Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Art Imitates Life Imagined: West Winging It
The American Prospect | 11-16-02 | Mia T, Garrett Epps

Posted on 11/17/2002 6:18:22 AM PST by Mia T

Art Imitates Life Imagined: West Winging It

 

by Mia T, 11-16-02

It is unclear precisely when Hollywood liberals began to believe their own material--Streisand repetitiveness, selfsameness, and ubiquity confound the issue--but by November 5, 2002, certainly, the transfer of all this nonsense to celluloid was complete.

In San Francisco during the month preceding the Democrat debacle, party operatives were busy mixing metaphors and switching hitters as they hedged their bets: Robocalls to erstwhile and presumptive liberals made by the impeached utter failure ex-president were quickly mitigated by those of Martin Sheen, clinton's competent counterpart cleanup man... just in case...

What is surprising here is not the swapping of Sheen for clinton- both are play-act presidents, after all. It is, rather, that the Democrats believed it was necessary to hedge their bets in the most liberal city in the country. No other single act, it seems, foreshadowed more ominously the Democrat Debacle of '02.

 

The American Prospect

advertisement:
Advertisement


The Case Against Jed Bartlet:

He's an insufferable prig, more guilty than Clinton and ought to lose the election. On TV, of course.

By Garrett Epps
Web Exclusive: 8.7.02

 

"There's nothing good on TV anymore," a friend recently said. He is a Democrat and a University of North Carolina basketball fan. "I don't watch anything but that ESPN Classic," which shows videotapes of old Tar Heel victories.

For those nostalgic for the days of elected government, there really is little news programming worth watching. Many of my liberal friends have turned for consolation to the alternate universe of The West Wing, a kind of CNN Classic in which a Democratic president holds office, having won it the old-fashioned way.

I like pretty much everything about West Wing: the witty banter among attractive young White House staffers, the complexity of the political and diplomatic problems it dramatizes, the way it shows the relentless pace of events in Washington and the desperate improvisations that often turn into settled policy. But in this month of alternate-universe political conventions (if you don't get that you probably don't watch West Wing enough), I am publicly throwing my support for the Democratic nomination behind John Hoynes (chillingly played by Tim Matheson) -- the sneaky, ideologically treacherous vice president.

Let me make it plain: I like everything about West Wing except its central figure, President Jed Bartlet. We need to dump him now. Hoynes for president!

Clearly I represent a minority in the Democratic Party, both fictional and otherwise. Indeed, "BARTLET FOR PRESIDENT" stickers were spotted on California freeways during the 2000 election. "I'd be Josiah Bartlet's vice presidential candidate any day," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle told reporters last June. Bartlet is played by one of America's most likeable actors, Martin Sheen. And series creator Aaron Sorkin seems to have intended Bartlet to be the figure most liberals wish Clinton had been: brilliant (Bartlet is a Nobel-prize winning economist), devout (a Notre Dame graduate, he is a faithful Catholic who confesses on his knees in the Oval Office) and scrupulously honest.

But where Clinton married sleazy relativism to infectious charm, Bartlet is an insufferable prig. And where Clinton was impeached for a trivial personal peccadillo, Bartlet has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors."

To begin with, consider Bartlet's alleged brilliance. TV and movies seem to dramatize intelligence only as an eye-glazing tendency to recite obscure facts (think of Matt Damon quoting Gordon Wood and winning Minnie Driver's heart in Good Will Hunting). Asked to respond to a plea for increased veterans' benefits, for example, Bartlet drones on about the origins of the term "red tape"; offered a draft speech by a geeky NASA flack, he humiliates the man by dissecting his grammar.

And smart or not, Bartlet is unbelievably smug. This is the kind of boss who returns from India with chess sets for his senior staff -- and then insists on beating each of them while lecturing on strategy. He is the kind of social boor who invites a radio columnist to the White House, then tongue-lashes her publicly (making use of his show-off "erudition" all the while). He is the kind of snob who sends his young African-American aide out to buy him a new carving knife, then with mock humility presents the orphaned young man with his own knife in exchange -- cast for the Bartlet family by Paul Revere himself.

All that would not be enough to deny Bartlet renomination (though it would be enough for me to root for him to spend more time off-screen). But West Wing's writers have managed to make Bartlet far more guilty than Clinton ever was. Instead of a merely personal moral failing, Bartlet has concealed the fact that he has multiple sclerosis. The writers apparently think that this is a flaw that we will sympathize with, with none of the seaminess of Clinton's lies (sworn and unsworn) about his sad sexual hijinks.

They're wrong. MS is a progressive and incurable disease of the central nervous system. It has the potential to cause not only fatigue and physical impairment but cognitive decline and severe depression. It's certainly possible that someone with MS could be a good president, but there's no question that such a person should not conceal the fact from the voters. From FDR's failing health and Yalta to Ronald Reagan's mental decline during his second term, concealed illness in the White House has done more harm to the Republic than the sex lives of all the presidents combined.

Yet Bartlet has decided that he deserves the vindication of a second term. And that brings me to the third thing I find so annoying about this man: his self-absorption. Having endangered his party and the country, Bartlet now sees the re-election decision as a matter of his own personal fulfillment. It's hardly surprising: Most politicians are egomaniacs, and Bartlet walks around asking people questions such as, "Which Plantagenet do I remind you of?" But he shows no awareness that for most of us, watching the show in our darkened homes, real politics actually isn't primarily about the individual yearnings of politicos.

Bartlet sees the universe in terms of Bartlet and its unfairness to him. When his beloved secretary is killed in a car crash, he delivers a repulsive lecture to God, calling him a "feckless thug"; for taking away someone Bartlet needs -- as if his own decisions, including one to permit assassination of a foreign official, had not brought death to many people who wanted to live at least as much as poor Mrs. Landingham.

Later in the same episode, Bartlet impulsively decides that he will run for re-election, despite everything -- chiefly because Mrs. Landingham's ghost dares him to prove he's not a chicken. And so the nation and the world become the arena for Jed Bartlet's personal redemption.

I fear the next season of West Wing will center around the nonedifying spectacle of this narcissistic oaf bullying the world into seconding his daily affirmations -- a prospect so grim that I am going to try to head it off by starting a draft for Hoynes. True, Hoynes is a trimmer who has sold out to the gun lobby; true, he is a recovering alcoholic; true, his word is his junk bond. In other words, he is a fairly realistic picture of the leadership America can expect; and at least he isn't self-righteous about it.

"Why not the best?" Jimmy Carter asked in 1976. I haven't figured out the answer -- but if Bartlet represents our picture of the best, then, like former Sen. Roman Hruska, I think it's time for mediocrity to have its chance at bat. Hoynes will give it to us. And think what a fine ex-president Jed Bartlet will make.

Garrett Epps

Copyright © 2002 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Garrett Epps, "The Case Against Jed Bartlet: He's an insufferable prig, more guilty than Clinton and ought to lose the election. On TV, of course.," The American Prospect Online, August 7, 2002. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.

 



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: billclinton; clintoncorruption; democratdebacle; hillaryclinton; hollywoodliberals; westwing
 

 

THE OTHER NIXON

by Mia T

 

 

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

 

Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:

 

Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.

 

These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."

 

In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense.

(What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)

 

Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):

"But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.

 

"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."

 

Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):

"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."

 

Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):  

"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."

 

Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):

"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."

 

* * * * *

 

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."

 

If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for

perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.

 

David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.

 

The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is

three-pronged.

 

ONE:

clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

 

This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.

 

Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.

 

TWO:

Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.

 

Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, so the (implicit) argument goes, to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.

 

clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.

 

"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

 

Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

 

(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)

 

Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He

imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."

 

(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)

 

THREE:

The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office.

(Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)

 

This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.

 

Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.

In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.

 


1 posted on 11/17/2002 6:18:22 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand; looscannon; Lonesome in Massachussets; Freedom'sWorthIt; IVote2; Slyfox; Registered; ..
Democrat Debacle of '02

Q ERTY8 PING!

 

 

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.
Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.
 

Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,

by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

 

 

IT IS OBVIOUS

 

By Mia T, 3-3-02

 

It is obvious to anyone who bothers to remove his political blinders. It is so patently obvious that even those whose political blinders are a permanently fixed fashion statement -- that is to say, even Hollywood -- can see it. (Just ask Whoopie Goldberg...or Rosie O'Donnell...) Bush's poll numbers are a reflection of this self-evident truth.

What is manifestly obvious and confirmed on a daily basis is the plain fact that Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state through these troubled, terrorist waters. Democrats were unfit pre-9/11, but few could see it then. It was 9/11 and its aftermath that made this truth crystal clear even to the most simpleminded among us.

The unwashed masses, the uninformed, the disinformed can see it now. All America can see it now. Self-preservation is kicking in, trumping petty politics at every turn.

And this is why Democrat demagoguery and stupidity and sedition are achieving new lows...

 We are witnessing the last gasp of a political relic. The Democrat party is not merely obsolete. As 9/11 and clinton-clinton-Daschle action and inaction have demonstrated, the Democrat party is very dangerous.

 We must now make sure that this fact, too, is obvious to all...

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

 

Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

---GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

 

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.

Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."

When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.

It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.

If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.

And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton covertly cooked the books even as he assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.

It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.

It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.

I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "

Mia T, hillary clinton blames hubby for terrorism

(SHE knew nuttin')

Meet the Press, 12-09-01

 

 

 

 

 

*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

 

Q ERTY3 co-rapist  bump!

2 posted on 11/17/2002 6:21:44 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thank you, Mia! I must especially thank you for including the column about The West Wing which I have never watched, having a long-standing boycott of Martin Sheen.

If that column is accurate, it is a most repellent piece of television. Ugh.

Thanks again!

3 posted on 11/17/2002 6:28:27 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
1. Anything said by President Andrew Sheppard in “The American President” was read by actor Michael Douglas.

2. Anything read by Michael Douglas in “The American President” came from script writer Arron Sorkin

3. Aaron Sorkin admits he smoked crack cocaine daily while writing the 1995 movie "The American President." See: http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/News/08/03/showbuzz/#2

4. Therefore, President Sheppard is on drugs.

OTHER INTERESTING NOTE:

President Andrew Sheppard’s Chief of Staff in “The American President” (Martin Sheen) moved up to become President in Sorkin’s “The West Wing”. In April 2001, Sorkin was arrested in Burbank and pleaded to multiple drug felonies, so President Bartlet is ALSO on drugs.

4 posted on 11/17/2002 6:29:09 AM PST by Doctor Raoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul
 
 
 

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE

 

Q ERTY6

rodham clinton REALITY CHECK

BUMP!

 

 

 

 

by Mia T

 
Not Joe Klein's Primary Colors. And not Jack Stanton.
bill clinton is straight out of
Stanley Kubrick's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
 
clinton is Alex,
one of the few truly amoral characters in either film or literature;
not quite as Kubrick (or Burgess) had imagined him, however,
but rumpled, wrinkled, paunchy, edematous,
stripped of the youth-excuse
after 30 additional, pathetic, recidivistic years
of marauding, stomping, raping, gangbanging, deceiving and destroying.
 
Like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, the story of bill clinton
is the story about a society that has lost its capacity for moral choice.
But unlike in the less fabulous and no more ironic fable,
clinton is not mere nascent symbol but nihilistic agent.
 
clinton, like Alex, is the leader of the gang, the "droogies."
Eerily prefigured by the rocking, crooked phallus,
clinton's a conscienceless sadist
who thrills at risk and gratuitous destruction,
whose sexual and non-sexual impotence
is at the root of his obsession with "the old inout."
 
When Alex kills a woman during a rape, Alex is sent to prison.
When clinton rapes women, girls, his country and God knows what else. . .
and kills? --- check out those fourscore-plus deaths, please!
And don't forget the wag-the-dog, desperately-seeking-a-legacy bombings,
or the cold-blooded Ricky Ray Rector execution---
not clinton but society is imprisoned,
imprisoned in clinton's
besmirched, semen-stained, feckless presidency.
 
A risible and repulsive result;
yet not even the punch line.
 
While Alex is conditioned in prison with aversion therapy,
transmuted into a moral robot who becomes nauseated
by the mere thought of sex and violence,
bill clinton and his Thought Police,
in a perverse reverse aversion,
have conditioned society's collective brain
into not mere acquiescence but twisted admiration.
 
In the end,
if clinton's arrogant, ruthless, reckless nature is restored to him,
it seems the joke will be on all of us,
for it will be a victory for infinite victimhood and irresponsibility,
for seduction, for violence, for nihilism, for anarchy.
 
We will have set apart clinton as the hero
by making his victims less human than he;
we will have allowed clinton to carefully estrange us from his victims
so that we can enjoy the rapes and the beatings
as much as clinton himself does.
 

 


5 posted on 11/17/2002 6:39:38 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I love that George Will quote.

5.56mm

6 posted on 11/17/2002 7:30:43 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT!

7 posted on 11/17/2002 10:10:02 AM PST by Jeff Chandler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul
;° )
8 posted on 11/17/2002 10:12:00 AM PST by Jeff Chandler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; Miss Marple
Bravo, Bravo, MiaT!

With Miss Marple on never watching this garbage pail propaganda program. (West Wing)

I boycott Martin Sheen also, Miss Marple.

Mia T - love this quote of yours - because you hit the nail on the head for the umpteenth time. More importantly, it is THE CRITICAL SUMMARY re: the Clintons, especially of Hillary Clinton.

"It is critically important that Hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.

It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.

I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, 'Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so.'"

Thank you, again, MiaT for summing things up in your unique way. Pray God that millions come to understand your words of warning.

9 posted on 11/17/2002 10:32:44 AM PST by Freedom'sWorthIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Please remove my name from your "ping" list!
10 posted on 11/17/2002 11:02:32 AM PST by Chapita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thanks Mia T. Nice work and the column about the Left Wing is another reminder of the power of self delusion on leftists. As William Shatner once said "It is a TV show! Get a Life!"
11 posted on 11/17/2002 11:14:05 AM PST by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal
Leftist self-delusion

THE OTHER NIXON

Q ERTY6 utter failurebump!

Clinton was impeached for a trivial personal peccadillo,

Garrett Epps , The Case Against Jed Bartlet


12 posted on 11/17/2002 3:43:20 PM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
You're welcome.

I avoid the West Wing, too. ;)

13 posted on 11/17/2002 3:58:01 PM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Good morning & Bttt
14 posted on 11/18/2002 2:23:30 AM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BeforeISleep
Q ERTY9

GOOD MORNING

BUMP!


15 posted on 11/18/2002 3:59:46 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Very nice! Bttt
16 posted on 11/18/2002 10:01:35 AM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson