we dictate (allow) when a privately held corporation can advertise?

Kinda like your discussion with Adrienne, don’t ya think?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 7, 2012 8:39 PM
Comment #335818

I think we should make it law, any corporation that has debt cannot spend money on commercials or pay to put their name on a stadium, race car, etc.

C&J, compared to cavemen, 14Th century kings had it good, but not as good as a 20Th century auto worker. Our parents generation could see the USA in a Chevrolet rather than a Conestoga Wagon.

Technology makes comparisons between generations insignificant. Take away a 21St century mans technology and you have a caveman.

What shall the future bring: Man that baby boomer generation sure had it rough compared to us? Man those baby boomers sure had it easy compared to us?

Posted by: jlw at February 7, 2012 8:55 PM
Comment #335822


It is true that general welfare has increased. But that also means that we are not as tough as a result. As I said, I am glad if our generation does not need to go through all those challenges that built the character of my father’s generation.

Life in our generation is easier. I often wonder at people who long for some “good old days”. I would like to visit the past as a tourist,but I certainly would not want to live there.

Today is Charles Dickens’ birthday. You recall the lines “It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.” Well, we live in the best of times, at least compared to others. We should sometimes stop and be thankful.

Posted by: C&J at February 7, 2012 9:06 PM
Comment #335824

Rocky, are you sure it isn’t Fiat owns 35% and the workers now own 55%. That is how the restructuring plan was being discussed.

It is my understanding that Chrysler refinanced in the private sector and paid off more than $11 billion it owed the government. This supposedly left Chrysler owing the government $1.3 billion which the government is willing to forgive in return for Chrysler investing in new factories and workers in the U.S. That might not be to the liking of some, I’m not sure I like it, but it beats the hell out of government giving companies money to relocate jobs overseas.

States and municipalities across America give companies big tax incentives, sometimes land or buildings, money in their coffers, to locate jobs in their areas.

Posted by: jlw at February 7, 2012 9:20 PM
Comment #335825

Rocky the point is if they have millions to blow on advertising in the most expensive venue then they should have enough money to pay it’s debt to the american taxpayer. If the tax payer has an interrest in the company they have a small say so even if it is only 7%. Not like a private Hospital that takes no funding from the government or government has no vested interrest in the Hospital.

Posted by: KAP at February 7, 2012 9:24 PM
Comment #335826


The Dalai Lama, when asked what surprised him most about humanity answered;

Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money, and then sacrifices his money to recuperate his health.
And then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn’t live in the present.
He lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”

All times past are the “good old days” in retrospect.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 7, 2012 9:27 PM
Comment #335829


“Not like a private Hospital that takes no funding from the government or government has no vested interrest in the Hospital.”

As usual you miss the point entirely.
We, the people have no say where a private corporation such as Fiat/Chrysler can place their ads, just as you feel that Catholic Hospitals as private hospitals can do what they damn well please.

Do the math. One ad during the Super Bowl reaches more people than an entire month of ads on Fox News, for about the same amount of money.

If you want Chrysler to sell cars, which would help them pay our money back sooner, you want them to advertise where the most people are.

I don’t know if I can explain it any simpler than that.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 7, 2012 9:43 PM
Comment #335830

“Not because there isn’t a lack of people stepping forward and being that brave and that tough, or whatever. It’s more because I think we’ve steadily adopted this inferiority complex sort of attitude about our nation and each generation, where we’ve discouraged ourselves from rising to meet challenges…If there is a difference between our generations and theirs, it’s that our generation has been taught to defer and bow our heads to the elites of the country, while they were taught to stand up for their rights…Rather than simply mourn the greatness that passes from our world, we ought to endeavor to bring our own greatness forth. We should live up to their example, rather than try all our lives to live down our failure to be just like them.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2012 5:39 PM

Yes Mr. Daugherty we see the greatness of your kind in the streets of the cities in America. They are called OWS protestors and they are violent, they represent a fringe group of radicals, and are costing taxpayers millions of dollars. They are fulfilling the strategy of Cloward and Piven. Tell us again Stephen, what great thing did you do for your nation, besides gripe and belly ache? Or are you living on the laurals of your grandfather?

Posted by: Frank at February 7, 2012 9:45 PM
Comment #335831


“Rocky, are you sure it isn’t Fiat owns 35% and the workers now own 55%. That is how the restructuring plan was being discussed.”

“The final step in the integration process will be to increase Fiat’s ownership of Chrysler from 58 percent to 100 percent.”


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 7, 2012 9:51 PM
Comment #335848

I doubt the GM bondholders that got stiffed when the US bailed out Chrysler are feeling the love that the US taxpayers have gotten their money back.

The WSJ correctly noted that no US President would have let the auto companies go out of business. How you get there is the key.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at February 8, 2012 8:21 AM
Comment #335850

“Just how many “billions” do you think Chrystler owes the American Taxpayer?”

Much more than we are led to believe.
There is the 1.3 billion they are casting aside now. Around 2 billion from the “Old Chrysler” loan. Billion or two to keep its suppliers going. And then there is the money tied up in Chryslers equity.

Posted by: kctim at February 8, 2012 9:25 AM
Comment #335851


They have not repaid all of the 20 billion dollars they got on loan and I do not agree with all the “its no big deal if we don’t get it all back” excuses. They still owe money and paying it back should be the number one priority. Superbowl ads cost millions for seconds and those millions should be used to settle up, not hype up.

We just disagree on the purpose of government intervention here. I do not believe taxpayers are a bank for private companies to use and abuse whenever they screw up.
IF they fail on their own, of course it can have an effect on the economy. But it will also lead to better and smarter run companies when they realize they must succeed or fail on their own.
My complaint though was with all the promoting that the auto industry would have failed without the government and that is simply not true. GM and Chrysler are only part of the industry and to believe their failure would lead to the entire industry failing is laughable.
Yes, it would have been painful to many, but Ford and others would have picked up the slack. Hell, we may have even gotten a few, more efficent inovaters stepping up. We also know that the only good things about GM, Chevy and Dodge, would not have faded away into nothing.
There is no merit to believing a giant automaker monopoly would have taken over.

“They create the very problems government is needed to get private industry out of”

ONLY if you believe and support that it is governments job to do so.
Corporations are like people, you give them something for nothing and they keep coming back expecting more. The incentive to do better dies because there is no longer a fear of failure.

Posted by: kctim at February 8, 2012 10:03 AM
Comment #335853

Here’s a comment I made on Ruben Navarette’s critique of Roves criticism on CNN’s site:

Rove’s problem is that Clint Eastwood and Chrysler’s message in the ad, although legitimately seen as similar to Obama’s message, is not simply just an Obama message, in and of itself. It a sentiment that appeals broadly, which is why Clint, not a Democrat, and Chrysler, not socialist commies, picked up on it as a message for their ad.

The simple truth is, Americans want less discord, less dysfunction, less morons on top making the kind of decisions that make the rest of our lives harder. If the Republicans and folks like Rove think they can win forever by playing on fear and political divisiveness, they’re sorely mistaken. At some point, people just want to have a conversation with their next-door neighbor or their kid without the conversation becoming a minefield. At some point, folks want the decisions in Washington to help, not to hurt.

Rove pulled a lot of crud like this when he was the last President’s political advisor, helped divide people in this country and turn them against each other so his boss and his political colleagues could get what they wanted. Unfortunately for them, the failures of the last administration tore apart both the party, and the coalition that kept that party in power, as the tactic used against Democrats and liberals were inevitably turned inwards.

The unfortunate fact is, Rove’s tactics are back in play, trying to push election results via SuperPACs and astroturfed movements based on anger and resentment like the Tea Party. Once again, we feel like somebody’s been at our country with the long knives. People like Rove, they want to make everything a matter of “are you with us, or against us?”.

It doesn’t have to be that way, and President Obama, Chrysler, and Clint Eastwood all choose to appeal to the sense we want to have of this country, of a great people that can come together and overcome their difference to restore their nation’s glory. They don’t have to be coordinating things together to come to this same message, because the reality is that the folks who are truly coordinating this are the Americans out there who are sick of how messed up our current system is. Barack Obama and Clint Eastwood are simply giving their audiences what they want, message wise.

It’s time Rove either gets with that program, or shuffles himself off to retirement.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2012 11:25 AM
Comment #335854

I don’t think that our biggest problem is that we want people to be careful about what they say, and unprejudiced.

Our biggest problem is that underneath the surface, we still want to behave like it’s the 19th century, that we’re all on the farm, that we confuse telling it like it is with knowing things as they are.

We still want to run this place as casually as we think we could if we just let things become as simple as they once were. I believe a large part of what made the WWII generation great in its achievements is that they embraced modernity and responded to it. I think our problem, on both sides of the aisle, is that we’re trying to escape the implications that surround the technology we’ve surrounded ourselves with.

Did you know they’re digging to lay down fiberoptic lines in the midwest, just so they can shave a few milliseconds off of computer trades in Manhattan? If you tell me that a regulatory scheme built to deal with either the market of the thirties or that of the 1800s is sufficient to deal with that, I’ll tell you you’re crazy.

Simple fact is, a lot of the government your folks don’t like came about as a response to real problems, particularly technological ones. We have an FCC because spectrum is naturally scarce, and no two stations can broadcast on the same spectrum space and be intelligible. We have unions because industrialization made labor a commodity, rather than an matter where people could bargain with their employers as individuals. So on and so forth.

I think our problem is that we’re fighting the results of that technology, the results of social change from the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, and the sexual revolution, rather than learning to live with the changed society that actually exists now.

But as for the last part?

My feeling is that being yourself and having a decent self-image is not so simple as getting high on your own self-regard. There isn’t any kind of shortcut. You have to find what you can do well, and what drives you passionately, and when you do that, you’ll have your self-esteem and your self-respect. What they try with participation ribbons and whatnot is just a lazy substitute.

I think you might misunderstand my attitudes. I’ve never been for the kind of “let’s protect kids from all disappointment and spoil them.” sort of attitudes. Things just don’t work that way, in my opinion, and it doesn’t prepare them for a anything in the real world. At the same time, I know what it’s like to need help with things, and how valuable an engaged teacher is to learning.

Optimization is what I’d call it. Rather than passively look for the best and reward just them, we actively go out and assess each child’s ability and inclinations to learn. We find their talents and interests, and we support that, help them develop it. Simply assuming that those who do not thrive under benign neglect are not worth teaching is a dangerous and inefficient way to run an education system.

Kids should be themselves, and we should help them to be the best possible version, not by spoiling them, not by letting them sinks or swim, but by paying attention to what and how they’re learning.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2012 12:18 PM
Comment #335856

So what you’re saying until Chrysler has completely paid us back, they ought not be able to do what all their foreign and domestic competitors are able to do, which is advertise their products?

At that rate, taxpayers don’t get much back on their investment, do they?

But aside from that, you do realize that in order to place any real restriction on their ability to business, you’d have to either make some sort of presidential order, or if the law didn’t allow that, an act of Congress to that effect. And by doing that, you’d be doing exactly what you have accused Democrats of doing, but arguably with more malicious intent.

I suppose people in the Bonus Army, the Hoovervilles or on the Breadlines must have look like they were just out of Dawson’s Creek central casting, all clean and pretty and ready for the cameras.

And of course, since the law enforcement actions that followed the protests by Martin Luther King and others were so expensive, we should walk around Birmingham asking black people to pay the bills for having dogs sicked on them and water cannons used on them.

OWS protestors aren’t violent. They’re the ones getting hit, getting their eyes pepper sprayed.

As for what they owe? The people they’re protesting cost this country billions, trillions even in assistance on their behalf, yet they can’t even be bothered to submit to laws and regulations meant to make these one-time only expenses.

As for living on the laurels of my grandfather? I’m trying my best to be successful in my own right, but he and I pretty much agree on most things in terms of politics. He thinks the people in Congress are idiots, and he’s horrified at the damage your people are doing to the country.

But you know what? I have absolutely no inclination to rest easy on the achievements of his generation. I want us, as a country, to out do them. I want this country to create new public works, renewing our infrastructure. I want to take their science acheivements and outstrip them entirely. I’ve never been for simply living off the legacy of past public investments, but rather for making new ones.

Mike in Tampa-
They could have just taken the Chapter 7 bankruptcy and lost just about everything with no hope of getting much of anything back, right? They got a going concern to invest in now, less likely to to turn turtle and leave them holding the bag.

Strange that Chrysler should be barred from advertising to 110 million viewers as a means to make sure it pays back its loans. How are they supposed to do it, pray tell, word of mouth?

Read this article.

Among the highlights were the costs in personal income. Do you think saying goodbye to 400 billion in personal income is a small price to pay for putting taxpayers on the line for… what was it, 20 billion? Pennywise, pound-foolish.

I think we needed 1.4 million people at work more than we needed them home. I believe America needed the prestige and the exports, and the folks doing business more than they needed GM and Chrysler failing to teach everybody a lesson.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2012 1:15 PM
Comment #335858

Like I said Stephen if they could afford millions in advertising they could afford to pay back their debt.
Advertising on the most expensive venue when you owe billions to tax payers is like telling them what they could do to theirselves. Word of mouth is better advertising then a one time slot at the super bowl. I’d rather hear from someone who owns the product then someone who is paid to tell you about it and may not even own the product.

Posted by: KAP at February 8, 2012 1:57 PM
Comment #335859

I didn’t even mention barring them from advertising, I simply suggested their number one priority should be paying back tax dollars they owe. You do not have to spend millions per second to do that.
Yes it is a large audience, but we are talking about a 30+ thousand dollar car that most of the viewers cannot afford, not a can of coke that anyone can rush out and buy anytime they wish.
You may be fine with companies writing off taxpayer money, taking forever to pay it back or with hopes that risks with that money may pay off, I am not.

I read the ‘end of the world without the government bailout’ prophecy in your link. I’m sure Bush and Obama read the same doomsday predictions. Some of the dire predictions may have happened, others probably wouldn’t have. But nothing in there justifies government using taxpayer money to protect private businesses from themselves.

Honest question here. One that I have been curious about for a while.
You, Obama and the auto insider guy all speak like GM and Chrysler HAD to be helped or it would be the end of the country, like they were to big to fail. So why aren’t GM and Chrysler included in all the hatred for the banks and such?

Posted by: kctim at February 8, 2012 3:02 PM
Comment #335860


“OWS protestors aren’t violent. They’re the ones getting hit, getting their eyes pepper sprayed.”

That is just about the dumbest thing I have ever seen in print. The documentation is there; I have given it to you before, but you tend to blow it off as if it were the latest report from Syria.

Who broke into city hall in Oakland and destroyed children creative works?

Who leaves all those syringes in the tents?

Who runs amok throwing things at the police?

Who does the raping?

Who does the killing?

The message has been given and if you refuse to accept it and pull an Obama that it’s not my fault, then you have some catching up on reality.


Posted by: tom humes at February 8, 2012 3:12 PM
Comment #335865

Are you just taking that position because you can’t bear the thought of actually having to concede the point to a liberal, because If I had made that point about the airlines to Republicans during the Bush Administration, I would have been accused of being a socialist.

No national company, not the least of which a car company expected to sell enough cars to pay off its debt to tax payers should be blamed for seeking a broad venue to sell their product. This kind of loan shark “**** you, pay me” might seem like a good idea to you, but it doesn’t work in the real world.

If you think simply restating your point changes anything, review the relative success of that argument over time on other subjects. It’s not a winner.

Let Chrysler market its cars, for crying out loud. They’re supposed to be self sustaining as a private company. That was the point of how the Obama administration did it’s structured bankruptcy deals: keep the companies running, but limit taxpayer liability and improve the sustainability of the industry in question so they’re not coming back for new handouts

Oh, so you’re not saying Chrysler shouldn’t advertise its product, it should just put advertising and marketing behind paying back taxpayers. With what?

If Chrysler’s not selling cars, it’s not a going concern. The “people can’t afford the cars” argument is bogus. For one thing, on the subject of price, I own a car that cost around 24,000, and it was one of the cheaper vehicles out there. I checked on the sites for Chrysler and it’s subsidiaries, and most of the vehicles start at or around that same price. Their sales are up for this year, and that helps them pay the government back.

As for the doomsday prophecies? Do you have anything else than your contempt for those who disagree with you to back your assertions that it wouldn’t at least have been bad for the economy? What’s the basis of your rosy hypothetical? That liberals or those who provide evidence that supports their points must be wrong?

Chrysler and GM are doing good business, counter to the predictions of folks like you. Much of the taxpayer investment’s been paid back already, or replaced with debt issued by private lenders. People are back working again.

But of course, you’re going to argue with real success, because you imagine some idealized consequences to how you would let things unfold.

tom humes-
The government is killing people in Syria, I don’t shrug it off. What I shrug off is ad hominem arguments that exaggerate isolated incidents and small problems among the OWS protestors into a fallacious response to their political agenda.

The reality is, more people are sympathetic to the message of the OWS protestors than the Tea Partiers at this point. You just want to cheat your way to won debate by talking about everything else but the issues, using the usual “liberals are degenerates” arguments.

Sorry. Some protestors may have done bad things, but this is a movement that’s learned from the bad press of the WTO riots. Even folks on the right are trying to roll out “fairness” arguments, Newt Gingrich, the Tea Party darling (at least for a time) bashing Mitt as a vulture capitalist.

As for documentation? We got plenty of taped proof of things like officers firing smoke grenades directly at protestors instead of bouncing it. We got photographs and video of protestors getting faces full of pepper spray for doing nothing except sitting in. Some officers on the Oakland side said they had things thrown at them, but in their own communications, we have them documented as saying no such thing.

Long story short, you watch too much FOXNews, read too much from cites whose sole reason for existence is to sell you an explicit point of view, regardless of the facts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2012 4:43 PM
Comment #335867

Stephen, Chrysler can sell all the cars they want and advertise all they want but if they can afford to pay millions for advertising they can afford to pay their debt that goes for the airline industry to. Your the ones who trash the rich corporations and now your kissing their butts. You liberals make no sence at all.

Posted by: KAP at February 8, 2012 4:58 PM
Comment #335872

Talk about contempt, wow.

Yes, advertising should be second to paying us back. With what? The millions they would have saved by spending thousands on commercials instead of the millions they blew on Superbowl ads. It’s really not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Believe me, I understand how Chrysler makes money, very well in fact. I can also assure you that an equally equipped KIA is a lot cheaper than a Chrysler of same. I can also assure you that the majority of cars on most dealers lot is not the base model. And lastly, I have nothing against their vehicles, but there is a reason you don’t pass one every five seconds on the road.
I am GLAD they are making money. I do NOT wish differently so Obama looks bad. I just believe we should be their number one priority.

And again, talk about contempt for those who disagree with you. Wow.
I did not say it would not have an affect on the economy nor did I try and paint some rosy picture. It would be rough, not the end, but rough. But the company and the nation would have been better off in the long run.
You really need to relax a little and remember that I am not one who is willing to turn our government upside down out of fear of what “might” happen.

And finally, sigh! I am glad they are doing good and I can’t remember ever predicting their failure. The closest I believe I may have said is that government money means government owned and that, IMO, is a failure.
Billions have not been paid back and will not be paid back. You are ok with that, but yet you complain about the pallets of money lost in Iraq. That was under Bush though, so I’m sure that is somehow “different.”

Yep, those people are back working again. Good. Never had a problem with people working though. My problem was always with the government and private business part, and what that has opened the door to. But you already knew that.

“But of course, you’re going to argue with real success, because you imagine some idealized consequences to how you would let things unfold.”

No I’m not Stephen. Your anti everything Republican stereotyping slip is showing again.

Posted by: kctim at February 8, 2012 5:51 PM
Comment #335874

I imagine they will be paying back whatever debts they owe when they come due, and the Federal Government will do what it can to sell them back their own equity. Meanwhile, I have no complaint with companies that we’re trying to get off of corporate welfare spending money to become self-sustainable ongoing concerns.

Now you understand the problem the whole Chrysler argument puts you in. Look how many qualifications you have to make first. Ah, they should be able to market their products, never said anything different. Should be able to do business, glad they’re back making a profit, etc.

So now it comes down to a question of priorities- that is, if they can afford to make a commercial, they can afford to pay us back. Right?

I don’t recall near that much controversy about Chrysler’s add in 2011, which was similar in many ways. It’s Clint Eastwood, I think, who makes the difference in this situation. What Clint Eastwood represents to them is the threat that otherwise conservative figures and voters might not maintain the anti-Obama, anti-intervention political position, in the face of Detroit’s success.

He represents the threat that Democrats and Liberals like Obama might be either setting the tone, or staking out the popular, appealing positions first, leaving the Republicans to catch up.

And it’s a terrible, desperate position to be in. If Republicans stepped back from simply reacting negatively to Obama in a kneejerk fashion, they might realize that Obama’s death-hugging them on this, strategically embracing things Republicans ought to be easily for, so Republicans can go negative on it, alienating voters, contradicting their own past positions, and sinking candidates who might otherwise pose a threat.

The Republicans? I don’t hate conservatives. But I can’t keep quiet about what annoys me about their policy and politics. I was a lot more centrist, a lot more accomodating about conservative policies in 2002, when I left college at Baylor University. It was the radicalness, the sheer political thickheadedness, and the corrosive political attacks against Democrats like me that pushed me further left, as I realized the days of reaching even unfavorable accomodation with the GOP were over, and they weren’t heeding any reasonable restraints about their policies.

I wish conservatives were more like the ones I knew at Baylor. I wish there was less of this simple blind opposition to my side, and this interminable red-baiting that’s replaced any sane discussion on the right about government intervention.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2012 6:45 PM
Comment #335877


You just have to stop those lies. I do not watch TV except for an occasional sporting event, which is about 1 per month.

“Newt Gingrich, the Tea Party darling”. What do they smoke in Houston? Ya gotta get something that does not cause those thoughts of delusion. All the Tea Party people I know feel he is a socialist. I have said that here several times. That stuff you are smokin’ causes you to have memory problems.


Posted by: tom humes at February 8, 2012 8:31 PM
Comment #335914

I have no problem with my argument at all because borrowing billions of dollars should come with qualifications that helps replace those tax dollars as soon as capable.

“So now it comes down to a question of priorities- that is, if they can afford to make a commercial, they can afford to pay us back. Right?”

Now that isn’t what I said at all, is it? No wonder you are seeing more to this than there really is.
I did not mention making a commercial, it is about paying for it to air and whether paying millions per sec instead of thousands per sec, when they still owe billions, is fair to taxpayers.

“I don’t recall near that much controversy about Chrysler’s add in 2011…”

Um, ok. I already said I had nothing against the commercial or Eastwoods involvement. I really don’t care if the right is mad at Eastwood or if the left falsely believes government has saved Detroit from itself because nothing else could.

It’s a terrible, desperate position for Republicans to be in? Ok, you win?
I guess I could counter with it is also a pretty desperate position for liberals to always label any resistance or questioning about Obama policy as racist or negative reactions to Obama himself. (I know, same thing)
But I thought we were talking about Chrysler and billions of tax payers dollars.

“The Republicans? I don’t hate conservatives. But I can’t keep quiet about what annoys me about their policy and politics.”

Understood. Funny you refuse to believe objection to Obama is about policy and politics, though.

“I was a lot more centrist…”

I was a Democrat, born into a family of Democrat farmers. It was the radicalness, the forcing of political beliefs on everybody and the corrosive personal attacks against Democrats like us that pushed us further to right.
Funny story: I didn’t get into politics until while serving in the Air Force. The more I learned, the further to the right I moved. I wasn’t able to really visit my farmer relatives during those 10 years and I was really worried they would be pissed at my new political leanings. Even created ideas to help avoid politics with them.
Come to find out I worried for nothing because they to were pushed out of the Democratic Party.

I wish Democrats were more like the ones I was raised as. The kind who didn’t wet their pants over the 2nd Amendment. The kind who believed in government safety nets for the poor, not government provider to all. The kind who didn’t sue because somebody dared have a religious calendar on their desk at City Hall. The kind who would see your gun rack in the truck and ask you where you got it, not cry because you do have it. The kind who didn’t label you a crazy right-wing fundie because you want to live your life according to rules from a God instead of as mandated by government.
The kind who didn’t consider everyone who wished the same things some kind of dumb redneck racist.

You want to talk about blind opposition, red-baiting and the lack of sane discussion? Let’s talk about it from both sides.

(Almost forgot, I did see my first Chrysler ad for a vehicle other than a mini-van or 300 last night. It was for a 200 and it is indeed under 30 grand. Looks like a mid-size to compete with the Fusion maybe. It is still alot more than a Coke and I still don’t think they should have spent that kind of money on SuperBowl ads when they owe us billions. But, I should have said around 25 grand instead of 30 and that means I was wrong. My apologies.

Posted by: kctim at February 9, 2012 10:31 AM
Comment #335916


“Yes, advertising should be second to paying us back.”

I am far from being a corporate lackey, but I believe that being able to make money would facilitate paying back the debt faster than not. Being able to advertise in any venue is merely a means to that end.
Chrysler’s profits are up significantly since the downturn, and they have already paid back more than 80% of the debt they owe the government.

Fiat has put forth plans to aquire 100% of Chrysler by the end of 2014. Thus the debt is being paid, and it is being paid quickly.

Advertising during the Super Bowl does sell cars, and selling cars allows for paying off the debt.

I don’t understand how you can’t see that.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 9, 2012 11:30 AM
Comment #335917

Rocky as kctim said so does commercials costing thousands per second sell Chryslers.

Posted by: KAP at February 9, 2012 11:44 AM
Comment #335918

PS Rocky and more profitable to.

Posted by: KAP at February 9, 2012 11:51 AM
Comment #335921


“Rocky as kctim said so does commercials costing thousands per second sell Chryslers.”

“PS Rocky and more profitable to.”

And you can prove that the cheaper commercials sell more cars?

It was estimated that the 2 minute commercial cost $14 million to make and air. With well over 100 million reported viewers that works out to less than $7.00 per viewer.

Advertisers want the most bang for their buck. Yes time during the Super Bowl is expensive, at about $7 million per minute, but it also offers the most viewers in one place at one time.

But you already knew that.

As an example, Fox News has maybe 3 million people per day, with less than half a million watching Hannity’s hour long show. Fox charges over $400,000 per minute for their advertising, so for that hour the price of a 2 minute commercial is about $62.50 per viewer.

How exactly is that cheaper?

Now, quite a few people watch the Super Bowl for the commercials. I doubt the same can be said of Hannity’s show.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 9, 2012 1:13 PM
Comment #335923

OK Rocky How many people ran out and bought a Chrysler after that commercial aired? Not to many people can afford 25-30k in todays economy. Most people watch those Super Bowl ads for the entertainment they bring not because they will run out and buy the product.

Posted by: KAP at February 9, 2012 1:30 PM
Comment #335925


“OK Rocky How many people ran out and bought a Chrysler after that commercial aired?”

I haven’t really looked hard, but after the Eminem ad during last year’s Super Bowl (oh and BTW, you guys haven’t said squat about that ad) this was reported;

“According to the New York Times, the Chrysler 200 advert reportedly brought a 267% increase in traffic to Chrysler content on after its initial airing during the Super Bowl. In the first hours after it aired, “Chrysler 200” was the second most searched term on Google. (Edmunds also recorded a 1619% increase in site traffic for the Chrysler 200 itself. Over a week after the ad’s airing, Chrysler traffic remains 87% higher than in the weeks prior to the game…”

So it seems to me that you guys want to cherry pick your fights and you keep squirming around the facts without providing any actual facts of your own.

It would appear from the ad from last year that the Super Bowl ads work.

Get over it.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 9, 2012 1:52 PM
Comment #335926


Oh, and BTW, Chrysler’s sales for last month were up 44% over last year.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 9, 2012 1:56 PM
Comment #335927

What gets me Rocky is the hypocritical crap out of the left. You guys rag on corporations and the rich. Then when they owe the tax payer billions in bailouts you say it’s OK to spend millions on one ad. Chrysler sales were up over 44% last month over last year. Then I guess they didn’t need that million dollar ad did they if sales are that good. Maybe the cheaper advertising was doing the JOB.

Posted by: KAP at February 9, 2012 2:23 PM
Comment #335929


“What gets me Rocky is the hypocritical crap out of the left. You guys rag on corporations and the rich.”

Where exactly have I written anything here that rags on corporations and the rich?

“Then I guess they didn’t need that million dollar ad did they if sales are that good. Maybe the cheaper advertising was doing the JOB.

Have “you guys” actually calculated just how much crap you need to throw against the wall before any of it will stick?
“You guys” don’t seem to give a rat’s ass about the facts if it might get in the way of your opinion.

The ad in question was available for viewing by over 100 million people, and has generated more than 2 million hits on Youtube. If only 1% of those people bought a car…

Well, you do the math. I am weary of doing it for you.

I have supplied “you guys” with enough facts. “You guys seem content to merely throw poo around.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 9, 2012 2:48 PM
Comment #335933

IF is a big word in todays economy Rocky, if the dog hadn’t stopped to take a crap he would have caught the rabbit. All that tells me is 100 million people are fans of Eastwood. The only facts you gave is that sales were up before the ad. Since sales were up, the cheaper ads were doing their job and they didn’t need to waste millions on the Super Bowl ad.

Posted by: KAP at February 9, 2012 3:06 PM
Comment #335934


“Since sales were up, the cheaper ads were doing their job and they didn’t need to waste millions on the Super Bowl ad.”


Chrysler’s sales last year were up 27% from 2010, and their 2010 sales were up 17% from 2009.

What you’re saying is that the Eminem ad from the 2011 Super Bowl was a waste of money as well, yet Chrysler sales prove otherwise. Every single Chrysler Brand was up by double digit percentages in February 2011, and was up by 36% over January 2011.

Your argument is astonishingly bereft of the ravages of logic.

But please, don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 9, 2012 3:32 PM
Comment #335957

tom humes:

Who broke into city hall in Oakland and destroyed children creative works?

Who runs amok throwing things at the police?

The Black Bloc is who does these things. They are not OWS. This is a group that politically identifies as anarchists — yet they aren’t even really that since they don’t have even a hint of a coherent ideology. The Black Bloc is made up mostly of really angry teenaged kids (who often but not always, wear black hoodies and have bandanas covering their faces to hide their identities). Small numbers of these kids crawl out of the woodwork just like rats at every single protest, and they do so simply to fight with the cops and destroy as much public property and/or break as many windows as they can.
OWS has been attempting to deal with the Black Bloc trying to ruin the OWS messages and reputation, just as anti-globalization protesters and anti-war protesters have had to contend with these idiots attempting to do the same things with their marches and protests.

Many people have suspected over the years (and I include myself in this number) that within the black bloc there are in fact a large number of people who are being paid to act as agents provocateurs. Because their violent, destructive actions are clearly intended to try silence non-violent protest messages by giving the cops the excuses they need in order to start tear-gassing, beating bodies and breaking people’s heads, and ultimately conduct mass arrests. The cops know that people who are intimidated by the violence unleashed by the black bloc, as well as their own over-the-top violence will cause fewer and fewer people to show up to protest next time. The actions of the Blac Bloc are also intended to try to destroy every ounce of public support from the sidelines that we might otherwise receive if they did not always show up to engage in battle and mayhem.

I’ve talked about this in WB before, but I thought I’d just again reiterate what the facts actually are.
Btw, I was happy to see Chris Hedges seriously taking up this subject in a recent interview with RT:
Chris Hedges: Occupy’s ‘Black Bloc’ is ‘serving’ the 1 percent


The reality is, more people are sympathetic to the message of the OWS protestors than the Tea Partiers at this point.

I think this is true. And whenever I hear such disdain and vitriol being unloaded upon OWS, it usually turns out to be because a person is (or now that they’re really starting to wane in numbers, once was) a Tea Partier. The TP simply couldn’t mobilize as many folks as OWS has managed to do all over the country, and some of these TP folks are holding a big grudge over that.
However, I’m happy to say that there happen to be some TP people who do not feel this way about the OWS movement, and who are now actually active within, or at least willing to work with, OWS. This is because despite the fact that there are many issues where OWS and TPers are never likely to agree, there are actually many others where we really can reach real, sincere levels of agreement.
If we all started working and pulling together in these specific areas, we could soon make a huge number of incredibly positive changes for our nation.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 9, 2012 8:43 PM
Post a comment