Gay Patriot Header Image

Cheney Doesn’t Take Bait When Blitzer Tries to Politicize His Daughter’s Pregnancy

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:20 pm - January 25, 2007.
Filed under: Gay Adoption,Media Bias

When I had first heard the Mary Cheney, the daughter of the Vice President, was pregnant, I thought to blog on it. But, I hesitated for two reasons. First, other bloggers had already said pretty much what I wanted to say. Second, it seemed to me that Mary’s pregnancy indicated that, after her time in the limelight, she and Heather wanted to settle down to a private, domestic life. And it wasn’t really my business to comment on her private life.

Now, some gay activists are in a huff that the Vice President called CNN’s Wolf Blitzer “out of line” for asking him to comment on a statement made by Focus on the Family, a socially conservative organization, critical of his daughter’s pregnancy. Roberta Sklar, spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLFT) said that such questions were “completely appropriate.

I disagree. Reader Peter Hughes sent me a link to this post where Tim Graham asks, “When has a Democratic national candidate’s sons or daughters ever been the subject of a national controversy?” He notes how the MSM assiduously “avoided the story of Al Gore’s teenage son Albert Gore III, caught driving 97 miles per hour on an interstate highway, an offense on the public record, just two days before the 2000 Democratic convention.

While CNN ignored this story, the network played up the story of the President’s daughters citation for underage drinking in 2001.

It seems it’s fair game to discuss the private lives of the children of Republican leaders, but not those of Democratic ones.

To be sure, the Vice President did, in the interview, express his delight that he’s “about to have a six grandchild,” but simply refused to answer a question about the implications of a lesbian becoming pregnant. Basically, he just didn’t want to politicize his daughter’s pregnancy.

It seems that Blitzer wanted to expose some tension between the White House and the socially conservative group. And while I would have loved to see the Vice President take on Focus on the Family, he wanted his daughter’s pregnancy to remain a private thing, a joy for his family and not a public thing, a source of national controversy.

And while Graham did note the double standard, he thought the question was “fair,” even if meant to cause trouble. Preferring to keep his family life as private as possible given his position, the Vice President did not take the bait. And, I believe, he did the right thing.



  1. he wanted his daughter’s pregnancy to remain a private thing

    Sheesh, Dan, Dick Cheney’s office announced it so how private could it have been? And its not as if best-selling author and Cheney campaign official, Mary, has been all that reticent lately about discussing her life. And it is an issue because Dobson and other homohaters have made it one. Now while I enjoy seeing that constipated ass Blitzer made uncomfortable, I think it’s telling that I’ve heard no pushback against the Dobson comments by Bushco let alone Cheney himself. So I guess it’s OK for Dobson to attack Mary, her spouse and their child but “out of line” for anyone else to ask about it.

    Comment by Ian — January 25, 2007 @ 9:48 pm - January 25, 2007

  2. Great job mouthing the party line, Ian. So dutiful!

    Do you think it’s possible that Cheney isn’t responding to FoF’s statements for the same reason he didn’t want to respond to Blitzer’s? That maybe the same principle could be involved: of a person with dignity and integrity simply not responding to political, ill-intentioned questions or statements about their grandchild no matter who has made them?

    Ya think?

    Oh, I forgot: Left-liberals don’t understand people who try to live by consistency of principle.

    Comment by Calarato — January 25, 2007 @ 10:48 pm - January 25, 2007

  3. The MSM also buried the story of Howie Dean’s son involved in the crime at a country club. Ironically, it happened shortly after Dean said that he wanted to “break into that country club (D.C.).

    Oh!! That liberal media.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2007 @ 12:00 am - January 26, 2007

  4. But Wolfe had very valid questions. The Bush presidency was made by the conservative movement, the very same one that questioned Mary’s decision to seek to get pregnant in the first place. Remember, this wasn’t some sort of immaculate conception. For interviewers, conservative or liberal, not to ask how Vice President how he reconciles that schism would be willfully ignorant of the situation.

    And frankly what disturbed me more than Wolfe asking the questions and the Vice President at first simply offering no comment was then how the Vice President seemed to get angry at Wolfe in a “how dare you” manner. It’s always been my personal feeling that while Dick and Lynn Cheney are reconciled to the fact that they have a lesbian daughter, they’ve never liked it. They both avoid talking about her like it’s 1870 and she’s the retarded relative they keep hidden in the attic. Just because they don’t publicly want to talk about her, doesn’t mean the rest of the country won’t.

    Comment by Just A Question — January 26, 2007 @ 12:01 am - January 26, 2007

  5. GPW: You’re buying into his spin. The issue is not how Cheney feels about conflicted family issues, which would be a private matter. There is no conflicted family issue–he has said publicly he’s proud of his daughter, etc. The issue, and one that should not be off the table, is that one of the large and loud religious groups which delivers votes to him and his party and claims to be on the right side of moral issues now attacks the man’s daughter.
    Wolf did not send out press releases stating that his grandchild is going to be born into a sinful family, Wolf did not opine that the child would grow up confused as to gender or sexuality and would be “turned” gay, Wolf did not post messages and articles stating that the Lynne and her partner were committing de facto child abuse. The religious right did, and since they helped to elect the man, and now turn on his daughter, it is completely fair game to ask him if he sees things differently now, if he disagrees with their stance, if he maybe thinks that FotF should (as one of my favorite bumper stickers says) Focus on their own d*** Family, etc. When a politician’s supporters turn on him or her for any reason, and do so publicly, they make the news. All CNN was doing was reporting on it.
    Lastly (and maybe firstly), this isn’t just a private issue, as some posters above state. Dean’s kid, Gore’s kid, etc; these “stories” did not reveal some hither-to unknown conflict between the politician and speeding laws, or trespassing laws, for heaven’s sake. The crimes were crimes, no disagreement, bringing it up would be pointless, fine. But FotF and the Republican party have by and large attacked and criticized the exact same family structure as the Veep’s kid, and the criticism is coming from those who seek to outright BAN what this family is doing. Religious right orgs seek to ban gay adoption, remove anti-discrimination laws, overturn or water down civil unions laws, etc.: there is an actual disagreement on the legality and public policy between a politician’s family life and the aims of his supporters–how is that not news?

    Comment by torrentprime — January 26, 2007 @ 12:30 am - January 26, 2007

  6. @4
    I agree, I think. The right-wing has gotten good at proclaiming shock (shock!) at the horror and incivility of ever actually mentioning a politician’s gay relative. They somehow manage to merge the “Of course we love him/her,” with this injured sense of “But we don’t talk about it,” which of course plays into the feeling that there is somehow something wrong with the gay relative, as if an opponent has just mentioned a crazy old aunt or a brother in jail.
    The saddest part of this is that it allows the “injured” politician’s supporters to pretend to be ok with the gay thing while indulging their much deeper need to keep it quiet and not talk about.

    Comment by torrentprime — January 26, 2007 @ 12:42 am - January 26, 2007

  7. What Dick Cheney has realized, torrentprime, is that hate-filled, ideology-driven groups like Focus on the Family OR gay leftists like yourself and your puppets like Wolf Blitzer only care about Mary’s pregnancy in the context of how it will give you a political advantage; therefore, the only reason you ask is to pick a fight.

    Now you’re rationalizing and spinning because he called you on the carpet for doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 26, 2007 @ 1:55 am - January 26, 2007

  8. “gay leftist” LOL. Go ahead, pull the other one. I’m a libertarian, my judgmental and assuming friend, but you go right ahead and assume yourself into whatever you want. And Wolf is my puppet? Where do I return him for a real journalist?
    I don’t “care” about Mary Cheney’s pregnancy per se; I wish her the best in the religious-right-ruled state she’s about to give birth in. What I do care about is adopting a child of my own some day, and defeating FotF and the rest of the clan in the meantime is important so that I can do so without prejudice or fear. I also want to get married someday, so the same outcome is required. What do you care about?
    And ND30, if you really are so deeply rooted in the GOP (not conservatism, but the GOP) that you believe that an Administration that in its private life does one thing while its supporters and organizers preach and agitate to stop the very same activity is not news, then I feel very very sorry for you.
    I didn’t “get caught” doing anything (especially as I didn’t do anything, unless you believe in some vast left-wing conspiracy that includes CNN, Wolf Blitzer, and libertarians); I simply refuse to allow the same people that vilify me and my boyfriend’s lives (and you!) to get away with hypocrisy on one side and playing the victim card on the other.

    Comment by torrentprime — January 26, 2007 @ 5:59 am - January 26, 2007

  9. I think the reason Cheney didn’t want to address the question, is because he knew it was specifically designed to create a media storm about Cheney and Dobson disagreeing and sort of turning what should be a happy family time into something overly political.

    Are there political aspects to all this? Yes. But I can understand not wanting to turn a child’s pregnancy into a ball for the media to kick around-they were doing enough of that as it is, without Cheney joining the fray.

    My guess is that privately Cheney probably would tell Dobson et al where to put their opinions on the issue, but I don’t think the media has the right to turn family members into fodder, and Cheney essentially said he wasn’t going to play the game.

    Comment by just me — January 26, 2007 @ 6:36 am - January 26, 2007

  10. I’m not quite sure what to think about this. On the one hand, Blitzer and others will always try to corner a politician when there is an obvious conflict like this. But his daughter, from what I understand, did announce their pregnancy publicly. And Dobson and co. did publicly announce their reprehensible disdain of it. So it seemed fair game to me. Perhaps it would have been better if Cheney was asked about FoF’s general statements about homosexuality and gay adoption without bringing in his daughter. In fact, I believe that question should be asked to Cheney and Bush, and get a straight answer.

    It reminded me of an interview with Dan Quayle years ago. He was asked about his pro-life stand by Sam Donaldson(?). Donaldson asked him what he would do if his daughter wanted to have an abortion. Quayle said that he would do his best to talk her out of it, but that it was ultimately his position. So Donaldson pointed out the inconsistency of his position. Of course, Donaldson only did this to make Quayle look uncomfortable. But we did learn that Quayle was really pro-choice, at least privately.

    Comment by Pat — January 26, 2007 @ 7:47 am - January 26, 2007

  11. It’s the tragedy of our age that people and families are used as political tools. It’s offensive to me that Wolf Blitzer and James Dobson would want to force politics into Mary Cheney’s family life, especially since she wants to be left alone.

    It is at least as offensive when gay couples and celebrities use their kids the same way, either as an in-yer-face political statement or as fashion accessories. Or when Nancy Pelosi and Hillary use them as political set decorations. It’s wrong for Republicans to do this as well.

    I think this goes back to the radical “the personal is political” feminism of the 1960’s, coupled with the narcissistic indifference of childless lefties who don’t understand families at all, and manipulative socialists like Hillary’s pal Marian Wright Edelman; who openly admits to using children as political tools to advance socialism.

    Both sides do it to one degree or another, and that is shameful. The world would be a better place if we used things and loved people, instead of the other way around.

    Comment by V the K — January 26, 2007 @ 8:23 am - January 26, 2007

  12. #4
    They both avoid talking about her like it’s 1870 and she’s the retarded relative they keep hidden in the attic. Just because they don’t publicly want to talk about her, doesn’t mean the rest of the country won’t.

    What rock have you been under the last several years?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2007 @ 9:33 am - January 26, 2007

  13. #2:

    Do you think it’s possible that Cheney isn’t responding to FoF’s statements for the same reason he didn’t want to respond to Blitzer’s?

    Actually, he responded to Blitzer’s question by saying it was “out of line.” AFAIK, he hasn’t even said that about Dobson’s. Face it: the Cheneys haven’t been reticent to attack Dems for any mere mention of Mary Cheney but they’ve been virtually silent when their party wingnuts attack her.

    Comment by Ian — January 26, 2007 @ 9:59 am - January 26, 2007

  14. #5: Great Points! I would just add that Mary Cheney has been a highly visible and official part of her father’s re-election campaign and has published a book trumpeting her being a lesbian. I also think it interesting that some of those commenting here are quick to equate her being a lesbian to other politician’s offspring committing crimes.

    Comment by Ian — January 26, 2007 @ 10:07 am - January 26, 2007

  15. Why are you righties comparing Mary Cheney to Criminals?
    Of course inapt analogies are the hallmark of the rightist….
    It was a softball question that anyone should have knocked out of the park, but Cheney showed his true cowardice and would not even stand up for his own blood…
    And then he gets lauded for his principles….typical…

    Comment by keogh — January 26, 2007 @ 10:12 am - January 26, 2007

  16. #10:

    Wolf Blitzer and James Dobson would want to force politics into Mary Cheney’s family life, especially since she wants to be left alone.

    Oh come on, Mary was a high profile part of her father’s re-election campaign and an author of a book about her being a lesbian. She has made public statements about her being a lesbian and taken public political positions opposing bans on same sex marriage. Even the pregnancy announcement was made by her father’s office.

    Comment by Ian — January 26, 2007 @ 10:14 am - January 26, 2007

  17. I think Dick Cheney behaved like Dick Cheney. Look people, it’s already well known that the Vice President & Mr. Dobson disagree on certain things. Cheney has most likely told Focus On The Family to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. Why did Wolf Blitzer have to try to drum up a kerfuffle? Let’s all let Mary Cheney get on with her pregnancy & focus our attention on more pressing matters.

    Comment by Jimbo — January 26, 2007 @ 10:37 am - January 26, 2007

  18. Leave it to Democrats to attack a pregnant lady – or suffocate her in political mud at least.

    Comment by comment0r — January 26, 2007 @ 11:13 am - January 26, 2007

  19. So I suppose if Melissa Etheridge or Rosie O’Donnell or Ellen DeGeneres were pregnant (or their partners), and some reporter asked them how they felt that the child would be villified, you would be in support of it and consider it a “fair” question?

    Geez, all Cheney did was to tell Wolf to MIND HIS OWN BUSINESS. Something that the MSM does precious little these days.

    And wasn’t it Slick Willie who threw the hissy fit on Fox News and lauded for it? Seems like the Veep did not lose his cool, nor did he start finger-jabbing Wolf (showing more restraint that I would in that position).

    Bias? What liberal bias?


    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 26, 2007 @ 11:16 am - January 26, 2007

  20. Sorry for what seems like a double post; I thought it ate my first one.

    Comment by Ian — January 26, 2007 @ 11:25 am - January 26, 2007

  21. @16
    Again, it was not the Democrats who attacked her. FotF attacked her, loudly and publicly. Please explain when and how the Democrats attacked her regarding her pregnancy.

    Comment by torrentprime — January 26, 2007 @ 11:36 am - January 26, 2007

  22. I simply refuse to allow the same people that vilify me and my boyfriend’s lives (and you!) to get away with hypocrisy on one side and playing the victim card on the other.


    I have yet to see you or your fellow leftist Ian say one word about Democrats like Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or others getting tens of millions of dollars from gay people, but then turning around and supporting laws stripping them of rights.

    That’s hypocrisy. And what makes it even more pathetic is that, instead of confronting that, you whine and cry about Mary Cheney.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 26, 2007 @ 12:25 pm - January 26, 2007

  23. TP, your a Democrat right? Look at yourself and friends. Drowning a pregnant lady in your political mud.

    Comment by comment0r — January 26, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - January 26, 2007

  24. NDT and commentor are touching on an interesting point, from different angles.

    TP (good one 😉 ): I don’t absolutely buy the premise that the FotF text quoted by Blitzer constitutes an attack on Mary or other pregnant lesbians. BUT – if it does – and if you do care about gay rights so very much – why don’t you just defend her?

    You know, in a fashion that would be, like, honest and straightforward and effective?

    #13 – Actually Ian, VP Cheney responded to Blitzer’s irrelevant question by saying calmly, “No, I don’t [care to respond].” If you’re going to quote it, quote it right. Click here to review the tape.

    Kindly notice also, Ian, that FotF wasn’t the interviewer. Umm… Blitzer was. If Cheney’s whole point to Blitzer was that he simply doesn’t want to respond to FotF’s text — then, Ian — it wouldn’t make much sense for Cheney to give a response to FotF’s text. Now would it? LOL.

    In conclusion: The twisted contortions y’all are going through to make this about the Vice President, not about FotF or Blitzer (who are both silly and contemptible) are something to watch. Keep it up!

    Comment by Calarato — January 26, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - January 26, 2007

  25. Oh and TP, just one last thing FYI:

    You are no libertarian. I know libertarians, because I am a libertarian. I truly believe in liberty. Which means: laissez-faire capitalism and small government. And I believe in analyzing the government’s alleged violations of liberty rationally, to discern which are real and which are just politically-motivated ruckus (from lefties such as yourself, or the far right). Finally, I believe, as Barry Goldwater put it, that patriotic “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”.

    Comment by Calarato — January 26, 2007 @ 1:38 pm - January 26, 2007

  26. #24: Actually, I did quote accurately. here’s from the transcript (with Cheney saying to Blitzer)

    I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question.

    When Blitzer tried to respond, Cheney repeated himself

    I think you’re out of -I think you’re out of line with that question.

    Again, to my knowledge, neither Dick nor his wife have publicly claimed that Dobson was out of line for his attack on Mary and her partner and their relationship.

    Comment by Ian — January 26, 2007 @ 2:25 pm - January 26, 2007

  27. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. Ian, either you didn’t review the tape as I suggested earlier, or perhaps you are trying to deceive with intentional mis-quotation?

    Here is what’s on CNN’s tape (refer back to earlier link):

    B: [irrelevant repetition of FotF question about what’s best for the child] Do you want to respond to that?

    C: No, I don’t.

    Question and answer, Ian.

    Then Blitzer tries for a second question, a follow-up:

    B: She’s obviously a good daughter. I’ve interviewed her –

    C: [interrupting] I’m delighted, I’m delighted to have a sixth grandchild. Wolf, um, obviously I think the world of both my daughters. And all of my grandchildren. And, uh, I think, frankly you’re out of line with that question.

    Again, Ian: If you’re going to quote it, quote it right.

    Comment by Calarato — January 26, 2007 @ 2:39 pm - January 26, 2007

  28. And P.S.:

    Kindly notice… that FotF wasn’t the interviewer… Blitzer was. If Cheney’s whole point to Blitzer was that he simply doesn’t want to respond to FotF’s text — then, Ian — it wouldn’t make much sense for Cheney to give a response to FotF’s text. Now would it?

    Comment by Calarato — January 26, 2007 @ 2:42 pm - January 26, 2007

  29. Match, set, game. Cal wins in straight (pardon the pun) sets.

    Now THAT is what I call “shock and awe.”

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 26, 2007 @ 4:04 pm - January 26, 2007

  30. Thanks Peter. 🙂

    Between interruptions, I’ve been typing my summary thoughts. The bottom line to me is that FotF and Wolf Blitzer have both been silly if not contemtible… yet our local KosPuppets:

    (1) want to somehow make it about BusHitlerCoCheneyBurton, as always; and
    (2) couldn’t care less about the pregnant lesbian – i.e., defending her from FotF or Blitzer.

    The second one, especially, I find pathetic.

    As for the interview transcript issue: Ian, I suppose you could have just been given a bad transcript by Kos or CNN, or one that was over-edited… and I suppose the good CNN web site people edited the tape I transcribed, pretty heavily. But in either case, please remember: (a) source tape always trumps a transcript; and (b) quoting snippets of remarks with zero surrounding context is essentially dishonest.

    Comment by Calarato — January 26, 2007 @ 4:33 pm - January 26, 2007

  31. Mary Cheney will be judged by God, so why even talk about it?

    Comment by Sheri — January 26, 2007 @ 5:46 pm - January 26, 2007

  32. #27:

    Then Blitzer tries for a second question, a follow-up

    There’s no “second question” whatsoever. You can’t come up with a quote even resembling a second question, instead you attempt to spin and declare that there was one. Truly pathetic. Now show me where the Cheney’s great concern over their lesbian daughter has led them to indignantly take to task Dobson like Dick did with Blitzer.

    Comment by Ian — January 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm - January 26, 2007

  33. Gee, the only time the Clinton News Network quotes Focus on the Family is to peddle either a crazy christian story or try to put a republican a spot. I wonder why ? I dont recall Bill or Hillary getting asked about Chelsea drunken binges in LOndon but Bush daughter order drinks and its on ,ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSDNC for days ! Wolf is a rather dim liberal that has a show nobody watches. Things are not looking good for the this media division of the DNC since MSDNC actual beat CNN is the state of the union but neither broke 800,000 viewers . Desperate Wolf was baiting Cheney in order to get a scandal that would bring back the lefties moonbats that now watch MSDNC. I guess CNN may try to go back to peddling terrrorist pr videos showing out troops getting killed by a sniper .Whats a leftist network to do ?

    Comment by burt — January 26, 2007 @ 9:29 pm - January 26, 2007

  34. Nice try Ian, but Calarato pretty much ended your line of objections.

    It is possible for FOTF and Blitzer to be out of line, and honestly I don’t think Cheney is obligated to engage either on the issue publically-not sure why you think he should be.

    Comment by just me — January 27, 2007 @ 8:19 am - January 27, 2007

  35. #34: My point is simply this: Cheney got quite indignant because of Blitzer’s question. He could have stopped after saying he wouldn’t comment and simply refused to say anything more. Fine. But he didn’t do that: he publicly attacked Blitzer for merely asking the question. My problem with that is he has said nothing in public that I am aware of taking FOTF to task for its clear attack on his daughter. So Dobson, a key GOP supporter gets a pass for his personal attack on Mary while Blitzer gets blasted for merely asking about Dobson’s attack. Cheney’s outrage is clearly inconsistent and selective; the simplest explanation for that is that it’s political in origin.

    Comment by Ian — January 27, 2007 @ 10:49 am - January 27, 2007

  36. Calarato: Thanks for your declaration as to my political philosophy. I’m no libertarian, huh? lol. I guess I was pretty lost then at Reason’s last convention. Your defiant statements, your fiats as to what I am cause it’s what you want me to be are no more persuasive than the screamings of a child, declaring that the candy *can’t* be gone, the toy *can’t* be broken, the circus *can’t*be over, because he doesn’t want it to be. It doesn’t change the reality then, and you telling me what I must be cause it fits your preconceptions doesn’t change reality now.
    And for the last time, for all those on the thread who substitute wishes for thought: I’m not a Democrat. I’m registered Republican and always have been.

    And for the strawman as to why I don’t defend Cheney and her partner and their pregnancy: I didn’t attack her, and no one asked me to defend her. What I defend is the right of all of us (and that includes Cheney) to have kids and be partnered without the government interfering: something which the Republican party by and large is dead set against, some more than others. Unlike the right-wing right now, I don’t think that only daughters of important Republicans should be able to do this. Spin however you want; it’s still true. Are the Ds steadfast defenders of our rights? Hardly. They vacillate from empty rhetoric to half-hearted support, but they don’t actively seek to make our lives harder.

    Comment by torrentprime — January 27, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - January 27, 2007

  37. Private? Focus on the Family doesn’t think so. And they are in your party. Deal with them.

    Comment by jimmy — January 28, 2007 @ 1:59 am - January 28, 2007

  38. I’m still waiting for Wolf Blitzer press to start asking HRC the tough “gay” questions. Does Mrs. Clinton, who is against gay marriage and supports state constitutions banning such, still advocate and favor the “Defense of Marriage Act.”? Did Mrs. Clinton advise her husband not to sign DOMA into law? Why doesn’t she believe that gays and lesbians should have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples? Does she believe, as the MSM tells us about Republicans who are anti-gay marriage, that gays and lesbians are lesser citizens? Did Mrs. Clinton advise her co-president husband against signing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” What has she done in the last seven years as a United States Senator in rescinding her husband’s anti-gay policy? And other than inviting Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres to the White House, what did her husband actually accomplish to achieve gay rights? When the NGLTF start asking these questions, instead of standing beside this candidate, I will start taking them seriously.

    Comment by Stephen — January 28, 2007 @ 10:36 am - January 28, 2007

  39. #38:

    When the NGLTF start asking these questions, instead of standing beside this candidate,I will start taking them seriously.

    I don’t believe you.

    Comment by Ian — January 28, 2007 @ 10:45 pm - January 28, 2007

  40. #39 – Same to you, ian.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 29, 2007 @ 11:45 am - January 29, 2007

  41. #40: Oh, Petey, I’m crushed!

    Comment by Ian — January 29, 2007 @ 9:56 pm - January 29, 2007

  42. #41 – Why? Did Rosie O’Donnell fall on top of you?

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 30, 2007 @ 12:24 pm - January 30, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.