« McCain And Obama Battle It Out Over Supreme Court Handgun Decision | Home | Obama To Lose "Height Advantage" At Debates With McCain? »
Vote On FISA Delayed Until July
Looks like the Senate vote on the FISA cave legislation, which was set for as early as today or tomorrow, has been postponed until Senators come back from recess in July:
Objections by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) will push back an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) until after lawmakers return in July, Democratic leaders said Thursday. Feingold is strongly opposed to language that would likely give telephone companies that participated in warrantless surveillance retroactive immunity from lawsuits."It doesn't look like it," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said of taking up the FISA bill this week. "Sen. Feingold wants additional time and would like to postpone it until after the Fourth of July."
It's possible that this could make life a bit tougher for Senators who support the legislation and wanted to put the vote on it behind them. And it's certainly a setback for the measure's champions in the House, such as Rep. Steny Hoyer, who have been eager to get the cave-in bill signed into law already.
Advertisement
from what is coming out of Feingold, it seems delay is all that is left to those that oppose, and hopefully stalling will give enough time to turn some that once were against, back to against.
June 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice. I've spent a good amount of time this morning writing to thank all 15 of the senators who oppose it, and an even larger amount of time writing to my own two Senators who are supporting it. Now if only we can get several others to express dissent, maybe it could sway them.
June 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where can one find a list of the 15 Senators who oppose the bill?
June 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
HuffPo has the rundown (and a link to the official ruling if you want verification).
June 26, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get in your Dem senators' faces over the break. (Luckily mine is Sherrod Brown and I don't have to.)
June 26, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I grew up in Ohio but I've been a Nevada resident for over a year now. I wrote Brown and told him he makes me proud to be a native Ohioan :).
June 26, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been trying and I guess I will keep trying, but I have to tell you that Sen McCaskill seems only slightly less gung-ho to get this "compromise" passed than Sen Kit Bond. Have I mentioned that I never liked Sen McCaskill and plan to vote for anyone willing to offer her a primary challenge next go around?
June 26, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Delay is an appropriate tactic for a bill you don't like. The closer you get to the election on this, the more likely representatives will stick with the status quo.
Plus, more time to work over Obama and Friends.
Personally, I think this thing has the earmarks of a political conspiracy on the part of both Democratic caucuses, which ain't necessarily a bad thing. House blocked it in February, now it's time for the Senate to pony up and stop the Bill. This way, both houses can share the blame (of blocking FISA) and the benefit (of stopping FISA). I note Sen. Rockefeller has been very quiet on the issue as of late.
This fight is not over. And, as a decent post in Kos reminded us all, the fundamental core fo FISA and the Patriot Act are the critical issues, not necessarily telecome immunity.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/26/62819/0991/926/542170
If I wer an unstart Senator and ConLaw Professor, I would insert an amendment re-establishing the inability of FISA-warrants to be used as evidence against a suspect.
June 26, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on!
June 26, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it would be a thing of sheer, Machiavellian beauty.
June 26, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Feingold would run for president at some point. He seems a man of principle.
June 26, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are others who feel similarly!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/its-2016-whats-the-plan.php#comments
June 26, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Wisconsin boy is with you 100%
June 26, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
As is this Missouri lad.
June 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm anything but an expert on the rules of the Senate, but couldn't someone (Feingold?) put an anonymous hold on the bill?
June 26, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
there are no rules in the Senate for putting a "hold" on a bill. What an anonymous hold is, is an anonymous senator signaling to leadership that they will filibuster a bill. So a hold only works on bills that aren't filibuster proof.
June 26, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that the Hold is an informal rule of the Senate. There does not seem to be any time limit on them, other than the end of the Congressional Session.
Sens Feingold and Dodd could both play the moles in Whack-A-Hold.
Of course, the Majority Leader could ignore them, but such is not done in the Senate.
June 26, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Harry Reid ignore a hold put on by a Democrat?
June 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, yes he did, and in a deliciously ironic twist of fate, it was the same FISA issue. From TPM Muckraker:
October 18, 2007.
Remember, everyone: you don't go into a fight with the elected officials you'd like, you go into the fight with the elected officials you have.
June 26, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh, nice chat w/yourself! Very interesting. One wonders what Dodd got for that. Nothing is ever free in the Senate.
June 26, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm talking to myself. No one likes my position on this issue, so I have no one to talk to.
: )
June 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got your back. We CT folks gotta stick together...and dodge the crap being hurled at us for being on Obama's "Corporate Whore" Squad.
June 26, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maria Cantwell is one of the Stalwart 15, but Patty Murray has been silent as a mouse on this. She needs to hear from folks in WA state.
Good for Feingold, Dodd, and others. This little window gives progressives a chance to make some serious noise over FISA and telecom immunity. Time to throw some elbows.
Along with increasing the MSM's interest, the point will be to raise the stakes to where our Democratic senators (and maybe two or three Republicans) feel genuine political risk in doing the telecoms' bidding.
June 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!!!FOR AMERICA!!!!
June 26, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That reminds me, whatever happened to idiotic ?
June 26, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well maybe it'll give MoveOn.org and the ACLU a chance to find another candidate, quickly start a third Party, and get a write in person seeing as how we (Unbar-lefty liberals and those Ron Paul strict constructions types, the fleeing ex-Republican party peoples) don't have a candidate in this Whitehouse race any more.
Obama may not take any pac-money but that certainly doesn't stop Obama from let the pac-lobbyiest speak for him. Jeebus.
June 26, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's probably the stupidest thing that could happen this year.
Talk about cutting your nose to spite your face.
If you're looking for purity, you are not going to find it in a Presidential election except with candidates who haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
June 26, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
...not necessarily telecom immunity.
Yeah, you know what a frivolous lawsuit that is, at least according to ATT and Verizon. These are words that only a lobbyist would expect people to believe in and to help to arm Obama to his eye-teeth with GOP beloved talking points. Not only did Politicans get money from these lobbyiest - they get free PowerPoint and talented, doctored spin messages and presentations, it's great, as politican - you don't even have think up excuses.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a friviolous lawsuit too, really, don't believe it - just ask ExxonMobil.
June 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good news this. The first step is to delay it until July. Then the next step is to delay it until August. Then to delay it until Sept. Next thing you know, it will be Dec 2008 and we will be in a much stronger bargaining position. Stalling for time in increments is all we need. I tip my hat (as usual) to Sen Feingold.
June 26, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Delay it until September and it will become a political hand grenade, unless the Dems do a better job of framing the issue.
Given their behavior since regaining the majority, I have no hope that this will happen.
June 26, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that I just do not share your worries here. I think that stalling this out is our best strategy.
June 26, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
exactly. i never understood the rush. bush is a lame duck and nobody cares what he thinks. why give him something like this when he's on his way out the door, when if you jsut wait till after november or january you can basically get everything you want in and/or out of the bill.
June 26, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
To both of you: I will be deeply delighted if the bill is delayed until next year, and a better version takes its place, AND there are no negative political repercussions because of the delay.
Profoundly delighted.
You can spend the next year prefacing every remark "CT Voter, I told you so!"
But.
It doesn't matter to the press or the Republicans that Bush is a lameduck. What matters is that terrorism is the only card left to play, and delaying this piece of crap legislation known as FISA will be like Christmas in July for the Republicans. They're stumbling now, as is McCain. Why on earth give ammunition?
June 26, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question now becomes, how can we make the most efficient use of the time between now and July to put pressure on Obama-- and Feinstein and Reid and whatever other members of the Senate need pressure placed on them-- over this bill?
Delay is good but I worry about the long-term effects of this being an open question, what with Obama's stance on this subject no longer being the solid, credible stand it once was. I feel like any netroots-connected Obama advocacy is going to be basically paralyzed until this is resolved.
June 26, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could understand the immunity provision if all of the telecoms had gone along with the Bush administration. But Qwest didn't. They just said no. And they claim they were punished for asking the DOJ to take the request to the FISA court. So how do we make Qwest whole for doing the right thing and immunize the lawbreakers at the same time? I don't think we can. What kind of message are we sending to Qwest and other corporations who abide by the law by immunizing the lawbreakers?
June 26, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
not to mention the willingness of the telecoms to cut the line when the bill goes unpaid.
http://in.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idINEIC07119120080110
"Late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence, including an instance where delivery of intercept information required by a ... FISA order was halted due to untimely payment," the audit said.
June 26, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds alot like the Bear Stearns bailout, and the proposed Mortgage Industry bailouts....It seems we don't want to hold Corporations accountable anymore. Probably because Corporations own our elected officials and our hence, our government.
I personally was never under the illusion that Obama was fundamentally different from the rest of
June 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got cut off...
What I was saying was I never believed the hype that Obama was some kind of transcendent figure who would clean up Washington and bring America single handedly back to glory. What I do believe is that Obama wants to bring Americans back into the process. His campaign has registered 10 million new voters and has many people feeling less cynical about the possibilities of government action helping them in their daily lives. That is a good thing, and Obama may have just stirred up some of them by practicing just the type of "politics as usual" he abhors.
June 26, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yesterday's SCOTUS decision on Exxon Valdez damages ...
Maybe if we all incorporated ourselves we'd get a better deal from all three branches ...
Sincerely,
Aubie84, Inc.
June 26, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good point, this.
June 26, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold surely has his faults but no balls isn't one of them.
What I find fascinating is that his tenacity and courage, just like the implacable nature of the Republican position, demonstrates the cowardly nature of most of his Democratic colleagues once again, at minimum it demonstrates how chicken Reid is. There must be a tidal wave of e-mails and phone calls coming in to them on this issue. Good! It is simply appalling what fraidy cats the DC Dems really are. They do whatever it is that the person or group that scared them most recently demands! So the moral then, is make sure you get the last word in, look and sound tough and chances are they will cave in to your demands. Pathetic really.
June 26, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's probably the stupidest thing - really, I prefer to call it a Bargaining chip.
Nothing stupid about it all.
I don't for one minute believe this hupla that Obama is moving right, or center.
The FISA bill is not a right or center bill, is simply the enbarking upon the criminality of the Bush Administration mechanism, that should not be confused with conservative behavior unless conservative behavior be identified with criminal behavior - and it is not.
The many people that have left the Republican Party did so because unbid contracts are NOT consistent with conservative behavior, that changing US Constitution via wiretapping or torture is not strict Constructionism of US Constitution.
Obama's embrace of the FISA Bill is not conserative behavior - it is criminal behavior, the very same criminal behavor that even staunch conservatives cannot stomach in the Bush administration.
June 26, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"criminal behavior"?
Now Obama = Bush?
Yikes!
June 26, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree.
The very notion "immunity is trumped by national security" simply extends the permission slip into the next administration.
Politicians crave power, and it's clear Obama does not intend to give it up. Indeed, he is presently engaged in consolidating that power, as he must at this stage. As it fills him up, none can predict how it will affect him. I mean, really. Power corrupts. Period.
Because "immunity is trumped by national security" can easily be restated as "the rule of law is trumped by the wars I wish to wage."
Since we've declared war on pretty much everything (we declared war on Autism last summer), we're talking about a Great Body of Law that is set aside to fight enemies we have not only manufactured, but a select few are permitted to profit obscenely from it.
Sen Obama is flat out wrong on this one.
June 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase TenaHusseinX:
Oh for the love of God.
That is simply over-the-top nonsense.
June 26, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree here. I do not like the position that Obama is taking here, but it is possible to exaggerate it and Me_Again seems rather intensely inclined to do so.
June 26, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid has played a duplicitous role in this ongoing story. The latest news is that he has reservations about the new bill...sounds good to his base I suppose, but.....
His original choice of choosing the Intelligence Committee version of the bill over the Judiciary Committee's version telegraphed his intentions.
Obama joined with 13 other senators to urge that Reid use the Judiciary Committee's bill which had far stronger court oversight provisions.
Open secret: the Dem congressional leadership wants this bill to go through along with the immunity.
We can only speculate why...
June 26, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is related to the decision to remove Impeachment "from the table."
For both parties were cuplable in enabling the criminal enterprise posing as a presidency, and none are sure at all they could escape mortal danger from any pesky Discovery...
It's cover the crack in your ass. Why Obama enables it baffles me. He has no dog in this fight other than the rule of law.
June 26, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've been pushing the bill for at least a year and we keep backing them off but yes they obviously are not being forthcoming about their real reasons for backing the bill and it's become a trust issue and I think that plays into why it's this bill that the base is howling about. It's pretty obvious that "intelligence" is often used as an excuse to get around representative government. The worst of this is when they tell us they knew Bush was lying us into war but they couldn't tell us we were sending kids to die for a lie because it was classified. These laws aren't being written to protect us from enemies as much as they are to protect the government from us.
June 26, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now Obama = Bush?
Unfortunate - exactly and it is only morbidly blind partisanhip and attachment to labels that has many posters failing to separate conservative behavior from DEVIANT behavior.
Obama's embrace of this FISA Bill is not conservative precisely because conservatives do not usually like government control or Big Bother looking over their shoulders so would have no reason to embace wiretapping, and in this Rove and Bush tried to rewrite the book on conservative or call it neo-conservative think.
It goes back to what I said before, Bush and Cheney are not conservatives - they are criminals. In fact it is more correct to say Bush and Cheney are liberals, because those two liberally spend money like no liberal in office ever did, they liberally lied to American and felt completely free to do so, and they liberally changed laws and felt completely free to do so.
You get passed the partisan nature of believing in labels instead in policy - start to take the blinders off - and take a look at what you got here - and all it is, is corporate control.
June 26, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% spot-on.
It must be viewed for the criminal enterprise it is. We cannot make exceptions based on partisan need. My god have we strayed that this is no longer implicit. GOP/Dem/Liberal/Neo-/Conservative labels are meaningless in this context.
This is key moment for the young Sen from IL. Absolutely fundamental. We must expect more of a Harvard educated constitutional lawyer.
June 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% over-the-top bullshit.
June 26, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet you do not explain why. Well, the good news is your blinders appear to be firmly in place, so get back in there and give 'em (manufactured) hell!
(slap ass in a professional, NFL sort of fashion)
June 26, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama = Bush is over-the-top bullshit.
Bush and Cheney are criminals.
Agreed!
But the FISA "compromise" bill says nothing about criminal immunity, only civil immunity of telecoms.
Prosecute the criminals once we control the White House, because today's DOJ won't lift a finger on that, not until a Dem gets in.
June 26, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we understand the difference between being a conservative Republican and being a crook, there just doesn't seem to be much daylight between the two camps lately.
But seriously, FISA was a mistake when it was passed. The legislation under consideration does nothing to end the secret court and their rubber stamping of 99.99% the requests they review.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/26/62819/0991/926/542170
I'm not saying its a good bill, but still, we shouldn't make this the crucible of Obama's candidacy.
June 26, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has become the line in the sand issue. There are many ways the Democrats could have taken on the Bush administration on abuse of power and they caved on everything from the Patriot Act to impeachment. So the wrath may appear excessive but it's become a test. If Obama can bow at the altar of AIPAC he ought to expect there to be some price to pay for the support he has received from the left. He could not have been nominated without us and in fact he is not even nominated yet.
June 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "line in the sand issue"? And if he doesn't change his position, which, I predict he won't*, thanks to the outcry generated over it, you'll do what?
Vote for McCain?
*If he changes his position now, he'll be painted as under the control of wild crazy liberals.
June 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
he's all ready accused of that. but the only people who believe that are listening to Rush, and they wouldn't vote for Obama, either way.
June 26, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm, I don't recall the McCain campaign saying that an Obama position is due to the influence of the radical left wing of the Democratic Party, but I could be wrong. I know the National Journal ranking issue (and how did Obama wind up more "liberal" than Feingold, anyway?)
I think that the claim would influence people who don't listen to Rush, as well.
And again, I'm still waiting for an answer. If this is a line-in-the-sand issue, and he doesn't change his position (and I'd be very surprised if he did), what's going to be the response? bluebell?
June 26, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, I don't think the McCain campaign has said that. I was referencing the "Most Liberal Senator" meme that the National Journal started, adn has been repeated, as pundits and MSM decry the netroots and moveon.org's support for Obama.
If nothing else, this cuts that stuff short.
June 26, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you just can't rely on us wild crazy liberals we might do something outrageous and vote 3rd party. Good thing you don't need our votes.
June 26, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the hard left actually made Obama possible or were even big supporters. They were more interested in sure losers like Kucinich and only came to Obama as a lesser of two evils.
Obamaites, in my experience, tend to be open-minded, diverse, non-ideological, and more interested in new thinking. Also a lot of people new to politics.
Some of the hard left is more interested in quixotic ideological battles that they fight with absolute certainty.
June 26, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're a generalizing tool. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself.
June 26, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why be nasty?
June 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nasty = Failed argument.
Speaking of nasty, dare I mention the troll vacancy, or have I gone and summoned them?
(haphazardly erase pentagram)
June 26, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can be nasty and win an argument. I can also chew gum and walk. The two are not mutually exclusive.
June 26, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you prefer a medal or a monument?
June 26, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer forty-seven miles of barbed wire, a cobra snake for a necktie and a brand new house on the road side made out of rattlesnake hide.
so if you could get on that, that'd be great.
June 26, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFL
June 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
we can agree on Diddley, there is hope for us!
June 26, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you care for a chimney made of human skulls?
June 26, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I can afford the Deluxe model.
June 26, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find the comment above mine nasty, and weird.
Oh, a true obamaite would have less stripes, and a horn behind each ear. When the concern becomes, oh, if you disagree, then you are not a True supporter, whihc goes on alot here lately, it riles me up.
June 26, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to put the "nasty" comment in between both of yours, and really, I should have just stayed quiet.
People can say what they want. But you're getting riled up about the insults, and I can understand that, because I'm getting pretty tired of the broad generalizations being slapped around about Obama, and, people who aren't outraged over his FISA stance.
We differ. We can still do so respectfully, without resorting to calling people tools, or ideologues, or whatever.
June 26, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You rock. I agree.
June 26, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right back atcha.
June 26, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am merely being factual. The Left is not a monolith. And many of the poeple who are excoriating Obama were in fact not big supporters, but half-hearted ones who still pine for Kucinich or Edwards.
I get annoyed by people like bluebell who pretend that they made Obama and now can tear him down, when actually they were never on board.
June 26, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of us are not "Obamaites" - that's a cult of personality. He has a coalition, if he can keep it.
June 26, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good.
I suck at the cult of personality thing.
June 26, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"cult of personality thing"
You sound like Rush Limbaugh.
June 27, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
that's the voice in your own head as you read.
June 27, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for clarifying. You were never an Obama supporter.
June 26, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree to the extent it is much more important the direction he goes as President. Will he set aside the dreadful powers given to the current criminal enterprise?
Of course, we will have to wait until after Jan 2009 to find that out, and "national security trumps immunity" without explanating the threats and without explaning what behavior is being excused, is weak, especially from a Hardvard-educated constitutional lawyer.
No lawyer would accept an immunity deal without knowing what they were getting. So, we must suspect other motives. The acquisition of power remains the Occam's Razor here.
June 26, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he's not in court making an argument to a judge, he's on stage, making an argument to the American people that he is a better choice for President. Big difference.
June 26, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with the Senate as someone else said, is that they all like each other too much there.
No such problem in the House.
June 26, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
June 26, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I forgot to check the "In reply to ..." box. The thanks are to JoshH for the HuffPo link.
June 26, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I called both Durbin and Feingold to thank them for the NO vote and to ask them both to put a hold on this bill.
If the Goopers can put anonymous holds on bills, this is one we NEED to put a hold on.
Call your Senators and ask them to put a hold on this bill. Someone has to do it!
Just click on your state for phone, fax and email addresses for all of your reps:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
June 26, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read that the Dem representatives that caved on FISA received an average of $8300 from the telecoms.
Here's a thought: why don't we just put in a higher bid? If, say, 8500 of us each contribute $100 each, we can BUY THOSE VOTES BACK! C'mon, folks, $100 each--cheap at the price, really.
June 26, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink