The Situation Seven Months From the Elections

If we have won independents, we have won the election.
--Chuck Schumer on a March 29th conference call with bloggers.

This election will be a referendum on Bush.
--Rahm Emmanuel on a March 29th conference call with bloggers.

Most members will be elected with between 80% and 100% of their support coming from Republicans.
--Republican pollster Jan van Lohuizen in a March 3rd memo to RNC Chair Ken Mehlman.

The difficulty for President Bush here is that he is noticeably less popular among independents than one would expect of a president with a 38% overall approval rating. Instead, his approval among independents is some 9-10% below what we might expect based on other presidents.
--Political science professor Charles Franklin, March 4

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
Independents: 28% Approve, 62% Disapprove
--CBS News Poll. March 9-12, 2006. N=1,136 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults)

Among independents, the number approving of Bush's job performance has fallen from 47% in January 2005 to 26% today/
--Pew Center for People and the Press, March 15

1. Bush's overall approval rating is 79 percent among Republicans and 14 percent among Democrats-a gap of 65 points. But his rating is also just 29 percent among independents, producing a very sizable gap of 50 points relative to GOP identifiers. Put another way, independents are 50 points away from Republicans, but just 15 points away from Democrats.

2. Only 20 percent of independents believe the country is going in the right direction, a mere 12 points more than the comparable figure among Democrats-but 37 points less than the figure among Republicans.

3. Twenty-six percent of independents approve of Bush's handling of the economy (66 percent disapprove), 14 points more than the number of Democrats who approve-but 44 points less than the number among Republicans.

4. Twenty-six percent of independents approve of Bush's handling of the Iraq situation-15 points more than Democrats; 43 points less than Republicans.

5. On handling the campaign against terrorism, 38 percent of independents approve of the job Bush is doing. That's 11 points more than Democrats, but 45 points less than Republicans.

6. How about whether Bush has "the same priorities for country as you have"? Sixty-nine percent of Republicans agree, but just 11 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independents.

7. Was removing Saddam Hussein from power worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq? Only 30 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats say yes, compared to 70 percent among Republicans.

8. And what should the US do now? Just 24 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents believe we should "stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy" (the administration position), compared to 61 percent of Republicans.
--Ruy Teixeira, October 13th 2005, in coining the term Indycrats
Here is an eye-opening fact about the Survey USA 50-state tracking released today: in every single state, Independent approval of Bush was closer to Democratic approval of Bush than Independent approval of Bush was to Republican approval of Bush. That was the case in every state. Fifty out of fifty. Massachusetts and Utah. California and Alabama. New York and Idaho. In every single state in the country, Independents were more in line with Democrats than they were with Republicans.

In fact, in thirty-three states, the difference between Democratic approval of Bush and Independent approval of Bush was less than half the difference between Republicans and Independents. In twelve states, the difference was three times as great. Nationwide, Democrats were more than 25 points closer to Independents than were Republicans.

--Chris Bowers, August 17, 2005

It's an alignment I've not seen in many years, since '98 probably. What it says is that Independents and Democrats have a potential new majority, apart from the lockstep Republicans. Post Sept. 11th's upswing of non-partisanship, and then all through 2004, the Independents remained in the 50-50 range in reaction to Bush. Now they've shifted, and further, have aligned with Democrats. Rove's got to do something, because this puts Bush in dangerous territory. Gone are the 50-50 days, and approaching are the 40-60 days.
--Jerome Armstrong, June 24, 2005

For the 2006 elections, Democrats cannot increase their advantage among independents any further than they already have. This is the largest Democratic lead among independents in 24 years, and historically is only clearly surpassed by the advantage they held among independents in 1974.

Given this lead among Independents, there has to come a time when Democrats realize that success in this election depends less on continuing to target and appeal to Independents, and more on building a political machine that can make their current appeal and potential majority into a reality at the ballot box. At the same time, there needs to come a point within the progressive activist base when we realize that in our lifetimes it is entirely possible that there will never be a better opportunity than 2006 to wreck permanent damage on the conservative movement and all for which it stands. Pass up this chance, and the next time an opportunity of this level comes around there is a good chance you will be either dead or retired. I do not doubt that the 2005-2006 election cycle has seen a significant increase in progressive grassroots and netroots electoral activism over previous cycles, as Schumer indicated yesterday. However, considering the degree to which progressive grassroots electoral activism was all but dead in the 1990's, that really isn't saying much.

The potential for progressive netroots and grassroots electoral activism is much, much larger than its current level. For this to happen, there needs to be a reinvigorated belief among all Democrats that we can in fact win. For this to happen, there needs to be at least some increased transfer of resources away from constantly appealing to Independents, and toward invigorating progressive activists. For this to happen, there needs to be a greater embrace among congressional Democrats of at least the courage and the bravery of people like Murtha and Feingold, even if they don't want to embrace their particular stances. For this to happen, there needs to be action on the part of people like Murtha and Feingold to become leaders of the activist base, and regularly speak to their concerns in a way that will keep them motivated for 2006. For this to happen, there needs to be a strategy for Democrats beyond just watching, and assisting in, Republican implosion. For this to happen, there need to be a wider recognition among progressive activists as to just how rare and precious this opportunity actually is.



Display:


Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (3.00 / 1)

Although, it is possible we could lose the lead with independents if we go to the base.  Not suggesting we don't, just saying it's something to think about.


by nathan on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:40:55 AM EST

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

I think that for this reason it is ok for the Dem DC leadership (as opposed to the activist leadership) to move toward the base somewhat slowly, and at different rates.  We should continue to encourage the move toward more defined, contrast positions and refrain to the extent possible from trashing the Dem leadership as they more in this direction.  Seven months is a long time, and what is important is to keep pushing them and have the polls bear us out.  We have a lot more to fear from the Hoyers and the Liebermans undercutting the Dem leadership.  

For example, if Lamont does very well at the May CT convention, there may be some reappraisals of position.  Be patient and keep up the pressure.


by Mimikatz on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Were they money needs to go (3.00 / 3)

is, yes, as you said, to reinvigorate the party's base, but more importantly, the party's infrastructure.

Sure, independents may be on our side, but its a whole other matter to actually turn them out to vote. Keep in mind independents have the worst turnout rating when compared with Republicans and Democrats.

With a solid infrastructure (precinct captains in every precinct, etc...) we can reinvigorate our base and then using the base to turn out independents.


"The collapse of confidence in the Republican leadership is not enough to elect Democratic leadership." -Dean
by gatordemocrat on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:52:15 AM EST

Re: Were they money needs to go (none / 0)

Using the base to turn out the Independents is a fragile proposition because some things that turn on the base turn off the Independents.  

A couple of months ago I spoke to the field director for Russ Warner in the CA-22 about this very issue.  He said that all the volunteers who drive in from the LA's Westside are used very carefully and only in the Bluest precincts, because their whole language and mindset is offputting to the typical voter in that district.  An unhappy reality.


by InigoMontoya on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 02:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True (none / 0)

Which is why the base, no matter how enthusiastic, must have proper training before they ever go out and canvass or phone bank. DFA does this - they tell folks who attend the trainings that we are the weird ones - and that not many people think about politics as often.

The base are really the vast majority of folks who come out and work with candidates and local party's anyway - they just have to be utilized properly.


"The collapse of confidence in the Republican leadership is not enough to elect Democratic leadership." -Dean
by gatordemocrat on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 04:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (3.00 / 1)

In chess, this would be called converting your positional advantage into a material advantage.(Note: you have to give up your positional advantage to do this!)  Simply being way up among independents is probably not enough to win the election--you have to give some of that lead away (which you couldn't do if you weren't way up.)  Democrats are in a position that they can take up-firing positions for GOTV, lose 10% of independents, and still win handily.  

Positional advantages are generally best converted before the endgame begins...


by Professor Foland on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 11:55:30 AM EST

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

I'm not typically fond of analogies, but when someone actually uses a real chess analogy, rather than just calling someone a chess game, I like it.

It is sometimes hard to count how many things are compared to playing hcess. Yet few people who do so never seem to actually know how to really play.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

What the hell Democrats approve of Bush? Seriously?


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 12:10:52 PM EST

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

The problem is that the power broker Democrats are Clinton, Lieberman, Biden and other warmongering appeasers.  You have to push them out of the top leadership or you have a bottleneck.


by steve expat on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 12:31:23 PM EST

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

Considering that we helped to elect Dean the chair of the DNC, and are currently running priaries against the likes of Lieberman, I think we cna walk and chew gum at the same time.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't care about today's polls (none / 0)

When I first started reading this post, I was already thinking about a flaming piece about who gives a shit about where the independents fall and how vast the gap has become among the independent's and GOP approval/disapproval.

But then you summed up with exactly what I was thinking.  

These polls don't mean shit if we don't figure out an effective way to get our constituents to the polls AND pull the democratic lever.  It'll be the diehards of the party that will knock on the doors, make the calls, mail reminders to order absentee ballots and all the nuts and bolts that will grab the dis-enchanted independents and republicans, get them to the polls and pull the democrat lever.  
WE CAN'T LET THE GOP IMPLOSION DO IT FOR US.  In 1994, half of our party's failure and the GOPs success was SUPPRESSION of the democratic vote.  I guarantee that one of the GOPs strategy will be to do everything in their power to make voting democratic RADIOACTIVE, we will have to meet this head on and GET OUR VOTERS TO THE POLLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


by gasperc on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 12:47:05 PM EST

Re: Don't care about today's polls (3.00 / 2)

To me, the number one thing that will keep our voters from the polls is a disgust in the inability or unwillingness of Democrats to take strong positions or at least avoid mocking those who do. All the Dem biggie angst being expressed against Feingold is being greeted with incredible anger and disgust by rank and file Dems here.

I know the Dem strategists believe all Dem voters are so motivated against the Bush agenda that they will come out in droves in November, but I'm certainly not finding this passion in my neck of the woods.

Remember also that some Independents are lefties who changed their registrations from Dem because they got so sick of all the triangulating. There are also literally millions of people out there who should be voting Dem but have grown so cynically they refuse to vote. I can't tell you how many of these I have encountered while canvassing and hanging in progressive circles. These are the lost sheep we could bring in if the Party poobahs at least would refrain from chastizing brave souls like Feingold.


Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What can WE do? (none / 0)

Chris,

I've read all your conditional statements in the closing paragraph, and they almost all seem to require action by those outside of our netroots/grassroots movement.

What, if anything, can we do or should we do to promote these outcomes?  


by Pachacutec on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 12:53:21 PM EST

Re: What can WE do? (none / 0)

Well, I guess we can stop being pessimistic. We can also work to reward Dems such as Feingold and Murtha for strong leadership at least as much as we trash Dems like Holy Joe for hurting us.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can WE do? (none / 0)

Can you describe the pessimism?  What are its outlines?  To what extent does an expression of concern about turnout constitute pessimism?

I'm with you on highligting fighting hereos.  We've done a better job of promoting Feingold lately at Firedoglake than we have of Murtha.  Point taken.


by Pachacutec on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 02:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (3.00 / 1)

Just an observation, but it becomes problematic to "motivate the base" to do grunt-level work like walking precincts and phoning people on behalf of candidates who are perceived as overly cautious at best and outright turncoats at worst. People realize pretty quickly that they are being used and discarded when it's time to make policy decisions.

I sense the beginnings at the local level of a new and as yet infant movement for progressives to be more aggressive.

It's an age-old debate in the party, and one snippet of it (as I'm sure many others in blog-land have pointed out) is that many veteran party activists internalized the "lessons of 1972" that in many ways account for continued Democratic timidity.

So somehow we have to get past the idea that standing up for things like an end to the war and civil liberties are dangerous strategies, because in 2006 they are not dangerous strategies for Democrats, they are winning strategies. IMHO.

Conventional party wisdom is not only alive and well, it continues to be in charge through large segments of the party, as everyone at this site knows. It's not going to be easy to dislodge the consultants and other poo-bahs all the way down to recalcitrant candidates and county level party activists, but I do believe there are more people rooting for reform in the party than we might realize. And of course there are plenty of poo-bahs and others who are already for reform. The question is at what point critical mass is achieved.

If I'm correct, which is always debatable, then sooner or later the national media focuses on the reform efforts. Which could go either way, message-wise. Either we're demanding a more open process and reform (our message) or there is a risky election-year internal battle that can't be tolerated (Joe Libermann's message.)


by jondevore on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:00:02 PM EST

I Strongly Agree (none / 0)

I also want to mention that in my experience a large percentage of rank and file Dems, including precinct and ward chairs and members of the state central committee here are sick to death of the current Dem fear of controversy of any kind.

In organizing to attempt certain reform measures, including a more hard-hitting platform, within the Party a group of us have been in contact with Dems who hold Party offices all around the state and it's rather shocking how many agree with us, even those from red counties. Many are still afraid to strongly confront the powers that be on this and are rather sheepish about rocking the boat, but they are definitely on board in many ways. This reform movement is growing. People are tired of losing and/or of winning with candidates who are weak and ineffectual or owned by deep pocket donors.

I have alot of hope. Damn it.


Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dem organization is not just progressives (3.00 / 1)

It's absolutely right that these poll numbers don't mean a bean unless the organization is there to ensure that they're converted into ballots actually cast.

What I dispute is that there is anything particularly progressive (whatever that means) in the manpower that needs to be mobilised to achieve this.

I'm with gatordemocrat:

With a solid infrastructure (precinct captains in every precinct, etc...) we can reinvigorate our base and then using the base to turn out independents.

Though this may not be gladsome tidings for lefty bloggers, a lot of the folks that will make up a successful Dem organization, from precinct to national level, will not be lefties. And that's not a bad thing. And that doesn't mean that, because they're not lefties, Dems failing the litmus test aren't enthusiastic and skilled, and motivated to see control of one or both houses of Congress shift this November.

What matters here is not specific to the progressives - it's that the Dems do the old things, the things that Dems were doing in FDR's days, for Dems on every block, by their actions, to associate in the minds of their neighbours the Democratic Party with helping the generality of US citizens.

That's not a goal to be realized in six or seven months. But striving towards it is the only way that Dem success - which is likely in November - can be sustained beyond the fatuity of controlling a single Congress.


by skeptic06 on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:05:58 PM EST

Re: Dem organization is not just progressives (3.00 / 1)

People who make up their mind on who to vote for a few days before the elecitona ren't exactly the best candidates for party activists. People who only decide to vote a couple hours befor ehte polls close don't work either. People who reguarly split their tickets or swithc their votes from party to party don't work either.

Activists will always be the most likely poeple to vote. Activists will also be the people who have their minds made up on who to vote for the longest. Activists will also be the people who most regualrly vote for one side over the other. Activists will also be people who feel the most strongly about their causes and /or stoppign the other side.

Of course some Dem acivsts will be centrists or center-right, but for the reasons I listed above, the Demcoratic activist base will always skew heavily progressive. Same can be said for conservatives in the Republicna activist base.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:55:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem organization is not just progressives (none / 0)

I was thinking more about regular Dems in GOP districts that the Dems need to win to take control of the House. Such Dems, I'm thinking, would tend not to be on the left of the Dem spectrum, ideology-wise (though actual evidence on the point would be nice).

Plus, while I don't doubt that motivation is important - or that Dem activists skew left compared with Dem voters - equally important is the organization to harness and direct their talents and enthusiasm.

The 2004 election tended (so far as I'm aware) to show that bussing in out-of-staters (however progressive and motivated) was not as effective as a deep, permanent organization based on the method of local folks persuading local folks.


by skeptic06 on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 02:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another Point (3.00 / 1)

I've done a significant amount of door to door and the hardest thing is to actually have something strong to "sell." All too often I've encounted people who can't bring themselves to vote because "the Dems are the same as the Repubs and just as crooked."

When we go out canvassing, we need a strong message other than "we can do better." We're not even close to having a truly progressive message but we need to have SOME message, seems to me.


Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem organization is not just progressives (3.00 / 1)

Well I would just say that the "activists" of the Chicago machine would never be characterized as progressive.  In fact they are heartily damned as reactionary or fascist.  Yet these people do the groundwork each and every election.  My point is that we need all kinds of people to win elections.  And it wouldn't hurt the Dem Party to try and build a few more machines of the Chicago kind around the country, if for no other reason than to have islands of solidarity to build from.  Just my $0.02.


by Demo Dan in Dayton on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 03:49:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

Let's see:  for the first time in recent memory, we have a strong edge right now among Independent voters and we should therefore turn away from them between now and election day.  Right.  A concept of strategic genius.

One might suspect that some would rather have a Progressive-centered loss than have to owe anything to Independents in a victory.

I suggest going for the largest victory possible and and reserving intramural squabbling until afterwards.


by InigoMontoya on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:12:51 PM EST

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

You won't get any sort of win unless you have the machinery to do it.

IF you look back at the long-term argument I ahve making here at MyDD, my above point is less about progressive vs. cnetrist, and more about hacks vs. wonks. As a hack, I am strongly advocating that we need a better political machine. That means, in this case, firing up progressive activists. The hackiness is the main point--the ideology is only a side effect.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

Come on, Chris.  I love reading your stuff on the party and even tho I am a die hard who will call and canvas and deliver my vote in november just like i have for almost 30 years I don't have to like it.   And I don't like what you are suggesting.

If you let them (inside the beltway) dictate a 'we must win at all cost' strategy when they get in leadership they won't look back.  Sure you might have access as an individual blogger.  But the party will not recognize progressive objectives overall, there will be little change in fact.  Murtha and Feinstein will still be on the sidelines.  More progressive candidates will have lost.  The problems of the working poor, the working middle class, equity in education, health care and labor will sit in a backseat somewhere.

we need leverage in order to have power in the party and in crafting policy solutions.  What you described does not bring power or leverage to progressives.

The GOP gave the far right power because they saw the inherent advantage.  The current democratic leaders just want our votes--no exchange for power.

Power is more important than winning.  And in fact shared power is the ONLY WAY TO WIN.


by aiko on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:24:35 PM EST

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

You are right--shared power is the only way to win. But shared pwoer within the party is something that is determined in ways other than what happens in general elections. I think Howard Dean being DNC chair has shown that in the past. That fight will rage before and after the 2006 elecitons.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 01:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do they hate George Bush Rahm? (none / 0)

It is because of the war and because of corporate greed.  If you are support the war and the same lobbyest, people will figure this out and you will be on everyones shit list too.


Dameocrat Blog also Stray Roots Messageboard
by Dameocrat on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 02:52:31 PM EST

How to make this an historic paradigm shift... (none / 0)

Some things that activists (or progressive political believers who aren't tied into the party org) can do to help move the Independent base to the Democratic base.

1.  Talk with your independent and left-ish Republican friends.  But don't just Bush bash.  In fact, don't do that at all.  That horse is out to pasture.  America already believes he's a liar and failure.  Don't talk to them about Dems and GOPs as parties either.  Don't say, "this is why we must elect Dems" (at least at the outset).  Lead them to this conclusion.  Talk issues.  Talk issues in your own local understanding and vocabulary.  Practice first with your spouse, family, whatever if you have to so that you don't sound like you are lecturing.  Express your concerns about the country's progress in calm, rational ways.  Try to identify the types of solutions that might be out there and then, try to figure out who would be the people to implement the solutions (i.e. Not the current GOP)  Remember, we are trying to be persuasive here.

2.  Vote for people that share your VISION, not because they might seem to be electable.  Listen to the candidates and think about what they say.  Vote for your belief, and not what you think is electable.  Let the candidate you believe in have the chance to prove to the greater public that they are electable because of their ideas.  (As an example, initially, I really thought John Edwards was a terrible candidate for Pres in 2004 [too inexperienced, lawyer, etc.] but the more I listened to him, I realized he wasn't just talking about a regulation here and a bill there.  He was talking about ideas and a new vision for America.  Of course, he wasn't the only one.)  

3.  Pray (or whatever you do like that).  Why?  Because for this election to truly be about ideas and to have a long term impact on what the public thinks is right for America, we need to have the leadership speaking out at the national level that will articulate a vision.  The vision has to be a positive vision, one that convinces the public that they should get on board and sail with us.  Not a vision that says the GOP sucks, but one that shows why and how we will do better.  

This last point is where I'm afraid we lose the historic chance.  Who are our visionaries?  Edwards on social issues.  Gore on the environment and energy.  Feingold on campaigns, justice, and doing what's right.  Two out of office.  One gaining prestige, but not being followed.


How is John McCain different than John Edwards?
by The lurking ecologist on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 04:46:26 PM EST

Re: The Situation Seven Months From the Elections (none / 0)

It is about fear. It is all about fear. And it damn well should be about fear. But at some point, we might hope that even the limpest couch potato must rise from the rotten old comforter and actually take a look around. Is there really some guy in a turban waiting in the kitchen with a dagger? No, that's only what we have been watching on the TV.

The real problem with the kitchen is that there's no food in the cupboard. Fresh water is running out, so the faucet only lets out a tiny dribble. And the gas tank is empty. And the security freaks have cameras in every room to ensure that there are no guys in turbans hiding out in the den. And you know for sure that all of this will only get worse and worse.

But Johnny will come marching home again shortly. On one leg. So that Exxon can raise the gas prices a few dimes.

You see, you didn't realize it, but you have in fact been running a business -- you've been running a business upon which your life depends. But you made a slight error by not rising from that rotten old comforter when those two-bit hack lawyers mandated that you allow those church-going gangsters to run your business. And now you found out that they hardly ever went to church at all. And they have totally looted your kitchen.

All because you put your confidence in some salesman called "Rush," who makes $32 million dollars a year complaining about how the evil liberals were so much worse than the gangsters. And, if you voted at all, you punched your choice into some computer that happened to be infested with 359 Trojans. Or used a paper-punch gizmo that produced hanging chads. Or didn't stop to ask why the nice man on the TV somehow neglected to explain about those funny butterfly ballots.

Perhaps your best move, at this point, is just go to church and pray. But you can't do that, can you? 'Cause the damn clunker is out of gas.

Perhaps you should start running your government like it's your business. Because it is. And it is bankrupt. And you might do well to just chuck that TV and forget about guys in turbans with daggers in the kitchen, since you have a whole lot of bankruptcy papers to fill out now, and the gangsters have just made that job 100 times trickier.


by blues on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:41:44 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.