Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Party Party Party

As the polarization of American politics grows deeper, I've often wondered whether the American political system would finally make a change. Single-issue voters, particularly on the hard left, have seemingly taken over the political landscape and have caused an upheaval of sorts; Ned Lamont defeating Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut merely the latest, and strongest, example of this.

Though the fringe left has yet to realize it, they simply can't win on a national scale - in fact, it's doubtful that they could win even on a local scale, as Lieberman is expected to defeat Lamont come November. While Lamont won a primary, he did so by less than 4% in a vote that tends to bring out more hardcore supporters than moderates; in a full election that includes independents and conservatives, he will likely get crushed. While the KosKids and their supporters are loud, energetic, and gaining power, their actual stances scare even many Democrats - their full support covers maybe 15-20% of the country, if that. However, because they are vocal and have no qualms blasting even Democrats such as Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, they are slowly tearing apart the Democratic Party. Moderates - and even not-so-moderates - are forced to cater to the KosKids line or risk being blasted from their base; but, having done so, lose all ability to attract moderate voters from either side of the aisle.

So what will happen over the next few years to the Democratic Party? Either it will nominate candidates who cater to the far-left, and then get crushed repeatedly when elections come around; or, they will try and nominate moderates, and hope that they survive their own primaries with enough remaining energy, clout, and money to beat a Republican nominee - and without a base to support them. Whichever direction it chooses is party suicide. As a liberal blogger wrote a few months ago,
"This is something Democrats just can't figure out. It is without a doubt better for the party and the country to have Bob Casey in the Senate than Rick Santorum. It's better to have John Dingell in the House than the Republican alternative (Dingell, a pro-business moderate from Michigan, was challenged in the 2004 Democratic primary by an EMILY's List-supported Liberal).

Our party leaders MUST learn to defy the single-issue groups that define us and realize that the success of the party, and therefore the success of the nation as a whole, depends on supporting candidates who agree with the party base 80% of the time but not 100%."
Unfortunately, it seems too late for this. The single-issue factions have taken the Democratic Party by the throat and they're not letting up.

So what happens from here on? It seems that an incredible change may be on the horizon for American politics. The fringe left may have just blown their chance at gaining a 51-49 advantage in the Senate; as James Taranto noted, this may hurt even more in November:
Suppose the Democrats do win all contested Senate races on Nov. 7, and Lieberman beats Lamont in Connecticut. That would, as we said, give Democrats a 51-49 advantage in the Senate. In order to be elected majority leader, Reid would need every single Democratic vote--including Lieberman's.
Assuming that the Democrats do not get the majority, partly due to a Lieberman win, we'll see a stronger push by the fringe to swing the party even further to the left. This would likely result in any Presidential candidate in 2008 to either be from the far left (Russ Feingold, for example) or someone who will have just barely won their own party's nomination and have spent almost a year trying to defend attack ads (say, Clinton or someone like Ben Nelson). They will also go in without any base support come November '08. The Republicans need to merely put up a half-decent "clean" candidate - who need not even be a moderate - to walk to an easy victory.

The in-fighting that will then occur among Democrats will be loud and unpleasant. 15-20% of the country will be on the far left; 20-30% more "moderate" Democrats. The Democratic Party may realize that winning elections as things stand is simply impossible... and we will finally see what this country could probably have used for a while: A third party.

Moderate Democrats, sick of the direction of the party, will leave it - once and for all. Together with Republicans who are on the fence, they will open up a third, 'middle-of-the-road' centrist party, dedicated to compromise on serious issues. If one assumes that the current demographics imply 20% far left, 25% moderate Democrats, 25% moderate Republicans, and 30% staunch conservatives, a moderate party could expect to draw up to 40% of a national vote - about the same as conservatives. Meanwhile, the fringe left would be a strong 20%, but unable to actually win in almost any election, save a few token Congressmen.

This three-party system could prove to be the best thing to happen in US politics in decades. A moderate party that does its best to distance itself from the fringe will not only strengthen moderate viewpoints around the country, but force the growing conservative chunk of the country to better examine its own opinions. With a strong center, decisions that are better for a large majority will reign for the first time in over 50 years. Compromises on large issues will finally be able to be achieved - with the fringe opinions being quickly excluded and larger issues narrowed down into smaller ones.

It would be wonderful to see... here's hoping it happens. This country is in need of a political makeover - a third party just might be the trick. There needs to be at least 2 viable parties to choose from in an election, and right now, there's just one. May the change begin...

Party, party, party.

32 Comments:

Blogger Scraps said...

Despite the late (early?) hour at which this was written, it actually does make sense. The way things have gone in America for a long time, a third party hasn't been a viable option, but if the Democratic party truly ceases to be a serious contender, a strong third party might be able to edge its way in. It would have to sell itself pretty well, but in a few years that might be possible. However, I suspect that if a third party did join the political scene as a serious player, eventually one party would be edged out again, because the way our voting system works (winner takes all) few people will vote for a party that they don't see as having a decent chance of winning. Are you suggesting that the Democratic party in this country would become something like the Liberal Democratic party in the UK?

8/15/2006 8:44 AM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

A three-party system couldn't last more than a single election cycle. For better or for worse, the math of elections in this country practically requires a two-party system.

I agree that the Dem fringe and moderates have a much harder time connecting than do the Repub fringe and moderates. In part, the Republicans have succeeded so well because their fringe and moderates care about different issues and can therefore work together. The moderates think the religious right is crazy, but are willing to throw them some bones, and the religious right is oblivious to the moderate Republicans, who are mostly financial moderates without strong feelings (or scruples) on social issues. The Dem fringe and moderates, meanwhile, disagree on the very issues that they care most about -- the war chief among them.

Finally, it's not fair to write off the Lieberman defeat as a fringe success -- Lieberman is not some moderate Democrat unseated by crazies to his left, he's basically to the right of virtually all Democrats in the country. It's not that he supported the war -- half the Democrats did -- it's that he's been a consistent cheerleader for Bush and a social conservative all along.

8/15/2006 8:49 AM  
Blogger Chaim said...

Ezzie, I couldn't agree more with everything you said. What is so telling about the Left is that they refuse to "play well with others." Joe Lieberman should be a great candidate for the Left because he isn't one sided on everything and he shows that he isn't a one dimensional partisan candidate. I think the fact that he was able to be friendly with Bush shows exactly what is missing on the Left. They have painted Bush as this evil cartoon character who they hate so much that anyone who even talks to him must be also evil.

Both parties need members who can be friendly and polite and even (gasp!) sometimes agree with people on the other side. It's called compromise, it's called civility, it's called being a Mentch.

The Left ousted one of the few people in their party who showed he can work with members of the Left and the Right and that just because you don't always agree with someone, doesn't mean you have to have a vicious, vile hatred of them.

One last thing, JudeoPundit linked to this story from a Kos Diarist. After you read this post you will see why the fringe can never be allowed to actually put anyone (Lamont) into power. Ever.

8/15/2006 9:50 AM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

Scraps & JA - I think that you're right, it wouldn't last for very long; in the end, one party would edge the other out. In this case, the moderate party would try and edge the fringe left party out of politics... though the reason it could last a while (longer than one election cycle) is simply because of the mentality of the far left. They think they're bigger than they are, and they think that they're more powerful than they are. It will take more than one cycle for them to realize that they simply aren't a viable alternative to the other parties.

While Lieberman is to the right of most Dems, he's only more 'conservative' on *some* social issues and on the war. I don't think that Clinton or the 5 Senators who so far have come out to back him as an Independent are any different.

Meanwhile, most moderate Dems are awfully similar to moderate Republicans: Economically conservative, socially liberal. The difference is that their focus is more social than economic. Until now, their party loyalty and party strength allowed them to remain separate and focus on what was more important; perhaps now, with the fringe taking over, they will ally themselves with moderate Republicans and actually be happier with the results.

* I generally think that moderates on both sides are more economically conservative and socially liberal and not the reverse, though obviously there are exceptions. Most Democrats I've talked to will say as much... especially in light of the successes of the Bush administration with tax cuts et al. If you think I'm wrong, let me know, but that's been my impression.

8/15/2006 10:16 AM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

Chaim - Yes, I saw Yitzchak's post. The fringe is really a scary bunch - I think that JA & Charlie would agree on that. The question is how big that fringe is, and how much of it realizes just how off-the-wall some of their members are. Even on that fringe, I'm not sure how many people agree with those sentiments - and even those who do generally have enough sense not to say it out loud. That's another interesting study waiting to happen...

8/15/2006 10:19 AM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

Lieberman isn't going to vote with the Republicans to organize the Senate. He would be in the mainstream of Republicans in Connecticut, but not nationwide. He also really isn't conservative on any domestic issue at all: Can a "conservative" support strong environmental protection, abortion rights, gay rights, and labor unions. The union connection alone will make it impossible for him to actually become a Republican.

The hard right is pretty scary, too. Watch the Rhode Island Senate primary; there is a good chance that they are going to do the same thing to Chafee that Lamont and the bloggers did to Lieberman.

And in terms of the hard fringe taking power, I agree. Except that we already have the hard right fringe in power in Washington and it has been terrible for the country. Our grandchildren will be paying (literally) for Bush's irresponsible fiscal and environmental policies, and possibly his health policies as well.

8/15/2006 11:22 AM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

While Lieberman is to the right of most Dems, he's only more 'conservative' on *some* social issues and on the war. I don't think that Clinton or the 5 Senators who so far have come out to back him as an Independent are any different.

It's true that he's not conservative across the board. Bill Clinton was equally conservative in practice, but he did a much better job of talking like a liberal. He was a master BSer, of course, but I always believed he was a social liberal at heart and a fiscal conservative. Yes, he sold out big-time with Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Lieberman meanwhile supported Bush's underfunding No Child Left Behind and grandstanded (with H Clinton) about the evils of the entertainment industry. He has also stated that he is personally opposed to gay marriage, although he has voted against banning it. Mostly, though, it is about the war. As I wrote above, he didn't just support it, he continued to cheerlead for Bush against all evidence of his incompetence and dishonesty.

generally think that moderates on both sides are more economically conservative and socially liberal and not the reverse, though obviously there are exceptions.

I agree. The difference is that the last Dem president was a moderate in that mold and the current Republican is an extreme social conservative. The Republican voters are more willing to compromise on the social issues, although the Dems did it for Clinton.

I think those on the far left (including, in some cases, myself) simply wish that we had a choice other than center-right or far-right. Kerry was left and Gore was left on a couple more issues than Clinton, but there's nobody on the national stage who represents the left 20-30% of voters, while the religious right is thriving via court appointments, stem cell nonsense, faith-based initiatives, etc.

8/15/2006 12:38 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'personally opposed to gay marriage, although he has voted against banning it'

He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Other than that, however, his voting record is basically 100% pro-Gay.

8/15/2006 12:57 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

I should add that it is probably no longer possible to win a statewide election in Connecticut if you aren't pro-Gay. The current Republican governor signed a Civil Unions bill into law, with broad support from both parties, and without a gun being put to the legislature by any court decision.

8/15/2006 12:59 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

The hard right is pretty scary, too. Watch the Rhode Island Senate primary; there is a good chance that they are going to do the same thing to Chafee that Lamont and the bloggers did to Lieberman.

The hard right has almost no say in the GOP, though. Unlike the hard left, the hard right is a tiny, basically ignored group. They basically get what they want, though not to their extremes, and perhaps that's why they're generally quiet; but they're not at all comparable to the hard left.

Except that we already have the hard right fringe in power in Washington and it has been terrible for the country.

I can't believe that you're calling Bush "hard right", to be honest.

Our grandchildren will be paying (literally) for Bush's irresponsible fiscal and environmental policies, and possibly his health policies as well.

I think we both know that we disagree completely on this one. :) [Especially the fiscal one, which really flies in the face of logic... environmental I think it's too hard to tell, but you could be right; health I think we disagree, but you have valid points; but economic? Sorry, it's almost impossible to argue that he has in any way hurt the economy.]

I think those on the far left (including, in some cases, myself) simply wish that we had a choice other than center-right or far-right.

Personally, I think the only choices we have are center-right. But I agree that it's bad: Not having a proper opposition allows Republicans to be irresponsible and hurts the country.

8/15/2006 2:48 PM  
Blogger Nephtuli said...

Ezzie,

Our system is designed to minimize the existence of third parties. What would happen is your new centrist party would be infiltrated by people from the far ends of the spectrum and would go back to the way it was before. In that I agree with JA.

Kerry was left and Gore was left on a couple more issues than Clinton, but there's nobody on the national stage who represents the left 20-30% of voters, while the religious right is thriving via court appointments, stem cell nonsense, faith-based initiatives, etc.

The religious right gets a few bones thrown their way from time to time. The far left would probably also, especially via court appointments (Ginsburg is far more left than Clinton was). It's just that the moderate left can't get into power because the far left is growing and is so vocal that it turns moderates off.

8/15/2006 3:23 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

The fiscal issue is primarily the massive deficit spending. There was actually discussion in 2000 about using the continued projected budget surpluses to pay off the national debt. Because Bush refused to increase taxes for the war -- something every President had done -- our grandchildren will be paying for it.

Bush's anti-environment record is hidden to most people because he knows he could not get even a Republican congress to go along with changing environmental laws. So he has been doing it through regulations. It has mostly affected public lands in the west through giveaways to special interests; there isn't a lot of federallly owned land in the east for him to destroy. (See my post on this blog from July 25.) The one thing that does affect us in the east has been his attempt to allow certain industries essentially to postpone indefinitely the need to meet clean air standards; that kind of action actually kills people.

The attempt to politicize the medical research and regulatory infrastructure is unprecedented. The delay on "Plan B" and the ban on funding stem cell research are just the tips of the iceberg. If scientific evidence conflicts with their ideology they just (1) ignore it, or (2) find some minority opinion that does agree with them and treats it as if it were emet. All to please the hard religious right and other special interests. The hard right IS in power.

8/15/2006 4:40 PM  
Blogger Nephtuli said...

Charlie,

There are members of the hard right (which I assume to mean the religious right) that oppose anti-enviromental policies. So if Bush enviromental record is so bad, I would guess that's not a result of the hard right.

The medical issues are true to a degree. That's one bone the moderates have thrown the religious right. But all and all the religious right has not gotten anything close to what they wanted, even in judicial nominations. Bush didn't nominate Janice Brown or Michael McConnell to the Supreme Court.

8/15/2006 4:48 PM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

Nephtuli:

The environmental stuff is for the corporate right. The medical stuff is for the religious right. The two groups have nothing in common except they're willing to work together.

8/15/2006 6:44 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

Our system is designed to minimize the existence of third parties. What would happen is your new centrist party would be infiltrated by people from the far ends of the spectrum and would go back to the way it was before. In that I agree with JA.

While I agree it's designed that way, my point here was that the fringe is forcing it to happen anyway. Seeing as the right and left will still have parties, I don't see it being 'infiltrated from the far ends'... rather, I see it slowly pushing away the fringe left until it reverts to the way it was.

The fiscal issue is primarily the massive deficit spending. There was actually discussion in 2000 about using the continued projected budget surpluses to pay off the national debt. Because Bush refused to increase taxes for the war -- something every President had done -- our grandchildren will be paying for it.

That's simply untrue. The deficit is continually shrinking, and the tax cuts have only helped that along through increased revenue. Raising taxes would have only hurt everybody. Is there a deficit? Yes. Is it growing? No, the opposite is true.

You're right on the medical issues, but that doesn't mean the hard right is "in power". That means that they're throwing them their bone to keep them happy, as Nephtuli said.

8/15/2006 11:56 PM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

The hard rights (both social and fiscal) are sure getting a LOT more "bones" than the hard left. What's the last thing the hard left got at the federal level? What's the last thing the left-of-center crowd got at the federal level? I guess Sandra Day O'Conner. Anything legislatively?

8/16/2006 5:48 AM  
Blogger Scott said...

The largest third party in the US right now is the Libertarian party. We welcome all of you who are tired of the Government over stepping it's constitutional rights and catering to special interest groups on both sides of the aisle.

Democrats and Republicans are constantly blocking attempts of third parties to get on ballots and participate in debates. Beyond that the only thing that prevents third parties from doing better is belief in the myth that our political system can only support two parties, which is exactly what every politician wants us all to believe.

8/16/2006 1:08 PM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

Beyond that the only thing that prevents third parties from doing better is belief in the myth that our political system can only support two parties, which is exactly what every politician wants us all to believe.

It's a winner-takes-all system, so any coalition that can capture just greater than 50% wins. This leads naturally to more-or-less splitting the voters 50-50, regardless of where the center happens to be at a given time.

8/16/2006 4:25 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

The hard rights (both social and fiscal) are sure getting a LOT more "bones" than the hard left. What's the last thing the hard left got at the federal level? What's the last thing the left-of-center crowd got at the federal level? I guess Sandra Day O'Conner. Anything legislatively?

I'm not sure what you expect. The hard left has done nothing to convince Americans they're deserving of getting anything. And considering the way many courts have gone on many issues, I find it difficult to say that they've gotten "nothing" - they just haven't gotten it from Congress or the President in at least 6 years, probably 10. And that's because Americans didn't want to give them anything.

Scott - It *could* support more, but the reality is that each side is more concerned with the "other side" not winning to actively pursue an alternative. That the Dems aren't winning anyway may finally change that: "Hey, we can't win with these guys, so let's stick to our guns. Maybe it'll pay off if we can attract moderate Republicans."

8/16/2006 8:40 PM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

I'm not sure what you expect. The hard left has done nothing to convince Americans they're deserving of getting anything. And considering the way many courts have gone on many issues, I find it difficult to say that they've gotten "nothing" - they just haven't gotten it from Congress or the President in at least 6 years, probably 10. And that's because Americans didn't want to give them anything.

Americans disagree with Bush on the stem-cell issue, for example, but he gave it to the hard (religious) right anyway. Americans disagree with Congress on the minimum wage, but the Republicans gave it to the hard (financial) right anyway. It's true that the courts have been relatively good to the left, but the Democrats haven't done much for them.

8/17/2006 7:11 AM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'Bush didn't nominate Janice Brown or Michael McConnell to the Supreme Court. '

Bush does have degrees from Harvard and Yale. He can count votes. There aren't 60 to confirm either. There might not even be 50.

8/17/2006 3:12 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'The deficit is continually shrinking'

When Bush took office THERE WAS NO DEFICIT!

You stain your rug. You clean it and it looks better. You clean it again and it looks better. But it would have looked even better had you not dropped the tomato sauce in the first place. So with Bush.

8/17/2006 3:14 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'What's the last thing the hard left got at the federal level? '

Probably some of the anti-poverty programs during the 1960s.

8/17/2006 3:15 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'belief in the myth that our political system can only support two parties'

The only time in American history that there were more than two major parties was for a few years during the 1850s. That decade ended with a Civil War.

8/17/2006 3:16 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'considering the way many courts have gone on many issues'

Such as?

8/17/2006 3:17 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

When Bush took office THERE WAS NO DEFICIT!

You stain your rug. You clean it and it looks better. You clean it again and it looks better. But it would have looked even better had you not dropped the tomato sauce in the first place. So with Bush.


Charlie, that's ridiculous. You're ignoring - completely - the direction of the stock market when Bush took office, the fact that Bush instituted no fiscal policies before it fell, the .com bust, and 9/11. Since Bush instituted his fiscal policy, every single major indicator is up, stable, and there is no "bubble" to burst. The closest we have is the housing bubble, which, thanks to advance warning, has slowed and stabilized without bursting.

And your rug analogy is poor. Of course it can "never be the same" in such a situation - but in this case, the deficit can (and will) disappear. I find it hard to believe that of all the things to attack Bush on, you're attacking economic policy.

Americans disagree with Bush on the stem-cell issue, for example, but he gave it to the hard (religious) right anyway. Americans disagree with Congress on the minimum wage, but the Republicans gave it to the hard (financial) right anyway. It's true that the courts have been relatively good to the left, but the Democrats haven't done much for them.

Stem cells, yes. Minimum wage is simply stupid; and that's not a "hard right" issue, that's a basic conservative economic position - something (as discussed above) that most people inherently agree with. That they don't realize it and say to raise it in polls means nothing to me, nor should it to you; but I find it hard to call that a "hard right" issue.

The only time in American history that there were more than two major parties was for a few years during the 1850s. That decade ended with a Civil War.

Well, we'll see how far the fringe left is willing to go. It may be hard for them to do much when they won't use guns, won't spy, and won't interrogate anybody. :)

Such as?

Eminent domain, wiretapping, prisoners, torture, pledge of allegiance, gay marriage, and separation of church/state. (Some SC, some lower.)

8/17/2006 6:11 PM  
Blogger Jewish Atheist said...

Eminent domain, wiretapping, prisoners, torture, pledge of allegiance, gay marriage, and separation of church/state. (Some SC, some lower.)

None of those are "far left" at all. Only gay marriage comes close. The rest are barely left of center.

8/17/2006 11:49 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

Not true - in the cases and examples I'm thinking of, it was an extreme view of all of those. (Eminent domain may be an exception.)

8/18/2006 8:57 AM  
Blogger ninest123 said...

longchamp outlet, louboutin outlet, louboutin, polo ralph lauren outlet, nike air max, ray ban sunglasses, cheap oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, burberry, gucci outlet, michael kors, nike roshe run, tiffany jewelry, jordan shoes, replica watches, longchamp pas cher, louis vuitton outlet, ray ban sunglasses, louis vuitton, replica watches, nike outlet, uggs on sale, louboutin pas cher, ugg boots, ray ban sunglasses, prada outlet, prada handbags, oakley sunglasses, tiffany and co, sac longchamp, nike free, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton, ugg boots, air max, kate spade outlet, louis vuitton outlet, longchamp, louis vuitton, nike free, nike air max, air jordan pas cher, christian louboutin outlet, chanel handbags, oakley sunglasses, tory burch outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren pas cher, longchamp outlet, louboutin shoes

7/23/2016 8:02 PM  
Blogger ninest123 said...

sac guess, hollister pas cher, michael kors, michael kors, vanessa bruno, michael kors outlet, nike blazer, michael kors outlet, michael kors outlet, nike air max, air force, michael kors outlet, ray ban pas cher, converse pas cher, coach purses, michael kors, lululemon, abercrombie and fitch, true religion jeans, true religion outlet, ray ban uk, hollister, vans pas cher, north face, new balance pas cher, hermes, replica handbags, coach outlet, kate spade handbags, michael kors outlet, oakley pas cher, nike free run uk, michael kors, nike air max, nike roshe, lacoste pas cher, ugg boots, true religion jeans, north face, ralph lauren uk, tn pas cher, burberry outlet online, hogan, ugg boots, true religion jeans, nike air max, burberry, timberland, mulberry, coach outlet

7/23/2016 8:03 PM  
Blogger ninest123 said...

mcm handbags, timberland boots, louboutin, hollister, hollister, jimmy choo shoes, lululemon, reebok shoes, giuseppe zanotti, asics running shoes, herve leger, oakley, bottega veneta, mac cosmetics, iphone cases, p90x workout, vans, north face outlet, valentino shoes, chi flat iron, ray ban, soccer jerseys, nike trainers, celine handbags, ghd, nike air max, north face outlet, new balance, converse outlet, gucci, ralph lauren, nike air max, lancel, longchamp, nike roshe, instyler, vans shoes, nfl jerseys, birkin bag, soccer shoes, baseball bats, babyliss, hollister, beats by dre, ferragamo shoes, wedding dresses, abercrombie and fitch, nike huarache, mont blanc, insanity workout

7/23/2016 8:07 PM  
Blogger ninest123 said...

montre pas cher, swarovski crystal, wedding dresses, louis vuitton, canada goose, moncler, canada goose uk, pandora charms, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, ugg pas cher, replica watches, swarovski, canada goose, moncler, moncler, thomas sabo, marc jacobs, bottes ugg, canada goose outlet, canada goose outlet, pandora jewelry, coach outlet, links of london, karen millen, moncler, toms shoes, supra shoes, louis vuitton, pandora charms, moncler, doudoune canada goose, louis vuitton, juicy couture outlet, pandora jewelry, canada goose, sac louis vuitton pas cher, louis vuitton, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, canada goose, moncler outlet, juicy couture outlet, hollister, moncler, ugg boots uk, moncler

7/23/2016 8:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home