Gay Patriot Header Image

More Republicans Favorably Disposed to Israel than Dems

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:35 pm - March 31, 2006.
Filed under: Politics abroad,Post 9-11 America

When I was in college during the Reagan Administration, I could still find Republicans not favorably disposed to the State of Israel. Back then, the Democrats seemed the most consistently pro-Israel party. And while Secretary of State George Shultz was a good friend to Israel, his successor in the Administration of George H.W. Bush, James A. Baker, III was not a friend to the Jewish State.

As recently as the election of 2000, I was concerned that George W. Bush might not recognize the strategic importance of our alliance with that outpost of freedom in the turbulent Middle East. Shortly after the election of 2000 was decided, I told a member of my synagogue that I feared Bush (43) might be like his father on Israel. Well, his record has quieted my fears as the incumbent president ranks, along with Ronald Reagan and Harry S Truman, as among the best friends Israel has had in the White House.

And the president is not the only Republican favorably disposed to the Jewish State. According to Gallup, more Republicans have positive views of Israel than Democrats — 79% vs. 60% — nearly 20 points! It’s heartening to see this shift in Republican attitudes. And I’m delighted to note that while the Left has tried to use the “coaltion of the oppressed” argument to turn Democrats against that Middle Eastern democracy, a solid majority of that left-of-center party remains favorably disposed toward the Jewish State.

(H/t: Michelle Malkin.)

Share

50 Comments

  1. Considering that Israel is surrounded on all sides by people who pray daily for her violent death, I’d say the poll numbers are hardly surprising.

    After all, most Americans simply adore an underdog.

    Stupid comment, I know. Just always thought that.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 31, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - March 31, 2006

  2. Also explains my morbid obsession with the Chicago Cubs. 😛

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 31, 2006 @ 2:42 pm - March 31, 2006

  3. You are right, I do like the post. I also like the numbers. Sorry HollywoodNeoCon, thesee days Israel is not viewed as an underdog. I think many Republicans simply see Israel on the same side as the US in the war on Terror.

    Comment by Leah — March 31, 2006 @ 3:17 pm - March 31, 2006

  4. I think there are probably a suspect that fact that Israel is a strong democracy in the Middle East and their support in the GWOT are viewed as supportive.

    I know for me at least, I used to have far more sympathy for the Palestinians than I have now-and they have pretty much run my sympathy tank dry. Gradually through the 90’s after watching the Palestinians blow opporunity after opportunity to make peace, I have pretty much decided they don’t want peace.

    Comment by just me — March 31, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - March 31, 2006

  5. Radical Palestinians haven’t changed in 40 years. One Israeli PM once postulated: “Once we give the Palestinians their own state, it will only serve as a base for them to attack and destroy Israel.”

    Was that Ariel Sharon? Yitzhak Rabin? Benjamin Netanyahu?

    Nope, nope and nope. That was a quote from Golda Meir – in 1967. Right after the Six-Day War. It’s in her autobiography.

    Some things never change. And the Palestinian radicals are viruses that never die. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Typical Islamofascists.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 31, 2006 @ 5:36 pm - March 31, 2006

  6. Israel is big with the Christian elements of the Republican Party. It always has been. What also happened I think is that because of the continued drain of more highly religious voters from the Democrats to the Republicans over the last 30+ years, what was previously spread out between the two parties became concentrated in one, as it has on so many other issues. So its not just a change in attitude on the part of the GOP, its the congealing of their religious blocks.

    And I will just point out that “pro-Israel”, is not the same thing as “pro-Jewish”. Some of the more Christianist blocs of the GOP can also be quite anti-Semitic but they also believe that they have a vested interest in Israel due to Biblical prophecy.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 31, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - March 31, 2006

  7. Dan, while you’re quite right to note that Republicans now seem to have the dominant positive view of Israel –what I find more distressing is that America’s Jewish voters (self identified) continue to support Democrats and it’s been that way for a looooong time. I think JimmineyCricketCarter was the only Democrat President to drop below getting 65% of the Jewish vote; Kerry had about 74% heading into the election; Gore had nearly 80% of the Jewish vote per exit polls to Bush’s 18 or 17%.

    The Jewish vote in America is almost as imbedded in the Democrat Plantation as the Gay vote or the Black vote or the prisoner vote –and if Hillary has her way, the Felon vote will be another cabin on Plantation Road.

    I don’t know if I’d rank Israel as a Democracy or theocracy but I do know that we could use what we give to Israel in a single year to address urgent needs within our own country. I’m not anti-Israel; I just think she could go it without our massive assistance and do just fine.

    But then, I’m against our PLO subsidies too… and all the others in the Middle East.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 31, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - March 31, 2006

  8. Patrick: “…its the congealing of their religious blocks”.

    What utter nonsense! Do ou ever form an opinion based on something other than your own bigoted realities? Good God, you are hopeless.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 31, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - March 31, 2006

  9. “But then, I’m against our PLO subsidies too… and all the others in the Middle East. ”

    That seems to be happening already, thanks to the Hamas win. Much, much more important in terms of actual dollars is that even the EU is starting to reconsider the level of their support (or some such locution). There is no such thing as to much clarity – that is the blessing behind the Hamas election win.

    Comment by Jim — March 31, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - March 31, 2006

  10. This article (h/t Powerline) makes the point that Bush 43 is a “Defense Department” presidency, while Bush 41 and Clinton were “State Department” presidencies.

    I think that makes a difference in our stance toward Israel. The Defense mentality is better at spotting our true friends (and enemies).

    Comment by Calarato — March 31, 2006 @ 6:02 pm - March 31, 2006

  11. And more Dhimmicrats have a positive view of France than Republicans, not at all surprising when you consider that France is the land of the free lunch, and the Dhimmicrats are the party of the free lunch.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 31, 2006 @ 6:09 pm - March 31, 2006

  12. Patrick in #6, not true. Israel has not always been big with the Christian elements of the GOP. This started to change in the 1980s, largely because of Falwell. Up until the 1960s, fundamentalist Christians (along with “country club” Republicans) were among the biggest sources of anti-Semitism in America. And also anti-Israeli sentiment as well.

    And not all of the “Christianist” (as you put it) blocs of the GOP are anti-Semitic. Many, if not most, are quite “phiilo-Semitic” in ways their theological forebears were not.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 31, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - March 31, 2006

  13. Two of my kids are going to shave their heads to raise money for childhood cancer research. I’d like to invite everyone to my blog to see a picture of them and read a blatant plea for donations.

    I hope no one minds the off-topic comment too much. 🙂

    Comment by Synova — March 31, 2006 @ 7:39 pm - March 31, 2006

  14. #11: “France is the land of the free lunch”

    Odd that “conservatives” would be so enthralled with Israel which was founded as a socialist state by socialists and has a socialist economy today.

    Comment by Ian — March 31, 2006 @ 9:39 pm - March 31, 2006

  15. #14 – Yes. Unfortunately, there are these certain people called “Islamic radicals” in the region – ever heard of them? – who want to kill us, particularly us gays.

    Israel is our most nearly-trustworthy ally in fighting those people, as well as the closest thing the benighted region has to a (semi-)capitalist, democratic and pro-gay country.

    Comment by Calarato — March 31, 2006 @ 9:43 pm - March 31, 2006

  16. Not to mention the fact that the Israeli army is one of the best in the world, certainly in terms of defending its nation’s right to exist.

    Also – surprise, surprise – the Israeli army does not have a ban on gays in the military. The reasons are quite simple: (a) each Israeli – both male and female – must serve a year or two in the armed forces and (b) because the total population of Israel is so small, it cannot pick-and-choose its recruits. So they have to go with what they’ve got.

    Also – dare I say it? I had a torrid affair with a captain in the Israeli army when he was on leave on Mykonos and our paths happen to cross. God, he was a HUNK.

    Sorry…is it hot in here, or is it me??

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 1, 2006 @ 12:16 am - April 1, 2006

  17. There is still plenty of anti-semitism to go around in both parties, but I’d rather be in the company of the Christian right than the pro-Arab stance of people like Louis Farakan and Jesse Jackson.

    Israel just wants to be there, in peace, and not in pieces. They have a strong Military because they have to. All of the Arab and Muslim states want them gone. They are a western style democracy in a sea of midieval mostly Muslim Kingdoms or Theocracies.

    Israel, just can’t cut a break. I saw the descriptions here. A socialist state. A theocracy. Geesh. Get it straight. Israel is a parliamentarian democracy. The founders were socialist leaning, but that is more like European socialisitic democracies. Things have changed quite a bit.

    As to the Theocracy bit, well I hate to say it, but that’s politics. It is a Jewish state, and the support of the Orthodoxy is necessary, so there have been many concessions to them, not all having a great outcome. There is however, dialog, discussion, protest, etc. Our Rabbi’s are not excommunicating people or chopping off heads, and secular law is followed in governing. You don’t have to be Jewish to live in Israel, and there is no crime for converting to another religion.

    As to aid, it’s difficult to comment. More of it is in the form of loan guarentees than is publicly acknowledged, much of it is needed to help maintain a military that is necessary so that the state can survive. You also do not see the monetary assistance lining the pockets of the elite. The corruption that is there is dealt with as it is here if and when discovered.

    Comment by Rick — April 1, 2006 @ 1:21 am - April 1, 2006

  18. we should leave Israel to its own fate. They serve no strategic purpose for us whatsoever.
    The best thing we could to to fight terrorism is to take Israel off our world team allaince.

    Comment by jay lassiter — April 1, 2006 @ 6:33 am - April 1, 2006

  19. p.s. What do Michelle malkin and gay republicans have in common?
    A; Both are a waste of carbon.

    Comment by jay lassiter — April 1, 2006 @ 6:34 am - April 1, 2006

  20. And not all of the “Christianist”

    This must be a new liberalese term, like “corporatist/corporatism,” meant, no doubt, to refer to actual Christians who hold onto Christian theology, as opposed to neo-paganized, Christian theology free, “mainstream Christians.”

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 1, 2006 @ 9:22 am - April 1, 2006

  21. Support for Isreas is a good indicator of the moral fiber of nations. Is it any wonder Egypt, Germany, and France hate it so. We could sell our souls and abandon Isreal on Arab demand like Europe but what has Europe really gained for their betrayal of the only civilized nation in the Mid East?

    Europe treats Isreal like shit but still the Euros cower in mortal fear of thier “allies” in the arab world. The US was the only nation to stand up to Communism in any effective form. Its natural that we would support Isreal over that homocide trash they’re surrounded by.

    Comment by VinceTN — April 1, 2006 @ 11:23 am - April 1, 2006

  22. Off Topic:

    I find myself wishing NSA wiretap thread was current, so I could say this to our mentally retarded, slow left-liberal friends again and again.

    Comment by Calarato — April 1, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - April 1, 2006

  23. #20

    This must be a new liberalese term, like “corporatist/corporatism,” meant, no doubt, to refer to actual Christians who hold onto Christian theology, as opposed to neo-paganized, Christian theology free, “mainstream Christians.”

    Christianist is a good catch-all phrase for the radical elements of Christianity in this country. I used it instead of say “Evangelical Christians” which is a much broader category, or “Dominionists” a very specific category. You of course assumed it was an insult for all Christians, when in fact it refers to a small minority of them. But just as all Muslims are not Islamists or Wahabbists, most Christians are not Christianists. But then again, why would you bother to grasp that distinction when instead you can be a perpetual whiny victim, and rail against the “War on Christianity”, the latest mantra in the Culture of Victimhood. So go ahead Prof and whine, whine, whine away.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 1, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - April 1, 2006

  24. Christianist is a good catch-all phrase for the radical elements of Christianity

    When Christians start beheading hostages, call me. Until then, you’re utterly insane.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 1, 2006 @ 12:46 pm - April 1, 2006

  25. Yes, exactly.

    Gryph’s “Christianists [sic]” cannot be compared to the Islamists. (or Islamo-fascists as I would rather call them) ‘Nuff said.

    Comment by Calarato — April 1, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - April 1, 2006

  26. GrampaGryph never passes on the chance to slam a religion –he’s a equal opportunity bigot…. Christians, Islam, you name it. Except HIS religion: the GayLeft.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 1, 2006 @ 1:49 pm - April 1, 2006

  27. jay lassiter “p.s. What do Michelle malkin and gay republicans have in common? A; Both are a waste of carbon.”

    Gheez, that coming from a guy who has 1-2 readers visit his blog in a month… and maybe gets 1-2 comments each year? Are you trying out for a position as GrampaGryph’s ghost writer?

    You both have the certifiable looney papers; you should do it!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 1, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - April 1, 2006

  28. I don’t understand the objections to the term Christianist. It seems to me it’s a good way to differentiate between Christians who believe in having Christian dogma govern our society and those who don’t. And to those who claim there are no radical Christians who would impose their religious views on others, then I suggest you learn more about the Dominionist movement. These delightful folks would institute the death penalty for gay people.

    Comment by Ian — April 1, 2006 @ 2:08 pm - April 1, 2006

  29. I don’t understand the objections to the term Christianist

    Of course, you don’t, moron.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 1, 2006 @ 5:03 pm - April 1, 2006

  30. How about “liberalist,” or “moonbatist?”

    Oh, that’s right. The appropriate term already exists…

    Fasict.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 1, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - April 1, 2006

  31. #28 – Then why not call them Dominionists?

    If fairness and accuracy were your motive, you would of course.

    As we’ve seen, the motive of “Christianist” is to attempt to inflict a small psychic injury on ordinary non-leftist (thus non-“approved”) Christians by implicitly comparing them to Islamists, i.e., to murderers. You know it so don’t play cute.

    You also know it’s invalid (or find me a contemporary Christian mass murder, if you will) and now, Ian, you know that we know as well.

    Personally I am not a big Christian, but I have years of experience with both groups (Christians and nutjob far leftists) and I will deal with Christians over their detractors, any day of the week.

    Comment by Calarato — April 1, 2006 @ 6:45 pm - April 1, 2006

  32. #31: “Then why not call them Dominionists?”

    Because I don’t think all Christianists would choose to institute the death penalty for homosexuals like the Dominionists would and, like it or not, the term Dominionist has become associated with such harsh treatment for all citizens who break Old Testament laws. And, of course, the Dominionists would dramatically alter the Constitution. Yet I think it’s useful to differentiate between Christians believe in a separation of church and state and those who don’t.

    And what in the world does “not a big Christian” mean?

    Comment by Ian — April 1, 2006 @ 8:29 pm - April 1, 2006

  33. Evangelical Republicans are big supporters of the state of Israel because it is their belief that the Jews must be in place in the holy land for the rapture to come; At which time the Jews will be struck down into hell. Their support of Israel isn’t derived from some great altruism.

    Comment by Erik — April 1, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - April 1, 2006

  34. So Ian, can we start referring to you as Godlessist? Maybe the more generic paganist? Or how about just heathen and unChurched? Bur more appropriately: bigot.

    No one except the wacked out anti-God leftists call Christians, Christianists. It won’t work, but unChurched heathen sure does. And you gotta admit it beats out VdaK’s provincial name for you.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 1, 2006 @ 10:18 pm - April 1, 2006

  35. Erik said…

    “At which time the Jews will be struck down into hell. Their support of Israel isn’t derived from some great altruism.”

    That’s patently false, Erik!!!!

    My mom is a born again evangelical, and as a child, I was raised catholic. Scripture states, Touch not my annointed… in referring to Israel, aka God’s Chosen People.

    Most christians I know stand behind Israel because that’s what they believe scripture tells them to do.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 1, 2006 @ 10:28 pm - April 1, 2006

  36. #34: “can we start referring to you as Godlessist?”

    Fine by me except I don’t try to force my views on anyone else. You see, I have confidence in my lack of belief in a god. It seems to me that those seeking to force others to live by their religious dogma are really the insecure ones requiring validation of their beliefs by imposing those beliefs on others.

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2006 @ 12:34 am - April 2, 2006

  37. #35: Well ask your mother if she believes Jews can get into heaven. Jerry Falwell certainly doesn’t think so. I’ll bet he also thinks Roman Catholics aren’t going to heaven either.
    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12741

    Come to think of it, if heaven means spending eternity with the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, then I’ll take the other place!

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2006 @ 12:48 am - April 2, 2006

  38. Ian, you’re an unabashed fool. And I’d also be quite grateful if you took some time to actually LEARN something about scripture, if you’re going to insist on commenting.

    But to answer your questions…

    Yes, she does believe Jews are going to heaven. As a matter of fact, MOST evangelicals believe Israel’s at the front of the line, and that their place there is assured scripturally.

    As for Jerry Falwell, and anyone else you seem to think Christians blindly obey, these same evangelicals are also quite capable of calling a shill a shill. The fulfillment of faith is based in scripture, NOT in who stands upon a pulpit.

    By your own admission, you deny the existence of God. Why then, do you invite debate on the matter? Are you under some misguided impression that somehow you’re going to change some minds? Are you attempting to destroy the faith of someone here in God’s existence? If so, then please be so kind as to admit as much. Otherwise, I’ll ask you not to debate theology from a humanist standpoint. You are neither interested in listening, nor are you even remotely qualified to discuss these concepts with me. You’ll pardon me for seeming elitist, but your comments, as well as the sources you provide therein, reveal a young man woefully ignorant with regard to theology and dogma.

    The nature of Christian faith, Ian my boy, demands belief in God absent conclusive evidence, and while freewill allows you to proceed through life lacking such faith, doesn’t your particular belief system allow room for those of us who DO choose to believe?

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 2, 2006 @ 11:43 am - April 2, 2006

  39. HollywoodNeoCon: But evangelicals believe that all Jews are going to hell. Ask your mother if she thinks a Jew, that is not a believer in Jesus, can get into the kingdom of heaven. If she says yes, then she is not a true evangelical.

    Of course, it’s all BS to me – just stories made up because people want answers to everything. Like everyone else, I haven’t a clue as to what happens when we die. I only know of what happens to us while we are here. But unlike most everyone else, I am comfortable with that.

    Does that make me better? Yeah, probabaly just a little bit. hehehe It also makes me better that my name is spelled with a K. Guess your mother missed the memo on that one, Eric. LOL =)

    Comment by Erik — April 2, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - April 2, 2006

  40. Interesting about this afterlife stuff. We don’t know it exists until we die anyway.

    Even so, Judaism believes that all people, regardless of religion, or belief in G-d, can have a place in Heaven. It’s all dependent on how one lives his or her life.

    Comment by Rick — April 2, 2006 @ 2:27 pm - April 2, 2006

  41. “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6).”

    I dunno, Jesus seems pretty clear on that point. I see no way for wriggle room for anyone who does not accept Jesus as their Savior to get into heaven. Give me an example of an evangelical Christian theologian who argues that someone can reject Jesus as Savior and still get into heaven.

    As for the suggestion that only believers ought to debate the existence of God, well, that’s about the most absurd comment you’ve made.

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - April 2, 2006

  42. Ian said…

    “I dunno, Jesus seems pretty clear on that point. I see no way for wriggle room for anyone who does not accept Jesus as their Savior to get into heaven. Give me an example of an evangelical Christian theologian who argues that someone can reject Jesus as Savior and still get into heaven.

    As for the suggestion that only believers ought to debate the existence of God, well, that’s about the most absurd comment you’ve made.”

    That’s it. I’m done. For me to have to debate Ian on scripture, which he’s admittedly denied the accuracy of, is completely ridiculous.

    My email to Dan & Bruce is sent. if you guys wish to continue this charade, that’s your business. As for me, this has gone on long enough.

    The mere existence of a conservative worldview is intolerable for Ian and his buddies, and as long as we continue to allow them to vent their frustration, they’ll continue to believe that they actually have a point.

    This was just dandy, until this asshat decided that he knew enough about a belief system he held in disdain to debate with me. Insulting me is fine, but to allow him to continulally piss upon Christianity in the name of free speech is inexcusable.

    I’m done with this garbage.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 2, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - April 2, 2006

  43. #42 If the Gaypatriots wish to ban me, that’s their perogative since it is their blog. I think I have tried to debate in a civil tone despite numerous attacks and insults. In any event, they don’t have to ban me; I will leave if they ask.

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2006 @ 10:28 pm - April 2, 2006

  44. Ian said…

    “I think I have tried to debate in a civil tone despite numerous attacks and insults. In any event, they don’t have to ban me; I will leave if they ask.”

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 2, 2006 @ 11:00 pm - April 2, 2006

  45. Is that a promise?

    Ian, I don’t wish to ban you. I only ask that you answer the specific qiestions I posed to you.

    Your failure to do that will only indicate which course of action should be taken.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 2, 2006 @ 11:04 pm - April 2, 2006

  46. #45: “Is that a promise?”

    Yes. You see, even atheists can have principles and integrity. As for your questions, if the few paragraphs I’ve written here can destroy someone’s faith in God’s existence, then I doubt that faith was very strong to begin with. I would only hope that I could get some folks to actually THINK about their faith and question it whether that faith is in God or a President.

    As I have also said, I support the freedom of people to believe whatever they wish. I don’t support their forcing others to share those beliefs.

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2006 @ 11:43 pm - April 2, 2006

  47. My God, you really can’t answer the questions, can you?

    Ian, you’ve proven yourself to be more disingenuous than you bargained for, haven’t you?

    Thank you for being as honest as you could be. I appreciate the effort. Sincererly.

    Eric remianing in reality.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 3, 2006 @ 1:16 am - April 3, 2006

  48. I’d follow up by saying I’ll see you at DailyKos, but I was banned long ago for my arguments.

    My suggestion is that you stick with those folks, sweetie.

    Eric in Reality

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 3, 2006 @ 1:18 am - April 3, 2006

  49. HollywoodNeoCon: But evangelicals believe that all Jews are going to hell. Ask your mother if she thinks a Jew, that is not a believer in Jesus, can get into the kingdom of heaven. If she says yes, then she is not a true evangelical.

    Actually, no. YOU think that all evangelicals believe that Jews are going to hell; rather than realize that that was an incorrect stereotype, you change the definition of “evangelical”.

    Now, to deal with Ian’s attempt at theology:

    I dunno, Jesus seems pretty clear on that point. I see no way for wriggle room for anyone who does not accept Jesus as their Savior to get into heaven.

    Then you obviously believe that Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, and everyone else who existed before Jesus is banished to hell, since it was impossible for them to accept Him as their Savior.

    The reality is, Ian, much closer to John 1, where it talks about the Word of God as the pathway to salvation. Jesus is the Word made flesh; Scripture, including the Jewish Torah, is the Word revealed in prophecy and writing. Two views of the same coin.

    Thus, modern Jews who follow the Torah are taking the same view of the Word as their forebears had. Jesus is a more-convenient and quicker method of getting the same end result.

    Nice attempt at wedge politics. Jews aren’t stupid, though; they know that the Democrats value anti-Semites like Cindy Sheehan and Louis Farrakhan more than them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - April 3, 2006

  50. Thank you, NDXXX. That was about as eloquent a post as I have read.

    Kudos for the interpretation of Judaic theology as it relates to Christianity.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 3, 2006 @ 4:10 pm - April 3, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.