Democrats and Republicans….Different?

I’m deeply ambivalent about the new book by Grossman and Hopkins and the associated arguments in general.  (Admittedly, this is not a new point from me)

On the one hand, Grossman and Hopkins are the first in decades, since the pioneering work by Mayhew back in 1960s, to recognize that there is something asymmetric about the Democrats and Republicans, and how they organize themselves.  I think this is critical:  we theorize too much about “the party” in the abstract and expect the same from them, implicitly, or even explicitly presuming that there is only one way for a party to organize.  This is a mistake.  A useful point of comparison, indeed, might be various theories of oligarchy from Marx onward, discussed in this article.  (from an admittedly “political source,” but a very well-informed discourse nevertheless). The significant point is that, as circumstances change, the nature of those who wield power, their motivations, and their strategies change, and with these changes comes a divergence in what takes place.

But a decade after the work exploring the differences between the parties, Mayhew seemingly changed his tune completely, authoring a book that seemingly dismissed parties.  Did he change his mind?  He did not, I think.  He simply reached the logical extension of his original argument, abstracting beyond the politics of 1950s and 60s.  The key difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in 1950s and 60s was that the Democrats depended on a much less oligarchical organization that emphasized uniform distribution of the benefits from party rule:  everyone who made up the Democratic coalition got a piece of the pie, and as consequence, everyone was expected to cooperate.  The distribution scheme extended not only to the tangible, divisible benefits like pork barrel projects, but also to matters of policy and associated collective reputation:  too controversial policy may promote reputation for some, but not for others, and as such, they were to be avoided as much as possible.  For the sake of coalitional unity, even the oddballs who made up a relative minority within the party were to be given veto power over party policy, even when the majority of the party might desire a change.  Thus, the significant but still relatively small conservative wing of the Democratic Party was able to frustrate the larger liberal wing for decades.  Mayhew notes this wryly in the conclusion of his 1966 work:  even if the Democrats may be the “dominant” party in Congress, its ability to articulate and accomplish what it “wants” is constrained.  I suppose the same argument is repeated by Rohde and Aldrich, but with a wholly different connotation.  For Mayhew, the absence of a clear party policy is by design, brought about by a deliberate attempt to reconcile the the internal divisions and maintain the party cohesion.  For the latter, it is simply a sign of weakness.  These interpretations imply a different interpretations (that are not logically different in essence) of what took place next:  when the internal balance began to shift in the Democratic Party, the liberals saw their conservative copartisans as a stumbling block who were frustrating their policy goals who had to be gotten rid of, and the so-called party reforms accomplished exactly that.  In a sense, assuming that parties are naturally coalitions for making policy (which Mayhew, and a long tradition in political research preceding him, did not accept, incidentally) this was a manifestration of party “strength,” the coalition becoming what it should be.  If a party is to be viewed as a coalition to win elections everywhere, means that the Democrats decided to commit a partial suicide by losing elections in 1/3 to 1/4 of their districts.  Of course, a party can be both:  the choice by the liberal Democrats in 1970s and beyond was that they would rather have policy than win elections.  In order to bring this change about, of course, the leadership had to change:  the party reforms came about after a successful coup against Speaker McCormack and his hostility to the liberal “troublemakers” who interfered his wish to deal “fairly” with all factions.

This inclusive coalitional strategy captures the the change in Mayhew’s perspective:  by 1974, there was only one party left in Congress that encompassed all as its sub-factions.  The Democrats were so dominant that the Congressional Republicans were really just another faction.  This was unacceptable to the liberals who, for the sake of “fair dealing,” had to make concessions not only to the Democratic conservatives, but to the “Republicans” as well.  This broad cooperation was unnecessary and was getting in the way of policymaking.  Thus the reform, to kick the dissenters out of the Democratic coalition.

Incidentally, this was the difference between the 1960s Democrats and Republicans.  People like Rayburn and McCormack built and maintained the Democratic coalition by treating all Democrats fairly, as long as they played nice with other Democrats, without imposing ideological requirements:  liberals and conservatives, segregationists and civil rightsmen, union busters and union men, reform politicians and machine hacks were all welcome–as long as they didn’t fight each other.  They would all get something, but not so much that they would cut into others’ “fair share.”  This was, of course, why the “liberals” in the Democratic Party were getting frustrated by 1970s.  Republicans, at least by mid 1950s, no longer bothered with coalition building (They may have adopted a broader coalition building strategy, however, in 1920s, Mayhew speculates, when their de facto ranks included people like Robert LaFollett, and when the formal power of the leadership was effectively ruined in the aftermath of the revolt against Speaker Cannon in 1910).  At least by 1950s, Republican were defined by a certain set of collective policy positions on which they mostly agreed on and the belief that any power that their leaders wielded should be used to advance them.  Those who did not share these views had no business signing on with the Republicans, since they would get no opportunity to influence policy and would have trouble dispelling the Republican reputation vis-a-vis voters anyways.  This, of course, according to Mayhew, was why the Republicans of 1950s could not be, at least in Congressional context, the “dominant” party–the narrow but focused worldview could not win elections in a diverse array of settings.

Fast forward to 2016, neither party looks much like the diverse Democratic Party of 1950s and 60s.  The Democrats cannot compete in rural Midwest or the South, for example–even in House elections.  While gerrymandering has played a role, that is not the only factor.  The very “diversity” in the Democratic Party is misleading:  it is the diversity of “multiculturalism,” associated with a single end of the political spectrum.  Let us not forget that, in 1960, Democratic candidates won votes from African Americans in Harlem and the Klansmen in Mississippi alike.  That’s the real political diversity, the one that counts for elections.  In other words, parties today look essentially like the Republicans of 1960–they are both exclusive coalitions, that systematically kick out dissidents who interfere with the collective pursuit of policy.  In order to achieve this, they are organized at a top down level, where the ability of the factions to systematically veto the collective policy goals (the key component of the old Democratic Party–and what frustrated the liberals so mightily) is nearly nonexistent.  Since the power is so concentrated at the center, the intraparty struggle for capturing this power, fight by factions within each party to dominate other factions, occupies the center stage of politics.

The last point is the significant dimension of what sets modern politics in Congress apart from that of the past, I think.  It is taken for granted, by all factions involved, that “Democrats” and “Republicans,” and the associated factions thereof, will never cooperate.  So as long as one faction can dominate the machinery of one party, and that one party controls the majority of the seats in a chamber of Congress, the winning faction in the majority party, however small, will have the whole power of the chamber to itself.  But this works as long as the interparty disagreement and non-cooperation can be taken for granted.  Congressional politics of 1880s through 1910 seemed to be such:  enough that David Brady called it, when he was writing about Congress in 1970s, “the partisan era.”  The era came to a sudden halt in 1910 when the Republican insurgents of the Progressive wing, who got  fed up with their own leaders, decided to remove their powers and reorganize Congress by enlisting help from the Democrats.  How significant was this change, though?  That is less obvious:  parties themselves did not reorganize–the interparty divisions were such that the Republican insurgents did not want to be Democrats, and the Democrats did not want them.  While the power of Congressional leadership was severely cut down, the Republican party machinery remained powerful enough that the insurgents were essentially hunted down and driven out of Congress in the next election.  While this cost the Republicans Congress for the next decade, they were back by 1920 or so. On the other hand, as Mayhew observed, the Republicans of 1920s was a very different coalition from that in 1910, run in a far less centralized manner with little care for developing a clear collective reputation, at least at the Congressional level.

I don’t think, if a comparable change is to take place today, the locus will be in Congress:  it is unlikely that enough potential “rebels” for either party would be elected given the nature of elections today.  That such a rebel coalition might form at the popular electoral level, rallying behind an outsider who might take advantage, is and, in a sense, has always been a distinct possibility:  the election of 1912 being the closest real life case, where the same coalition that broke the Republican leaders’ power in the House also rallied behind Theodore Roosevelt’s third party bid.  (I don’t think the other third party runs, from Henry Wallace to Ross Perot, are quite comparable–they did not emerge from the fundamental scleroticization of the party politics as did the Bull Moosers).  In this sense, it is significant that the 2016 rebels, Trump and Sanders, sought to fight it out on the partisan stage, rather than the usual third party route:  they were cognizant of the problems arising from the way both parties operate today, that the similarly centralized organization was leaving great many latent party supporters alienated and frustrated by their exclusivist operations.  This contrasts with the usual third party run where the candidate seeks to draw in the voters who are alienated by the parties, rather than alienated partisans.  This applies more to Trump than Sanders:  Trump drew a rather significant chunk of his support from the voters who claimed to be “Repbulicans,” notwithstanding his claim to be drawing from moderates and Democrats (not that this necessarily makes his claim “untrue,” in the sense that many of these voters were not typical Republicans who actually vote, indicating a high degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo–but most of them did identify themselves as Republicans nevertheless), while roughly half of Sanders’ support came from independents (still, this signifies far larger discontent within the Democratic coalition than what Grossman and Hopkins might acknowledge).  Basically, it’s the Republicans in the electorate (or a large proportion thereof) that don’t like their party.  (although, by the same token, it’s also the other Republicans who don’t care much for Trump.)

The implication of this, of course, is that while the parties might be increasingly dysfunctional, with the “insiders” (whoever that might be–since the insiders will only be just one smallish faction taking over the whole centralized power of the entire party) and the rest growing, the electoral arena, at the present at least, may not be a good venue for the frustrated partisans to let their dissatisfaction known.  The prospects for a party reform of the kind that took place after the revolt against Cannon in 1910, in which a more inclusive coalition might be built instead of an exclusivist one, are dwindling, for the reform, necessarily, will have to be carried out by the insiders themselves.  It will take a coalition of “outsiders” who may not agree among themselves much, but none of which singly has prospect at taking the power all for itself.  They might each accept half a glass, with some form of vetoes for all, rather than a full glass that they control unilaterally.  Such outsiders are hard to find because becoming the insiders has become too easy, even for small factions.  Ironically, nominally powerful though the party leadership might be, it is also disturbingly easy to capture, seeing as that it is backed up only by a tiny faction itself usually–something analogous to a lot of third world dictatorships:  a few dozen mercenaries–or some hoodlums meeting at a beer hall–in the capital are enough to overthrow the government and capture the dictatorial powers.  (This may be yet another difference between the Democrats and Republicans–Democratic leadership tends to rest on a broader, more stable coalition, while Republican leaderships are weak, unstable, and rest on flimsy coalitions.)

The bottom line is that both parties are in similar institutional trouble, arising from analogous factors, although things do seem far worse for the Republicans, if only because they were committed to a narrower but deeper coalition much earlier on.  The paradoxes of party government are crushing them both.  Prospects for reforms to reverse the trend seem difficult.


PS.  Somewhat simpler way of summing up my argument is to invoke what someone (whose argument those who know me in real life would recognize) called “dictator’s paradox.”  Every ruler needs allies to govern, and each ally places constraints on the ability of the ruler to do as he or she pleases.  Thus, in a sense, a dictator with the fewest allies has the greatest freedom of action–and in this sense, is the most powerful.  But, the ability of the ruler to both actually obtain compliance from the subjects and to survive over a long time is also a function of how many allies he or she can call upon.  A ruler with many allies will be able to actually accomplish more and survive for longer, even if he or she will face more constraints in coming up with a program that the allies will find acceptable.  This general idea is applicable to any political system, of course, and allows for multiple equilibria, depending on how much risk the “ruler” is willing to take on, while trading off with respect to the “program.”  For those to whom the risk of losing power, or not having any access to it, is serious, sacrificing the program for more allies is not a great loss.

The Republicans in 1970s were happy to be Demcorats’ subordinates because defeating Democrats in Congressional elections seemed impossible.  The Democrats built an inclusive coalition in mid 20th century because losing either the South or the unions was incompatible with their continued hold on power.  By mid 1980s and certainly by 1990s, things changed:  many Democrats were willing to cast off members of their old coalition both because they were less necessary electorally and many Democrats needed policy accomplishments for their electoral credibility; because of the changes in the Democrats’ internal organization, they became more vulnerable, opening up opportunity for the Republicans to take the whole enchilada, rather than play a subordinate role–or, play a “tax collector for the welfare state,” to quote Newt Gingrich, who, to his credit, recognized the self-inflicted Democratic vulnerability.

The trouble, of course, is that, now that both parties began to exclusivize, can they reform an inclusivist coalition?  Both have incentives:  both are oddly internally contradictory lot, with the affluent and well-educated lot playing a pivotal role (in the political science sense), and the less well-to-do divided along the cultural lines:  many whites on the Republican side and the minorities on the Democratic side.  Let’s be honest:  both rely on cultural appeals that are largely exclusivist in character, while, at the same time, playing the same economic tune, to compete for the affluent.  A large number of voters who don’t care for the “culture wars” but are not affluent are left out of the loop (also largely whites, if only for the fact that more than 2/3 of the US population is made up of whites still).  (I think many of these voters were Sanders voters.)  The trouble, I think, is that, as the political conflict continues on the premise of consensus on the economy (or race for the alleged median) and divisions on the culture, these voters will be forced to make a cultural choice and potentially legitimize the sort of divisive politics that we might want to avoid.  That’s my two cents.

PPS.  What makes the present multicultural coalition of the Democrats and the old Democratic coalition different?  Right now, if the Klansmen and the Civil Rightmen were both in the Democratic coalition somehow, it will always be the Klansmen who will have to make concessions, because their side is “obviously wrong”  by the modern standards of “inclusiveness” (which itself becomes paradoxical.)  The Democratic Party of 1950s would not have seen things that way:  the party will not stand behind the Klansmen if they want to hurt the interests of the Civil Rightsmen beyond the status quo, but they will not allow the Civil Rightsmen to hurt the Klan beyond the status quo either.  So the Jim Crow stays in the South, but it will be protected in the South.  Cynical political ploy, perhaps?  But it allowed the Democrats to keep them both.  If this logic seems wrong, or perhaps even incomprehensible to the modern audience, that will be precisely why the old Democratic-type coalition might be gone for good in today’s politics.

In a sense, of course, this is why states’ rights was so critical in 1850s, then again in 1950s:  it was the device that indicated the commitment of the national political actors to let the constituent factions maintain the status quo.  But in 1850s and earlier, things became worse because of the Southern willingness to bend this commitment to their own advantage–the Mexican-American War, attempts at pro-slavery foreign policy, fugitive slave laws that intruded on Northern states’ rights, and Dred Scott, among others.  These came about because of their belief that slave was property and property was “right.”   (both “a” right and “right,” in a sense.)  Or, in other words, uncritical association of moral righteousness to a political position.

Morality should never be allowed to enter politics if the goal is to maintain a pacted, contractural coalition, if only for complications of this sort.  This, of course, is not easy.  For most people, morality, rather than the contractural fine prints, take precedence:  Corporations are not people, and all that.  Not surprising that successful coalitions are not so easy to maintain and are invariably “corrupt,” at least as people see them.


3 thoughts on “Democrats and Republicans….Different?

  1. Philomena October 31, 2016 / 10:11 pm

    I’ve been surfing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours.
    It iis pfetty worth enough for me. Personally, if all web owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the net will
    be a lot more useful than ever before.|
    I could not refrain from commenting. Very well written!|
    I’ll immediately grab your rss feed as I can not in finding your email subscripgion link or
    newsletter service. Do you have any? Kindly permit me recognize in order that I may subscribe.
    It is appropriate time to make some plans for the future andd it’s time to be happy.

    I’ve read this post and if I could I desire to suggest you
    few interesting things or advice. Maybe you could write next
    articles referring to this article. I desire to read more things about it!|
    It’s perfect time to make some plans forr the longer term and it is time to be happy.
    I’ve learn this submit and if I may just I want too recommend yoou some ascinating
    things or tips. Perhaps yoou could write next articles relating to this article.

    I wiseh to learn more issues approximately it!|
    I’vebeen surfing on-line greater than 3 hours today,but I never found any fascinaating article like yours.
    It’s lovely value enoug for me. Personally, if all site
    owners and bloggers made just right content aas you did, the web will be a lot more useful than ever before.|
    Ahaa, its good conversation on thee topuc off this article here at
    this blog, I have read all that, so now me also
    commenting here.|
    I aam sure thiss piece of wfiting has touched all the internet
    visitors, its really really fastidious artice on building up
    new website.|
    Wow, this piece of writing is nice, my sister is analyzing these kinds of things, so I aam going to inform her.|
    bookmarked!!, I like your website!|
    Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing this post plus the rest of the site is really good.|
    Hi, I do think this is an excellent blog. I stumbledupon it
    😉 I may revisit onnce again since i have bookmarked it.
    Monhey and freedom is the bdst wayy to change, may you be ruch and continue
    to help other people.|
    Woah! I’m really loving the template/theme of
    this site. It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s vvery hard to get tthat “perfect balance” between superb usability and appearance.
    I musst say that you’ve done a great job with this.
    Additionally, the blog loads very fast for me on Safari.
    Exceptional Blog!|
    Tese are genuinely wonderful ideas in regarding blogging.
    You hace touxhed some nice things here. Anyy way keep up wrinting.|
    I love what you guys are up too. This tytpe of clever work and reporting!
    Keep upp the amazing works guys I’ve included you guys too my own blogroll.|
    Hey there! Someone in my Myspace group shared tthis website
    wigh us so I came to look it over. I’m definitely enjoying thhe
    information. I’m bookmarking and wil be tweeting this to my followers!
    Superb blog aand superb design.|
    Everyone loves what you guys tend to be up too. Such clever work and exposure!
    Keep up the superb works guys I’ve included you guys to my peersonal blogroll.|
    Howdy would yyou mind stating whijch blog plqtform you’re working with?
    I’m going to start my own blog in the near future but I’m having a
    hard tme choosing bdtween BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal.
    The reason I ask is because your design and style seems different then most blogs annd I’m looking foor something unique.
    P.S Sorry for getting off-topic but I had to ask!|
    Hey wokuld you mind letting me know which webhost
    you’re working with? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 ompletely
    different internet browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most.

    Can you recommend a good web hosting provider at a hoonest price?
    Thank you, I appreciate it!|
    I really like it whenever people come together and share views.
    Great blog, keep it up!|
    Thank you for the gkod writeup. It in fact was a amusement
    account it. Look advanced to far addedd agreeable from you!

    By the way, how can we communicate?|
    Hi there jusdt wanted tto give you a quick heads up. The text in your content seem to be running
    off thhe screen in Opera. I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or
    something to do with browser compatibility but I thought I’d post to let you know.

    The design and style look great though! Hope you gett the issue solved soon.Cheers|
    This is a topic which is near to my heart… Take care!
    Where are your contact details though?|
    It’s very simple to find out any matter on wweb as compared to
    books, as I found this piece of writing aat this site.|
    Doess your website have a contact page? I’m having a tough time
    locating iit but, I’d like to shoot you an e-mail.
    I’ve got some ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing.
    Either way, great website and I look forward to seeing it grow
    over time.|
    Hola! I’ve been following your blog for a while noow and finally got the courage too go ahead and give you a shout outt from
    Kingwood Tx! Just wanted to mention keep up the fantastic
    Greetings from California! I’m bored to tears at
    work so I decided to check out your site on my iphone during lunch break.
    I really like the knowledge you present here and can’t wait to take a look when I
    get home. I’m amazed at how fast yoir blog loaded on my mobjle ..

    I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, good site!|
    Its like you read my mind! You seem to grasp so much approximately this, such as you wrote
    the guide in it or something. I believe that you simply could ddo with some % to power tthe message house a little
    bit, butt other than that, this is magnificent blog. An excellent read.
    I will definitely be back.|
    I visited many web sites however the audio feature for audio songs currewnt at this
    web site is truly marvelous.|
    Howdy, i read your blog occasionally and i own a
    similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam remarks?
    If so how do you reduce it, any plugin or anything you can advise?
    I get so much lately it’s driving me mad so any support is very much appreciated.|
    Greetings! Very helpful advice in this particular post!
    It’s the lttle changes which will make the most important changes.
    Thanks a llot for sharing!|
    I really love your blog.. Excellent colors & theme. Did you
    build this site yourself? Please reply back as I’m hoping to create myy own personal site and would love to know
    where you got this from or exactly what the theme is called.
    Thanjk you!|
    Hi there! This post could not be written any better!
    Reading through this post reminds me off my previous roommate!

    He constantly kept preaching about this. I most certainly will send this article to him.
    Pretty sure he will hhave a good read. Thanks for sharing!|
    Wow! This blog looks exactly like my old one! It’s on a totally different subject but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Great choice of colors!|
    There is certainly a great deal to find out about this topic.

    I like all the points you made.|
    You’ve made some redally good points there. I looked
    on thhe net to learn more about thee issue and found most people will ggo
    along with your views on his website.|
    What’s up, I check your blogs regularly. Youur writing style is witty, keep
    it up!|
    I just couldn’t leave your web sitte before suggesting that I extremely
    enjoyed the standard information a person provide for your visitors?
    Is going to be bazck incessantly to check up on new posts|
    I want to to thank you forr this good read!! I absolutely loved every little
    bit of it. I’ve got you bookmarked to look at new stuff you post…|
    Hi there, juszt wanted to tell you, I liked this article.It was practical.
    Keep on posting!|
    Hi there, I enjoy reading through your article post.
    I like to write a little comment to support you.|
    I every time spent my half an hour to read this web site’s articles
    or reviews all the time along with a mug of coffee.|
    I for all time emailed this webpage post page to all my contacts, because if like to read it after that my
    contacts will too.|
    My coder is trying to persuad me to move to .net from PHP.
    I have always disliked the idea because off the expenses.
    But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using Movable-type on a
    number of websites for about a year and amm worried about
    switching to anotherr platform. I have heard very good things
    about Is there a way I can transfer all my wordpress posts into it?
    Any kknd of help would be really appreciated!|
    Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve visited your blog before but
    after browsing through some of the posts I realized it’s
    new too me. Nonetheless, I’m definitely happy I stumbled
    pon it and I’ll be book-marking it and checking back frequently!|
    Terrfific article! This is the type of information that are supposed to be shared around
    the web. Disgrace on Google for no longer positioning this publish higher!
    Come on over and seek advice from my web site . Thanks =)|
    Heya i’m for the first time here. I found this bolard and I fid It truly useful &
    it helped me out much. I hope to giuve something back
    and aid others like you aided me.|
    Hello there, I believe your blog could possibly be having weeb browser compatibility problems.
    Whenever I look at your website in Safari, it looks fine however, if opening in I.E.,
    it’s got some overlapping issues. I merely wanted to give you a uick heads up!
    Aside fro that, wonderful website!|
    A person essentially help to make seriously aarticles I might state.
    Thatt is the first time I frequented your web page and
    thus far? I amazed with the analysis you made to make this actual publish extraordinary.
    Great process!|
    Heya i’m for the primary time here. I cake across this board and I to find It truly useful & it helped me out a lot.
    I hope to give something again and help others such as you aided me.|
    Hey there! I simply wish to offer you a huge thumbs up for the excellent info you have got here on thhis post.

    I’ll be returning to your website for more soon.|
    I all the time used to redad piece of writing in nrws papers but now as I am a user of net so from now I
    am using net for articles or reviews, thanks
    to web.|
    Your method of explaining everything in this post is genuinely nice,
    every one be capable of simply know it, Thanks a lot.|
    Hi there, I discovered your site by way of Google even aas searching for a comparable topic, youur websitee got here up, iit
    seems good. I havbe bookmzrked it in myy google bookmarks.

    Hello there, simplly turned into aware oof your weblog thru Google, and found that it is
    trjly informative. I’m gonna be careful for brussels.
    I’ll appreciate should you continue thuis iin future.
    A lot of other folks might be benefited out of your writing.
    I’m curious to fin out what blog platform you have been utilizing?

    I’m having some minor security issues with myy lagest site and
    I’d like tto find something more secure. Do you
    have any suggestions?|
    I’m exteemely impresszed with your writing skills as
    well as with the layout on yoyr blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself?
    Either waay keep up the nice quality writing, it’s raqre to see a great blog
    like this one nowadays.|
    I’mreally impressed togethr with your writing abilities and alwo with the formt on your blog.
    Is this a paid subject or did you customize it your self?
    Either way stay up the excellent high quality writing,
    it’s uncommon to peer a great blog like this oone these days..|
    Hello, Neat post. There’s a roblem with your site in web explorer, could teswt this?

    IE still is the market chief and a large part of other people
    will pass over your magnificent writing due to this problem.|
    I am not sure where you are getting your info, but good
    topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understawnding more.
    Thanks for wonderful information I was looking forr this info for my mission.|
    Hello, i think that i saw you visited my site so i came to “return tthe favor”.I am trying to find things to imporove my website!I supposee its
    ook to use a few of your ide\


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s