Now that the endless recount battle between Al Franken and Norm Coleman for Minnesota's senate seat is over, Coleman is a private citizen. He's also, of course, eligible to run for governor next year. Might he?
Minnesota-based blogger Joe Bodell reports results from a new Public Policy Polling survey of Minnesotans that shows Coleman competitive against potential Democratic-Farmer-Labor gubernatorial nominees. He's trailing but within the margin of error in potential matchups against Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak and former senator Mark Dayton, and leading beyond the margin of error against House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher. But, given Coleman's name recognition, Bodell thinks the results ought to discourage Coleman from running.
Via email, Bodell told me: "This poll contains some really bad news for Norm Coleman. Universal name-recognition can be a blessing, but when a legal process gets stretched out as tortuously as the recount and court challenge did, Minnesotans start getting tired of the players really quickly -- especially those seen to be obstructing the People's business. Could Coleman overcome the bad taste left by his obstruction of Sen. Franken's seating? Probably. Eighteen months is a lifetime in politics. But losing to two of the three leading DFL candidates, including one who isn't yet tremendously well-known in Greater Minnesota, is a really bad sign for his chances at a political resurrection."
Indeed, according to PPP, 52 percent view Coleman negatively, just 38 percent positively. Moreover, 54 percent say the way Coleman handled the recount against Franken makes them less likely to vote for him in the future, more than twice the 26 percent who say it makes them more likely to do so.
For the record, although Minnesota has no constitutional term-limit provision for governor, Republican Tim Pawlenty has already announced he will not seek a third term. Coleman is out of work now, and he's not exactly an unknown in the state. Though he has to deal with those negatives, he might be Minnesota Republicans' best chance--if, that is, he's willing to risk the possibility of another close, or even not-so-close, but painful defeat.
7.09.2009
Coleman for Governor?
@ 1:07 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments
Coleman already ran for Governor once and lost to Jesse Ventura about a decade ago. It's gotta be a pretty humbling experience being the only man to ever lose an election to a professional wrestler and a professional comedian.
He's a Republican so Norm's future is probably as a LOBBYIST.
He can make PILES of money as a lobbyist and the duties aren't that tough ("would you like some more crab-cakes Senator?").
Why would he want to run the State-house in the midst of a long-term economic crisis? That's going to be a thankless job that will probably ruin the reputation of any politician who gets it.
How many people in CA love Arnold now that the state's in crisis? And Pawlenty's future isn't looking all that bright either.
Norm would be better off just calling it a day, getting a lobbyist gig or going on TV as an "un-biased" commentator for Fox News.
There’s also the factor of “shame recognition”, which I think Coleman would have a hard time overcoming. In the post-election throes of the Senate race with Al Franken Coleman behaved like an unprincipled baby.
Should Coleman run for Governor? OF COURSE he should!
1. Who else is the GOP going to run? Not a very deep bench.
2. He has shown us that he is unparalled in his ability to spend other people's money in losing efforts.
3. His opponent might die near election day.
Coleman 2010!
wv: herogu: What a sub sandwich turns into after three weeks in the frig.
Did anyone ever do a poll after the election and during the recont and court cases to see if the people wanted Franken or Coleman at that point?
I seem to recall that in the post-election polling the people preferred Coleman.
He might have a shot at Gov. I think the next few years should be very bountiful for the GOP as Obama wears out his welcome and discredits the Democratic Party for decades.
petekent01 (on twitter)
True, this is a poor showing considering his name recognition (and not altogether unexpected, if the situation was flipped, I imagine Franken would poll similarly). That said, I find it interesting that Dayton only barely beats him. I don't know all that much about Dayton other than his vote against the Iraq war resolution, and his retirement after one term, which paved the way for Klobuchar's election in 2006.
Can anybody give me any hints as to why Dayton would be polling so close to someone with current high negatives?
@Radical_Center: Excellent analysis.
But if Coleman doesn't run, can we have Michele Bachmann? I want to see a true batshit crazy person running, not just a sleazebag.
Jeffrey said...
It's gotta be a pretty humbling experience being the only man to ever lose an election to a professional wrestler and a professional comedian.
HAHAHA!
Governor Coleman has a nice ring to it. Not that I support it; I just think that name has a lot to do with getting elected. IMO Obama sounds better than McCain (possibly even more American), Bush better than Dukakis(-Bentsen). That ticket was doomed from day one.
One slight caveat to those polls. I would guess that Coleman's personal popularity is relatively low at the moment. (Although I guess his name recognition is probably up!) And it could be that its a good time to run against a non incumbent Democrat next year, even in a relatively blue state.
Schaller, You have somewhat redeemed yourself from your last godawful post about Franken.
Keep it up, and you may get back onto the grownup commentator list. Way to analyze actual polling data and talk to actual people.
BTW, Nate is still in it at the WSOP, with 68000 chips (about 130th out of the 1500 or so left). He is, however, behind Lou Diamond Phillips, the only other name I recognize on the list.
Semper Fi,
Terry
Radical Center--
Depends on what you mean by "deep bench." At last count, the number of Republicans contemplating a gubernatorial run was in the high teens (list here: http://www.politicsinminnesota.com/2010-mn-governor-race).
If it's only heavy-hitters you're referring to as a "deep bench," they've got one or two. If they can convince themselves to get behind a moderate like Jim Ramstad, they've got a strong, well-known, very-well liked candidate without Coleman's considerable downsides. Sviggum and Seifert are decent candidates from the conservative end of the spectrum. There's some room for Coleman, but he'll have to fight.
Geoff--
Dayton found out he didn't really like the being Senator, and said so publicly. His best-known act as Senator was to close down his office after the anthrax scare, to protect his staffers. He was the only congressperson to do so, and it came off in the media as flaky behavior.
He's been mostly out of the public eye since he left office, and even with a name like "Dayton," the name recognition does dim.
Geoff: Dayton was just seen as a non-entity. (IIRC, Newsweek named him one of the 5 least-effective members of the senate.) He announced he wouldn't run again in 2006 because -- despite the overall Democratic wave -- his polling was so bad that it looked extremely unlikely he would be re-elected.
@Radical_Center: What makes you think there's not a deep bench? The MN primary is crowded on both sides. Ramstad is the most electable Republican by leaps and bounds, although I can't say if he'll win the primary, but it seems to me the hardline Republican vote will not go to Coleman. They've already convinced themselves he was a RINO (mainly based on his bailout vote) and that's why he lost to Franken. So if he does run, I think he will have a weak support base that will be split with the other candidates.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see him run, just so the current governor of Minneapolis could crush the former governor of St. Paul (I'm a MPLS girl through and through and yeah, I'm hoping Rybak wins the primaries) but I just don't see it happening. If it does, let's just hope you're wrong about his opponent dying, because I don't want to dig out Walter Mondale again :P
I can't be the only one to see the headline (on an RSS feed) and think that Mr. Gary Coleman was running for Governor?
Ryan…
I thought that too. Gary Coleman might have a better chance, but I don’t know if he’s a Republican. Kinda doubt it.
Coleman always looks better in pre-election polling than he does in an actual election. Remember, Coleman has never won statewide office by a majority - only by a plurality. There are enough people who think that other people will vote for Coleman to make him seem stronger than he really is as a candidate.
It has always intrigued me how little support Coleman has on his own here. Very few people believe in him. Rather, he is a candidate that Republicans seem to be willing to "settle for" in order to defeat whomever the DFL runs.
MN Republicans know that his positions shift with the slightest changes in the political winds, that his statements and promises are completely unreliable, and that he sucks up disproportionate amounts of campaign money that could be better spent elsewhere. However, they also know that he can be controlled and swayed by false promises and idle threats on their part.
What he has going against him, in terms of the MN Republican Party anyway, is a disillusionment with "losers" that took hold after Boschwitz's two trouncings by Wellstone.
Both Democrats and Republicans here in MN seem to be lining up behind the people they consider to be the most electable, rather than who is the more accurate reflection of their ideologies. The exception, as schmiss points out, is Ramstad; he is marked as a 'traitor'.
Geoff wrote:
"Can anybody give me any hints as to why Dayton would be polling so close to someone with current high negatives?"
My best guess is that Dayton suffers from "Perennial Candidate Syndrome". Also, his is not a particularly compelling personality and he has made enemies over the years in his multiple campaign primary fights.
hey nate, speaking of governors, we political nerds in new jersey are very interested in your insight. Do you think there's a chance that corzine will win?
Does anyone know How Nate did yesterday @ the WSOP?????Anyone know if he made it to day 3 on Friday?
@Ryan
Watchoo Talkin' bout?
WSOP…
Today is apparently a day off for all players. Tomorrow is Day 3, followed by 4-8 through July 15, then, mysteriously, the “Final Table” which is scheduled for sometime over November 1-10. That last part I don’t understand…
I think polling showed that as the MN senate race played out in its various permutations people were getting more and more sick of Norm Coleman, who was seen as unnecessarily dragging his feet long after there was any ghost of a chance of him winning. I don’t recall seeing any polls that specifically reran the race though.
Here is the WSOP schedule. You have to scroll down quite a way to get to today.
Pragmatus wrote:
"I don’t recall seeing any polls that specifically reran the race though."
I recall hearing about metro-area polling showing about 10% more preference for Barkley (third-party candidate), with proportionate decreases for both Franken and Coleman. This was on the local PBS station, so I have no links to provide - just my recollection.
The idea that Coleman's bad image will fade by 2010 is not credible to me. This was a huge story in MN, and all three Parties used it to support their agendas. Non-voters may forget by November 2010, but that isn't particularly relevant to the discussion.
Barkley's "a plague on both their houses" message has had a big boost from this. Unfortunately, the Independence Party's positions on issues gives the word "vague" fresh, new connotations. Barkley's brief tenure in the Senate has allowed to place the words "Former U.S. Senator" before his name, but he did nothing and stood for nothing during his "term".
Whatever. Last time a Gov race was discussed on this site, all the libs were hot and bothered about the Dems taking VA. Now the GOP is killing them in recent polling there, as they are in NJ. Coleman's effort would certainly be helped by the 11% unemployment Warren Buffet is predicting.
Whatever. Last time a Gov race was discussed on this site, all the libs were hot and bothered about the Dems taking VA. Now the GOP is killing them in recent polling there, as they are in NJ. Coleman's effort would certainly be helped by the 11% unemployment Warren Buffet is predicting.
The economy could work in either Party's favour.
In times of economic uncertainty, more people see the need for a "safety net" and see doing "something" as better than doing nothing. Likewise, companies running at a loss are not primarily concerned about taxes.
The social Darwinism of the Republican party could be a bigger liability than Obama's putative "failure".
Is there any comparison of Coleman's projected performance as compared to a generic republican's performance against the same opponents?
From Pragmatus: "I don’t recall seeing any polls that specifically reran the race though."
I vaguely remembered one, and did some digging through old rss feeds. There was a January 09 Research 2000 DailyKos poll here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/10/133747/921/913/682505.
It asked "if you could vote again for U.S. Senate" who would you vote for.
Franken got 43%, Coleman 40%, Barkley 15% and 2% undecided.
This article: http://minnesotaindependent.com/22591/surveyusa-kstp-poll-finds-voters-more-fond-of-recount-challenge links to it, and to a Dec. 08 Survey USA poll that I can't find elsewhere.
Katharriet…
Thanks!
The economy could work in either Party's favour.
I disagree, the economy tanked on the GOP's watch and tanked because of their deregulation.
No one with an ounce of brains trusts them on the economy anymore, and likely never will.
Given that the GOP have offered exactly zero credible ideas since the election have only hurt them worse. Rehashing deregulation and tax cuts so the wealthy will not get it down. It is like throwing more jet fuel on a plane whose engine caught fire.
Yes, if the economy worsens over the next 2 years it will hurt the dems, but that doesn't necessarily mean the hapless GOP will gain anything. Especially since to be allowed under the GOP tent you must follow their principles 100%, many of those turn off rational voters.
Random Person: "I like the GOP's stance on the economy, but I think gays should have equal rights and torture is immoral"
GOP: "Go away traitor"
Random Person: "OK, I won't vote for anyone in your party"
That strategy backfired in 2006 and 2008, and won't work in 2010 and beyond.
Sorry, wrong MNIndependent link in the post above. Here's the right one:
http://minnesotaindependent.com/22752/another-post-recount-poll-47-percent-want-franken-in-senate-coleman-out-of-court
Looming Deficit—How Much Does It Matter?
The enormity of the deficit has been seized upon by the GOP as the only issue they hope will bear fruit for them in the 2010 elections. But is it really so awful and unparalleled, as is being claimed throughout the MSM and wingnutosphere? Even someone as supposedly well-informed as Roger Altman declared yesterday on Charlie Rose that the current deficits, in terms of percentage of the economy, are unprecedented.
Too bad Altman didn’t bother to read up on the subject before opening his mouth. Unprecedented my ass. The graph at the bottom is the instructive one, which shows the public debt (red line) to have been exceeded plenty of times before the current situation, starting during WWII and well into the late 1950s, then again under Reagan.
But of course the GOP never lets facts get in the way of a good rant, especially one that finds resonance within the MSM.
Its kind of ironic if you think about it. Norm Coleman was able to beat a former presidential nominee but could not manage to beat a WWF wrestler or an SNL comedian, nether of which had held any elected office prior to defeating him.
beavis wrote:
"Yes, if the economy worsens over the next 2 years it will hurt the dems, but that doesn't necessarily mean the hapless GOP will gain anything."
You don't have to be a member in good standing of the GOP to vote for a Republican candidate in a GE. The Party itself repels people, and it has a horrible habit of ignoring everyone who is outside of it, but I concede that there will be Independents disappointed that miracles didn't happen virtually overnight.
But allow me to clarify what I meant.
The point is that economic downturns during Republican Administrations have more of an adverse effect on the Party's chances than would be the case in a Democratic Administration, because the Republican "solutions" always involve more pain for those suffering the most.
In general, Republican candidates in mid-terms tend to stand or fall as one, depending on how the "brand" is perceived at that moment. We saw in 2006 and 2008 that Republican candidates' attempts to distance themselves from their Administration is not credible to the voting public. For better or for worse, the voters strongly tend to see the Republicans as a bloc.
As more and more voters see family, friends, or themselves fall back on the "safety net", the Right's cries of "socialism" and "welfare state" exhibit diminishing returns.
So, for the wingnuts, this is a case of "be careful what you wish for" when predicting and praying for economic gloom and doom.
And for those who insist on invoking the example of Reagan/Carter, I would note that the ideas of "deregulation" and tax cuts were new and unproven then. Those ideas have now been thoroughly tested and shown to be a sham. The "base" still believes in those ideas, but that's it.
Something that is still looming in Coleman's future is the FBI investigation into his ties to businessman Nasser Kazeminy, and the possible funneling of money to pay for renovations to his house. The investigation has been somewhat quiet, but it IS bubbling under the surface.
The only way I see this NOT hurting Coleman is a quick end, and a very clear, definitive conclusion that the charges were motivated by and for some outside reason, something I don't see happening.
From what I understand about Kazeminy, a lot of people are very suspicious of him, and even an 'all-clear' report from the FBI wouldn't exactly clear Coleman's dealings with Kazeminy in many people's mind.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I echo the first post by Jeffrey and the last one by e3323 about Coleman's losing to the former wrestler and the former SNL writer. It should be noted that Ventura did hold an elective office prior to becoming governor. He was the mayor of Brooklyn Park for 4 years in the early 1990s.
Coleman's loss marks the defeat of the second of what I have described as recent "accidental" senators. That is, the senators who can attribute their election in great part to those from the opposing party who died in tragic plane crashes. Coleman would have lost to Paul Wellstone in 2002 had Wellstone not died 11 days before the election. And Missouri's Jim Talent won in 2002 in great part due to Mel Carnahan's death in a 2000 plane crash. Mel was replaced by his wife Jean via interim appointment but had to run for the rest of her husband's term in 2002. Had Mel survived, the special election would not have occurred and Carnahan's seat would not have been up for another election until 2006 (when Talent lost to McCaskill).
Mike in Maryland,
That scandal investigation is very interesting. I'm sure you're following the efforts to drain the Murtha cesspool closely. No?
And Todd,
Keep trying to clarify what you meant. Tax cuts were not a "new idea" in 1980. They had been successfully tried by, among others, JFK. I guess he didn't get he memo that tax cuts didn't work. And as for deregulation, two of its champions in the 1970s were Ted Kennedy and even Carter (who executed the biggest deregulation of them all - the airline industry). The rest of your post was even worse nonsense. Particularly this idea that the GOP is somehow "rooting" for failure. No. They are convinced that Obama's policies are courting failure. That is why they espouse other policies. Likewise, the Dems didn't root for failure in Iraq, they expected it. What about this don't you understand.
And as for economic failure, we don't need to root for it - its happening. You can smell the panic from the White House economic brain trust (so-called). I see two possibilities. A killer double dip recession, with high unemployment. Or, a recovery, but accompanied by inflation. Both are political killers.
Jeffy?
Jeffy?
Over here, Jeffy.
What connection does the investigation of Pennsylvania's Congressman Murtha have with Coleman's possible gubernatorial run in Minnesota, and how that investigation might be a factor in Coleman's possible campaign in Minnesota?
Last I heard, Representative Murtha had no interest in running for governor (of Pennsylvania OR Minnesota), even if he is legally qualified to serve as governor of either state.
Besides, I believe Congressman Murtha might consider that such a campaign would be a step down the political ladder, with no upside after taking that step down. Usually when a Congressman or Senator steps down from their seat on Capital Hill to run for Governor of THEIR HOME STATE, it's to 'enhance' their 'executive leadership credentials' to enhance their resume for a future run for President (see Pete Wilson, Senator-CA; Mark Sanford, Congressman-SC). Sometimes it works (although I can't cite any where it did), usually it doesn't (see Pete Wilson, Senator-CA; Mark Sanford, Congressman-SC).
Now why don't you try to keep your comments directed at least somewhat towards the topic at hand (Coleman for Governor?), or just run along?
Of course, we can always expect a TROLL to try to hijack a thread, and divert it into one of their 'talking points' when the discussion starts to hit close to home, ESPECIALLY when GOOPer hypocrisy is, or is going to be, further exposed or discussed.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Jeff wrote:
"And Todd,
Keep trying to clarify what you meant. Tax cuts were not a "new idea" in 1980. They had been successfully tried by, among others, JFK. I guess he didn't get he memo that tax cuts didn't work."
Thanks, I will clarify.
My post was already getting a bit long, and the remarks you chose to attack were the pre-emptive reply to the usual conservative line of attack.
My point about tax cuts and deregulation being new with Reagan was actually referring to the way that tax cuts and deregulation had been pitched by Republicans in 1980.
Tax cuts, by way of the mysterious Laffer Curve, were supposed to increase tax revenue. This was the concept that Bush Sr. called "voodoo economics" at the time. Ever since then, Republicans have considered tax cuts to be without fiscal consequences, because they can simply simply contend that tax revenues would have been lower if taxes have remained higher.
GWB's tax cuts cost the Treasury $1.8 TRILLION in revenue.
This supply-side economic theory is different from the other "new" theory of Reagan, which is "trickle-down economics". Instead, those employing the "trickle-down" theory merely dusted off the rationales that Hoover used to support the plutocracy and presented it as something "new".
Deregulation, as you point out, was not invented by the Reagan Administration. However, the idea that all regulation is inherently bad was a new idea, at least in the 20th century.
Reagan proposed what we did not need meat inspectors, for example, because any company that sold tainted meat would be punished by the free market. Wilfully naive, he failed to consider how "the free market" would determine if people were getting sick from tainted product at all, and if so, how the market could distinguish one company as the source of tainted product from all of the others without records and inspections. The idea of resellers and generic brands also escaped his intellectual grasp, as there would be no paper trail nor consequence for the original company in these cases.
So this level of antipathy toward regulation on an ideological basis was new at the time.
As to whether Republicans are "rooting for" or merely "expecting" economic failure, the point is that they obviously think that economic failure improves their electoral chances. I am saying that if voters are starving, and you propose to eliminate the metaphorical soup kitchen in order that they can be "more free", then you might have a bit of a hard sell.
You, however, choose to see this as "nonsense".
A member of the US House of Representative running for Governor is totally different from a US Senator running for Governor.
With the exception of AK,DE,MT,ND,SD,VT and WY with have At Large US House Seats. US Senators have a higher rank than Governors and Governors have higher rank than US House members. Looking at the US House members that ran for Governor.
Look at the current Governors that were previously US House members.
Alabama-Bob Riley.
Idaho- Butch Otter.
Louisiana- Bobby Jindal
Maine- John Baldacci
Nevada- Jim Gibbons.
Ohio- Ted Strickland.
Jeff was compelled to mention Murtha as part of the wingnut defence which I term "Dems do it, too!"
It is one of the last-resort "strategies" of the Right, and those employing it have little idea how much it undercuts their own ideological foundations.
Since Clinton left office, Republicans have portrayed themselves as both different and better than Democrats. The Republican Brand has been marketed as being more moral, patriotic, positive, "common-sense", credible, and more in line with "Real America's" values.
By employing the "Dems do it, too!" defence, they concede all of this ground, and settle for Democrats and Republicans being virtual equals.
And the two parties differ greatly in terms of their centres. The Republican Party is dominated by the very-Right fringe, while the Democratic Party is dominated by the moderates (much to the chagrin of the Left). Thus, those with views far out the mainstream find easy acceptance with in the Republican Party, while the Democratic equivalents are marginalised but accepted in the "Coalition Model" that the Party operates under.
The Republicans, with their "Corporate Model", see all Democrats as the same because their model enforces conformity of opinion and expression. The GOP is a bloc that will reliably vote as they are instructed, and their fortunes rise and fall as a bloc. This is how the Republicans were able to elect any drooling moron in 2002 and 2004, simply by labelling the candidate as part of the "Bush Team".
Independents and Democrats, however, see a different picture. The "Coalition Model" provides a smorgasbord of candidates, often ill at ease with the Party label. They neither rise nor fall as one, nor hold the same specific beliefs.
This is a curse and a blessing for the Party. We already see that constituencies that supported Obama may not support specific Democratic candidates. On the other hand, "bad" candidates in one part of the country tend not to affect other candidates negatively, either.
So the "Dems do it, too!" defence does not only undermine the GOP's message, but it is also essentially clueless since it assumes a non-existent uniformity within the Democratic Party.
The mere existence of the "Blue Dogs" contradicts the inane implied assertion of Democratic conformity that the "Dems do it, too!" defence relies upon. Wingnuts cheer on Democratic divisions, while simultaneously asserting the Party's uniformity.
It's completely disingenuous, but they employ the defence freely. It's all they've got.
nkpolitics1279 said...
US Senators have a higher rank than Governors and Governors have higher rank than US House members.
According to who? It is a perception of some that your assertion is true, but it is NOT a universal perception. It also varies from region to region, the size of the state's Congressional delegation, and the position that the Congressional member holds in Congress. I have a feeling that Speaker Pelosi feels she has much more power than Governor Schwarzenegger; I have a feeling that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer feels he has much more power than Governor O'Malley.
And speaking of Hoyer and thus Maryland, Congressman Ehrlich ran for, and won, the gubernatorial race in 2002, but that was part of his 'plan' to run for Senator and/or President. A friend of mine used to do lawn care for Ehrlich. Ehrlich was not shy in letting people know of his future political plans, and thus my friend heard a lot about Ehrlich's plans, which was to use the Governorship as a stepping stone for higher office (the 'executive experience' portion of the resume that GOOPers feel has to be checked by a candidate, otherwise they are not qualified).
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
We also have to remember that before Pawlenty, Minnesota elected a limited-government, strict-separationist conservative as a third-party candidate as governor because they had become so frustrated with the Republicans and Democrats that they needed to change. Something like Ventura's election is virtually unheard of in modern politics, not because of his own personal political background but because nothing will galvanize the Republicans and Democrats to work together more than a viable third-party. A viable third-party is their greatest fear any they know it can rear its head once again.
Ventura once said that the GOP and the Dems were "Crips and Bloods in Brooks Brothers suits." We are now seeing just how right he was.
Dike in Dairyland. You could have mentioned David Bonior of MI. Bonior was an outgoing House Minority Whip when he ran for Governor.
Ehrlich,Riley,Sanford, were backbench members of the US House.
nkpolitics1279 said...
Dike in Dairyland.
I'm not sure Tammy Baldwin posts here, so I'm not sure who that post was addressed to if not to her.
And IF Tammy Baldwin posts here, I'm sure she didn't appreciate the demeaning manner in which she was addressed.
BTW, when referring to a female homosexual in such a condescending manner, the work is 'dyke'. Dike is a structure used to hold back water.
I had presumed that you were intelligent enough to know the difference. I guess that presumption was incorrect.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
ダンボール段ボール箱、板)・プチプチ（エアキャップ）・梱包資材（用品）の激安通販(販売)専門店です。小ロットからのオーダー注文が可能です
チューリッヒではインターネットでお見積りいただくと自動車保険料が最大で7000円の割引！ ほんの数分お時間をいただくだけで、あなたの自動車保険料がわかります。 直接申込みができて、手続きも簡単。まずは今すぐチューリッヒ自動車保険のお見積りを！
と言う事は 当時、日本団体生命 と呼ばれていた保険会社でしょうか、
その後 → ニチダン生命 → アクサグループライフ生命 → アクサ生命 となり、契約は引き継がれていると思います。
レーザー脱毛、Vライン脱毛の銀クリの医療脱毛は安心納得価格で愛されボディに。各コース先着50名様30%OFFキャンペーン中！
幼児教室の春季講習
幼児教室の講習の掛け持ちについて意見を聞かせてください。
留学なら、DEOW留学センター！DEOW留学センターは手数料無料で貴方の留学を完全サ
ポート!
使い捨てコンタクトレンズ・カラーコンタクト・黒カラコン・ハードコンタクトなど取り扱いコンタクトレンズが豊富です。
自慰套,自慰套,自慰器,情趣,情趣,視訊交友,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,跳蛋,男女,潤滑液,SM,情趣內衣,內衣,性感內衣,角色扮演,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment