April 21, 2012
— rdbrewer He needed 60% of the delegates to avoid a primary. He got a fraction over 59%. The Daily Caller's Matt K. Lewis is in Utah and has been live-tweeting the convention. Hatch will face Dan Liljenquist in a June 26th primary.
A year ago, it seemed clear that Hatch would lose the nomination.
While Bennett and former representative Chris Cannon — defeated at the 2008 GOP convention by Rep. Jason Chaffetz — bemoaned the state’s arcane rules for nominating candidates, Hatch used them to his advantage. “He worked hard and spent a lot of money,” Chaffetz, 45, who considered challenging the senator, said with grudging respect. “He’s just parked himself in Utah.”
More than a year ago, HatchÂ’s campaign polled the 3,500 Republican delegates who voted Bennett out of office in May 2010.
Its discovery: Hatch had no chance of getting renominated, if those same 3,500 people voted.
“This is not going to be a campaign of persuading delegates,” Hatch’s campaign manager, Dave Hansen, said Thursday, recalling a conversation with the senator early last year. “This is going to be a campaign of replacing delegates.”
. . .
To survive, Hatch needed new delegates. The first step was to recruit supporters willing to run in the 2,000 precincts that select this yearÂ’s 4,000 delegates to SaturdayÂ’s convention. Then he had to round up supporters willing to attend caucus night to vote for the Hatch-backed delegates.
And Hatch might have gotten the 60% of delegates he needed, but his recent comments about despising libertarians and wanting to punch them in the mouth surely cost him a few points. Instead of embracing the democratic process, Hatch seemed to be resentful and angry that anyone would dare challenge him.
His big selling point is that in a Republican majority Senate, he would chair the powerful Senate Finance Committee... and rake in the big bucks for Utah.
Term limits, anyone?
Added: If anyone thinks Orrin Hatch is in favor of smaller, less-intrusive government, think again. Recall a couple of years ago he threatened federal involvement in order to get a WAC conference team, BYU, into the BCS championship. Read here, here, and here. Because government needs to be involved in everything.
Posted by: rdbrewer at
11:45 AM
| Comments (139)
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: soothsayer at April 21, 2012 11:50 AM (052zE)
Posted by: garrett at April 21, 2012 11:52 AM (emInc)
Posted by: packsoldier at April 21, 2012 11:52 AM (G/brl)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 11:54 AM (uphIa)
Posted by: Mama AJ at April 21, 2012 11:54 AM (XdlcF)
The state is the only one in the country in which candidates must get a high percentage of votes at caucuses and state conventions.
SC does require candidates in a primary to get over 50% of the vote or face a runoff. That is a good system. The fact that the damn Party in Utah gets to do the job of a primary is bad. Fox seems to think this is good.
Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2012 11:56 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, supports R.B. Hayes at April 21, 2012 11:56 AM (Dll6b)
Posted by: Dagny, Warrior Queen at April 21, 2012 11:56 AM (4yXmp)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 21, 2012 11:56 AM (BFwE7)
Posted by: Whimpy at April 21, 2012 11:57 AM (lpWVn)
I'll give Hatch credit for being shrewd enough to recognize the game and play it to win.
But he's been in Washington too long. As Vic said, this is the shit that has to stop.
All these old dinosaurs need to go. It is the real rot in the system that the citizens can do something about. And until we can fix the Senate and the House (by voting) the rotten bureaucracy in the Executive branch will never get fixed.
All those wish lists about things to get rid in the Federal government don't happen until we get rid of all these guys that see their primary job as bringing the money back home to buy more votes to get re-elected to bring back more money to keep buying votes and continue to get re-elected. Forever, it seems. The recursive nature of corruption has to be broken sometime.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 21, 2012 11:58 AM (sJTmU)
Posted by: Tami at April 21, 2012 11:58 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: soothsayer at April 21, 2012 11:58 AM (KUrJA)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 11:59 AM (uphIa)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, supports R.B. Hayes at April 21, 2012 11:59 AM (Dll6b)
Posted by: most pornstarlets at April 21, 2012 11:59 AM (emInc)
Posted by: Barky McTwinklenuts at April 21, 2012 12:00 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 21, 2012 04:00 PM (BFwE7)
I didn't see her yesterday either....or the day before too I think.
Posted by: Tami at April 21, 2012 12:01 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: logprof at April 21, 2012 12:01 PM (ykSKg)
Posted by: soothsayer at April 21, 2012 12:01 PM (YO+5B)
I find that extremely cheering!
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at April 21, 2012 12:01 PM (IlZPo)
-------------------
Isn't there another ambitious attorney in that state? Hell, wouldn't Charlie Crist be interested?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 12:01 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: navybrat at April 21, 2012 12:03 PM (RMvA+)
the filing deadline has passed. Corey has no opponents
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, supports R.B. Hayes at April 21, 2012 12:04 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: soothsayer
-----------------------
I predict he'll be replaced by someone who's white and Jewish.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 12:05 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2012 12:05 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: BS Inc. at April 21, 2012 12:06 PM (P2Ufm)
They would assist in slowing the transition from a Republic into a Democracy, but you have a point in that we are doing to ourselves (or one could more correctly say 51% are doing it to 49%).
Posted by: Hrothgar at April 21, 2012 12:06 PM (i3+c5)
Posted by: navybrat
------------------------
NO, they're an upstart punkish filthy cheap beard-pulling maneuver -- all right, you've made me say it -- they're DEMOCRATIC.
Posted by: Downthe Hatch at April 21, 2012 12:08 PM (uphIa)
Rdbrewer: ..."His big selling point is that in a Republican majority Senate, he would chair the powerful Senate Finance Committee... and rake in the big bucks for Utah."
I figured it was something like that...his reason for wanting to stay in. ....And also, doesn't his seniority also make him a candidate for being elected majority leader if the R's get a majority again?
I know that McConnell is currently the minority leader.....but don't they have to have an election for the majority position? ....Seems like there was an instance one time....when an unpopular minority leader was bumped out of pole position, but I can't remember for sure.
Posted by: wheatie at April 21, 2012 12:09 PM (+5U+B)
Term limits, aren't they the Electorate's solution to protect themselves from the Electorate?
Posted by: navybrat
Disturbing but logically true. As a group, we are too stupid to protect ourselves from the inherent corruption of the people we choose to run the government.
The most disturbing quality to it all is the opinion polls that tell us that "the people" hate Congress (and give them very low approval ratings), except for their own particular representative, who is great guy with a great family.
So it goes.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 21, 2012 12:10 PM (sJTmU)
-------------------
Oh gawd. So the pork-barreling earmarking compromiser faces a *promotion*?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 12:12 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 21, 2012 12:12 PM (sJTmU)
---------------------
And who pork-barrels, in a totally unrelated development.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 12:14 PM (uphIa)
Oh gawd. So the pork-barreling earmarking compromiser faces a *promotion*?
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism!
That's the beauty of our system! Failure from one perspective can mean a promotion.
Is this a great country or what?
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 21, 2012 12:14 PM (sJTmU)
Posted by: soothsayer at April 21, 2012 04:01 PM (YO+5B)
You're the genius who spent two days attacking anyone who had a problem with TrayVoNN and pushing his parents' point of view and interests.
It was one of the dumbest series of posts I've ever seen here--which puts you in some Rare Company.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, supports R.B. Hayes at April 21, 2012 12:15 PM (Dll6b)
Both MI and CA legislatures have term limits. QED
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 12:15 PM (ebPtk)
You'd think that someone in their late 70's would be looking to retire, but when you're drunk on power and high on pharmaceuticals, I guess that's not an option.
Oh, and forget term limits, what's the official retirement age? 65? 70? Give'em a gold watch and kick'em the fuck out.
Posted by: Fritz at April 21, 2012 12:18 PM (KWdVT)
Posted by: I do what I want at April 21, 2012 12:19 PM (a4CUi)
If Hatch & Lugar are sent home it should provide a clue to our "betters" that we are not kidding, and they had better pay attention.
There has been a shift in the 2-party system, and it is this: In states that are solidly blue there are no more moderate or conservative Dems, and in states that are solidly red there are no more moderate or liberal Reps.
The myth of the conservative Dem was always a myth anyway, they were always liberals who did what they were told....like Bart Stupak.
Posted by: Boots at April 21, 2012 12:19 PM (neKzn)
We wouldn't need term limits if congress made a simple rule change.
Do away with seniority. Assign seats by a lottery. No Constitutional change needed. And the nation is saved. Easy, peasy.
Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at April 21, 2012 12:19 PM (NVu2l)
Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 21, 2012 04:15 PM (ebPtk)
Only for State pols. The Supreme Court declared the fed law unconstitutional U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
.
Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2012 12:21 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: soothsayer at April 21, 2012 04:18 PM (OHhPo)
Your posts are there, sooth. You're on display; enjoy.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, supports R.B. Hayes at April 21, 2012 12:22 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2012 12:23 PM (YdQQY)
Right, which only makes the effort to create term limits on national offices a complete and futile exercise.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 12:24 PM (ebPtk)
Posted by: weft cut-loop
--------------------
I still expect a conservative vote in Utah, but not a bastard with a mighty sense of entitlement due to his 36-year tenure.
I'm not sure CA's laws have been in place long enough to have much effect. Should take a few rinse cycles. But there are so many other deep blue institutions in CA that the legislature is almost an afterthought. They propose idiotic laws outlawing things like drywall and mylar balloons that never get passed anyway.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 12:26 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: Tami at April 21, 2012 04:01 PM (X6akg)
She's been on Twitter a little. Doesn't like Hatch. She said end of school year means the husbands on campus a lot so she's there with him, not with computer.
Posted by: Polliwog, Teahada hobbit at April 21, 2012 12:27 PM (X8/ER)
Posted by: elizabethe at April 21, 2012 12:27 PM (tD860)
Posted by: elizabethe at April 21, 2012 12:30 PM (tD860)
1. Demonstrate with actual data how some form of term limits will not actually make things worse for conservatives.
2. Demonstrate with actual data that nat term limits will make things better for either all Americans in general or conservatives specifically.
Tough road that considering CA and MI evince neither of these things.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 12:30 PM (ebPtk)
-----------------
Really? A majority of Americans already favor term limits for Congress. The challenge is getting there.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 12:33 PM (uphIa)
I see this crop up on con-blogs occasionally and I'm intrigued by the idea but haven't read enough to make up my mind. Are there any writers that have covered this in depth?
I'm primarily concerned with the problem that a repeal would cause a concentration of power into a smaller number of hands. This will create more corruption so I'm interested in the arguments that are strong enough overcome this problem.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 12:34 PM (ebPtk)
Ohio has term limits on the General Assembly and the State Senate (enacted in the 1990's). The Governor also has a two-term limit (which has been in place for a long time).
The result has been the elected General Assembly and the State Senate (since the late 1990's) has generally been getting younger....and more conservative. Ohio is a state where the Tea Party has actually had some success in getting inside the Republican party structure and is starting to change the state Republican Party.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 21, 2012 12:35 PM (sJTmU)
Ok, show me with data how they will result in positive returns for our side.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 12:36 PM (ebPtk)
-----------------------
I absolutely cannot imagine how this wouldn't solidify and entrench radicals and self-serving pols in both parties.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 12:37 PM (uphIa)
67 On the Senate thing: we need repeal the amendment that lets Senators be elected by popular vote and bring back the state legislation selecting Senators.
The problem with this older process....and why it was changed....is that it quickly deteriorates into 'elitists choosing elitists' for the Senate seats. ....The regular folks end up getting ignored and screwed even worse.
The way it stands now, even with it warts, the Senate candidates have to deal with angry voters if they ignore those voters' wishes when they get to Washington.
Posted by: wheatie at April 21, 2012 12:38 PM (+5U+B)
------------------
You said proponents of term limits have to persuade people that they're good. People have already decided that they're good.
The only next step is getting there.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 12:40 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2012 12:40 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: rickl supports SMOD/Supervolcano 2012 at April 21, 2012 12:41 PM (sdi6R)
Great. And now for the null set?
Would these changes not have taken place if not for the term limits?
What you need here are other states that are politically identical and that had not instituted the term limits. If the change in Ohio is matched in the other states, it's not the data you're looking for.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 12:43 PM (ebPtk)
@70, weft cut-loop
Your concerns for corruption are spot on.
When the state legislature is picking the Senators.....then the Senators can pretting much do what they want to when they get to Washington, as long as the legislators back home are happy.
What could possibly go wrong with that picture? Heh.
Posted by: wheatie at April 21, 2012 12:43 PM (+5U+B)
Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2012 12:46 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: rickl supports SMOD/Supervolcano 2012 at April 21, 2012 12:46 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2012 12:46 PM (YdQQY)
The only next step is getting there.Posted by: the new, improved arhooley
Sorry if I wasn't clear; I meant that the convincing is going to require arguments based in reason and fact. Just believing term limits to be a good thing isn't enough. You're going to need some real-world foundation here.
I can't say that term limits are awful because I haven't done a thorough study of all term limited offices and compared them to all other non-term limited offices. I can't use an argument from ignorance to make a negative case here, it's up to the proponents to come up with the goods.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 12:48 PM (ebPtk)
Posted by: Polliwog, Teahada hobbit at April 21, 2012 04:27 PM (X8/ER)
Thanks Polliwog....wondered where she went.
Posted by: Tami at April 21, 2012 12:50 PM (X6akg)
Do away with seniority. Assign seats by a lottery. No Constitutional change needed. And the nation is saved. Easy, peasy.
The Senate cares far more about seniority than the House. Secondly, people should be chosen for committee assignments based on ideology and competency. You would not, for example, select a freshman senator who is an expert in domestic policy to head the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. That does not mean that they should be barred from serving on the committee, just that they need the requisite knowledge and experience.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at April 21, 2012 12:53 PM (d6QMz)
Posted by: elizabethe at April 21, 2012 12:54 PM (tD860)
Posted by: navybrat at April 21, 2012 12:55 PM (RMvA+)
But then Hatch had his little meltdown and, it seems, pissed off some delegates who otherwise would have voted for him.
Here's hoping the primary voters load Hatch onto a Rocket Back To Provo.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at April 21, 2012 12:57 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: mama winger at April 21, 2012 01:01 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Dagny, Warrior Queen at April 21, 2012 01:02 PM (4yXmp)
82 The 14th amendment was illegally established anyway.
Our current administration has certainly been stomping on the Equal Protection Clause. ....Big irony? Not sure if that's the right word for it.
Posted by: wheatie at April 21, 2012 01:03 PM (+5U+B)
Also, I wouldn't want to term limit Jim De Mint or Paul Ryan. You know? Posted by: elizabethe
Well, again, we don't know whether or not it would work out. That's my point both on repeal of the 17th and nat term limits. The proponents have a tough road to hoe.
There may be good reasons for repeal, that the results will be so beneficial any resulting corruption will be tolerable, for example. I just have read enough of the arguments for repeal. The few that I have are assertive but cite nothing.
All government is exercise in corruption. The thing is getting the balance right.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 01:04 PM (ebPtk)
But lots of jobs in SLC and surrounding locales.
Posted by: Hrothgar at April 21, 2012 01:04 PM (i3+c5)
Hatch has no limiting principle whatsoever. Whenever he can get away with using government power, he well.
Posted by: rdbrewer at April 21, 2012 01:10 PM (Iyg03)
Term limits are a double edged sword.
You love them when there is a guy in office that you want out, and can't seem to vote him out. .....But you hate them when you have a guy in office that is doing a great job, and you want to keep him there.
Our biggest problem is in our voters. ....We used to have voters who knew more about basic civics and the history of how things got to be the way they are.
Which brings us to the subject of the sorry state of our liberal indoctrination centers, formerly known as public schools.
Posted by: wheatie at April 21, 2012 01:11 PM (+5U+B)
Posted by: navybrat
----------------
To be strict about it, Jerry Brown wasn't termed out as governor; he declined to run for a third term for a U.S. Senate run, which he lost.
However, it's true that others -- I think that crooked Nunez bastard -- has recycled himself into another branch. I'm not up on my John & Ken, but I vaguely recall a few other cases of recycling into various agencies. Term limits are 14 years -- perhaps not enough yet to see the difference.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 01:13 PM (uphIa)
RE: repeal of the 17th
Hmm, not familiar with that line of thought, but my guess is that it would come down to money. State parties derive the bulk of their funding from the cities giving the pols in the cities more pull.
RE: nat term limits
That's an important point with term limits as well. Term limits if anything increase the power of the parties as entities. If a candidate's influence is literally and figuratively limited, more power will be wielded by the parties and PAC's that have no time limit.
Why donate to an individual candidate? He's only going to be useful for a few years. You would donate to the PAC's and party organizations.
Term limits seem to be only so much squeezing the proverbial tube of toothpaste, moving to the corruption at the other end.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 01:14 PM (ebPtk)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 01:15 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: wheatie at April 21, 2012 05:11 PM (+5U+B)
Comrade, we have decided that a cheaper and more benign method of subversion is the takeover of the essentially mandatory educational system. True, it is slower than the re-education camps, but the peasants hardly notice that they are being dumbed down, and in the long run, the result is the same but with less property damage at the elite's dachas.
Posted by: Hrothgar at April 21, 2012 01:17 PM (i3+c5)
How well is Hatch liked by the tea party folks in Utah?
Because now, they will have a chance to make their preference known in this Primary. ....Stands to reason, that if Hatch couldn't get enough votes by twisting arms, to avoid being primaried....then he's going down.
Posted by: wheatie at April 21, 2012 01:18 PM (+5U+B)
It is sad when the truth is the same as gallows humor!
Posted by: Hrothgar at April 21, 2012 01:24 PM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Barb the Evil Genius at April 21, 2012 01:26 PM (VENdg)
-------------------
I have yet to see that one.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 01:27 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 01:29 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: Barb the Evil Genius at April 21, 2012 05:26 PM (VENdg)
Has that teacher been fired yet? Sounds like a good teacher and the unions just can't have that!
Posted by: Hrothgar at April 21, 2012 01:31 PM (i3+c5)
But if he took this by just shy of a 60% vote, he probably won't have much trouble in the primary. I hope 1: this isn't just a big waste of everyone's time and money and 2: if Hatch loses the primary the Democrat loses the general.
If Hatch is tossed out and the Democrat takes his seat, I am going to be out to tar and feather some "tea party" people. This would make the third Senate seat they have delivered to the Democrats and maybe four with Lugar.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 21, 2012 01:38 PM (ZbLJZ)
Posted by: Can of Coke at April 21, 2012 01:41 PM (0F6Sg)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at April 21, 2012 01:42 PM (BNOka)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo
---------------------
I don't picture The Entitled One fighting that hard. A rose-petal-strewn path to lobbyism and influence-peddling seems more likely.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 01:47 PM (uphIa)
So Toomy and Rubio's elections don't count in the TEA party's favor?
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at April 21, 2012 01:53 PM (ebPtk)
----------------------
Don't forget Scott Brown. Not exactly a conservative's conservative I know, but what a come from behind thanks to grassroots campaigning, and what an alternative.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 02:09 PM (uphIa)
Piss on Fox.
Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2012 02:13 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: teej at April 21, 2012 02:14 PM (d+1xu)
114 So Toomy and Rubio's elections don't count in the TEA party's favor?
----------------------
Don't forget Scott Brown. Not exactly a conservative's conservative I know, but what a come from behind thanks to grassroots campaigning, and what an alternative.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 06:09 PM (uphIa)
Don't forget Johnson kicking Feingold out of Wisconsin.
Posted by: buzzion at April 21, 2012 02:19 PM (GULKT)
Rand Paul also got a lot of help from the tea party.
All in all.....the tea party was a positive force in getting our numbers up in both houses of congress. .....People who criticize them should keep in mind, that for every person who was/is active in the various tea party organizations....there are thousands more of us who agree with them, for the most part, and support their efforts.
Posted by: wheatie at April 21, 2012 02:28 PM (+5U+B)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 02:37 PM (uphIa)
He's a doddering old fool. He has money and support though. He's been running constant ads on the radio trying to tout his "conservative credentials" such as a 100% rating with the ACU.
There also have been a flurry of ads about him being the one guy "experienced enough" to save Hill AFB. And plenty of ads about what he will do as chairman of the committee. I guess there are enough dumb repbulicans here that find that all intriguing or are scared easily but to more of a libertarian like myself, he just sounds like a power hungry douchebag. You can tell he's desperately scared but he needs to go.
Posted by: Arcadehero at April 21, 2012 02:48 PM (mmHDH)
Posted by: steevy at April 21, 2012 02:53 PM (7W3wI)
Graham manages to do that as well.
Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2012 02:53 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Y-not at April 21, 2012 02:58 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 02:59 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: Y-not at April 21, 2012 03:08 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Y-not at April 21, 2012 03:09 PM (5H6zj)
--------------------
I thought the primary was in June? Mitt won't be anywhere in sight yet.
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 03:22 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at April 21, 2012 03:23 PM (uphIa)
Posted by: Y-not at April 21, 2012 03:33 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Y-not at April 21, 2012 03:33 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Bwaney Fwank at April 21, 2012 03:34 PM (PIRLz)
Posted by: Sandra Fluck (rhymes with duck) at April 21, 2012 03:36 PM (Uh+y6)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at April 21, 2012 05:04 PM (Af3Wg)
Posted by: Midnight in Peking ePub at April 21, 2012 05:53 PM (DZxjq)
Posted by: lost Dutch mans mind at April 21, 2012 06:34 PM (YlSwz)
Posted by: Bird Sense ePub at April 22, 2012 02:21 AM (bZaDr)
Posted by: The Selection iBooks at April 22, 2012 03:41 AM (kPEX9)
Posted by: Burke at April 22, 2012 07:56 AM (9N3G1)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2199 seconds, 267 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Bitch set me up!
Posted by: Orin Hatch at April 21, 2012 11:47 AM (TkGkA)