Ace of Spades HQ

August 13, 2008

Government May Shut Down Over Oil Fight
— Ace

As you probably know, the federal moratorium on offshore drilling and oil-shale recovery ends -- expires naturally, with no action necessary -- Oct. 1. (Note that ANWR is covered by a separate measure.)

The Democrats wish to extend it, but they can't. It's unlikely they have a majority of votes for that, and even if they do Republican Senators will filibuster any new moratorium.

So, to avoid an actual vote on the moratorium itself, Democrats will attempt adding it to continuing-resolution bills which fund the government. Such CRs are necessary because the Democrats, of course, have failed to pass most funding bills.

So we need Bush to veto any CR that contains such a renewal of the oil-drilling ban and risk and probably invite a government shut-down to finally be rid of this stupidity.

Whether Bush will do so is doubtful. Congressional Republicans are urging him to do this, but he is managing two and a half wars.

Dick Morris stated on Fox that he's sure that, unlike the 1995 shut-down for which Gingrich and the Republicans got most of the blame and public ire, the public will blame the Democrats this time around, understanding that it's the Democrats forcing this by insisting on placing an unrelated (and wildly unpopular) measure into a simple CR.

I think he's right, but I don't know if Bush has the stones.

Bob Corker Defends His "Gang of Ten" Compromise to Instapundit: Worth reading, but the Gang of Ten compromise keeps all Pacific drilling off-the-table, and as I understand the matter, not only is that a lot of oil, but it could begin producing oil within the year. I may be wrong, but I believe many productive ocean wells were capped by the moratorium -- meaning that opening the Pacific again to drilling doesn't involve years and years of exploration and development, but simply bringing formerly productive wells back on line.

Corker may think he's gotten a lot in exchange for this enormous compromise, but I think he's given away far too much. It's bad enough that the huge reserves of ANWR remain off the table; now we're going to permanently declare most of the Pacific off-limits as well?

Also note that what Corker claims are political victories will likely result in political defeats. It's nice that his compromise gets support for coal-to-oil, but that could take years and years to mature as viable technology. And those nuke plants he says he's gotten support for will take at least ten years to come on line. At the very least.

So if the Republicans allow themselves to be rolled here, what is the likely effect? Oil prices will not come down or will come down by only a bit, thus, in the public's mind, confirming Pelosi's, Kerry's, and Obama's claim that we can't drill our way out of this and so it's futile to try.

For drilling to work -- both politically and as a working policy that the public actually supports -- we need there to be some amount of near-term impact. Corker's compromise almost guarantees we'll have no near-term impact, and thus would destroy any public support for expanded drilling altogether.

Sometimes compromise is the worst of all possible options. Corker is proposing we do just enough to make the public believe the Republicans have gotten their way on drilling, while not actually giving the Republicans their way. Net result: We "own" the compromise here, but the compromise itself does not result in much in the way of positive, measurable near-term results. So we get the triple whammy of 1) not delivering on public hopes for reduced oil prices thus 2) being proved wrong with Nancy Pelosi being proved right while 3) Republcians get all the blame for further destroying our precious environment and unbalancing our delicate ecosystems for no tangible return.

Nancy Pelosi has hedged on whether she'll permit a vote on expanded drilling. This indicates that the GOP's hand is strong (as if the polls weren't confirmation enough) and we should be pressing for a maximalist approach, not the minimalist approach Corker is championing.

Furthermore, Pelosi's claim to be "open-minded" on drilling is of course a lie. If she permitted a vote at all, it would be only a window-dressing concession to the public's demand for more drilling; the only bill she would permit would be very heavy on speculative alternate fuel developments and very light on actual new current fuel development.

In other words, Pelosi's bullshit-let's-pretend-we're-allowing-drilling would look an awful lot like Corker's compromise.

Corker is declaring defeat, and permitting the political enemy here to set the terms of peace on terms very favorable to the enemy, far too early. He may honestly believe he's not giving Obama and Pelosi a life-line, but he's wrong. He's allowing them to escape making a difficult political choice for no good reason, giving us very little in return. We're paying for the dubious privilege of bailing the Democrats out on oil.

It's bad politics, and it's bad policy.

When even the goddamned Washington Post editorial board is calling the Democrats' arguments against expanded drilling "snake oil" and debunking them in no uncertain terms, it's time to recognize that this is an issue we can win on -- both politically and in terms of advancing sound national policy -- and that we should not be offering the Democrats 80% of what they want while only getting 20% of what we want.

Offer them a compromise, sure-- but with those percentages reversed.

This isn't just about politics. It's about undoing an insane and crippling policy that constitutes a clear and present danger in both the economic and national security/military spheres.

inks via Instapundit.

Posted by: Ace at 08:39 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 962 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I believe this why the Republicans found it necessary to stay in DC and revolt -- otherwise they might have been blamed. It was a shrewd move.

Posted by: topsecretk9 at August 13, 2008 08:41 AM (nNB9t)

2 Doubtful indeed. It's not something Bush can afford to spend a lot of time on right now. But you never know.

Posted by: runninrebel at August 13, 2008 08:42 AM (0n9wc)

3 topsecretk9, but do you really think our guys in Congress had that much foresight?

I don't think it will ever come to this now that Pelosi has caved on drilling.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 13, 2008 08:44 AM (1Ug6U)

4 I want him to do it, but I also want him to have funds for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Georgia.

I'd love to see him veto it at least once, and then after that they can change it and "force" it through because of the war funding.

If the Dems do that, it will expose them for what they are and Bush for what he is: a man who has the best interests of the country at heart, not narrow and unreasonable ideology.

Posted by: Christoph at August 13, 2008 08:56 AM (hawOV)

I am sure President Bush knows that letting the drilling ban expire is good for America. The question that remains is whether it is good for GOP, and it's Presidential and Congressional electoral prospects. I think Bush should defer to McCain and Congressional GOP leadership on how to handle this.

Dems don't have the stones to stop funding bills over this. They would stay awake at night in anguish if the taxpayer's money is not being wantonly sqandered by the Government.

Posted by: Tushar at August 13, 2008 08:57 AM (IlgNp)

6 I was a federal employee then. The federal employee union, AFGE, an organ of the Democrat party, was a loud cheerleader for the Clinton Admin over the shutdown. Expect them to do the same for their Dem bedfellows again. Must give credit to the Bush administration - they cut off AFGE at the nads and removed many of the perks those fuckers got under Clinton. If Zero is elected expect AFGE to run amok again.

Posted by: TimMI at August 13, 2008 08:59 AM (7DS5N)

7 Actually I don't think they will be able to slip the extension into any other bills successfully. Too many members of the Democratic Party alone want the drilling to commence.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 13, 2008 09:03 AM (0+Ggj)

8 Topsecretk9, but do you really think our guys in Congress had that much foresight? Yes actually in this case, yes. A day before the recess vote there was a story about the GOP strateegerizing, realizing the Dems would force the shut down with on the record quotes that GOP feared they'd be blamed, lots of nervousness - giving no hint of a plan to stay back and "revolt". I'm sure there were plenty pleased and confident Dems packing their bags ready to go on their vacation. This revolt honestly wasn't out of thin air spontaneous.

Posted by: topsecretk9 at August 13, 2008 09:12 AM (nNB9t)

It'll be really hard for the Dems to make the case to the non-idiot part of the electorate that it simultaneously wasn't important enough to get this resolved instead of taking a vacation but is so important that they need to go to the mattresses for it.

They already have the idiot vote sowed up.

Posted by: Andy at August 13, 2008 09:17 AM (C3mTI)

Bush needs to get out in front of this now, laying out the facts and predicting that Congress will try to bury this in the CR forcing him to veto it. He needs to loudly and repeatedly tell Congress that if they try this bonehead move it will be the Democrats that have failed the American people. That's the only way to pull this off.

Matter of fact, a primetime address is in order on the eve of Congress' return.

Posted by: pistolero at August 13, 2008 09:22 AM (QuCVu)

11 The Republicans need to nail the Democrats against the wall. Shut down if they have to. If more military funds are needed, the last thing the Democrats would do is stop or delay them. Their getting bad enough press as it is now on the drilling. As for the "gang of 10", they can take their "compromise" and shove it. Take a walk on the beach in Santa Barbara. You'll find oil globs. It's freaking SEEPING up thru cracks in the earth offshore!

Posted by: GarandFan at August 13, 2008 09:26 AM (eJ32B)

Corker: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I hope Bush doesn't screw us in the name of "bi-partisanship".

Posted by: Iblis at August 13, 2008 09:26 AM (9221z)

I doubt that the Democrats would be blamed for a shutdown. With the media arrayed against them and all the 527/union money available to the Dems it's likely that the Republicans would somehow be blamed. The average person who doesn't know crap won't be able to wade through all the sob stories and media bias to get to the truth.

Bush won't veto the bill anyway, he just doesn't do stuff like cause a government shutdown. He made one bold, but popular at the time, move invading Iraq, fucked it up (temporarily) and ever since has gotten progressively worse and more ridiculous until at this point like Bolton said its an administration in complete intellectual collapse.

Posted by: Big E at August 13, 2008 09:26 AM (uw1/g)

14 While I agree that the Corker plan doesn't do much for the Republicans short term, the nuclear provisions alone are worth praising it for. Honestly, who fucking cares about the Republicans at this point? What we need is a long-term energy solution, no matter who benefits politically.

Posted by: Kevin J. at August 13, 2008 09:29 AM (vlzaM)

15 I don't like how Corker's plan allows states to ban drilling offshore without penalty. Add a $2 a gallon federal gas tax on states than ban any kind of drilling. That'll stop the freeriding.

Posted by: PR at August 13, 2008 09:30 AM (k7SeR)

16 Hmmmm.

Fucking Thune is involved with this. I can't believe I fucking gave money to Thune once thinking he wouldn't be an asshole.

Fuck fuck fuckity fuck.

What is it about Republicans?

Posted by: Howard at August 13, 2008 09:35 AM (3PLow)

17 >>>What we need is a long-term energy solution, no matter who benefits politically.

A "long-term" solution will quickly become discredited and unpopular and undone if it doesn't demonstrate some kind of *confirmatory* near-term impact.

We say we need more energy. They say we should just wear sweaters and keep our tires inflated. The public is actually with us, but until recently were not, and could turn that way again. Without any confirmation we're right, we leave ourselves open to a back-to-the-future Carter Redux scenario.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2008 09:38 AM (1WR4H)

18 What we need is a long-term energy solution, no matter who benefits politically. I concur: I do not care who is helped politically if they do the right thing. Neither party has my vote at present.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 13, 2008 09:56 AM (0+Ggj)

19 You're being silly to say you don't care who cares "politically."

Politically means who wins, who's right in the public's mind.

You can pass all the good legislation you want -- if the public doesn't *believe* it's good legislation, it can be quickly overturned.

In order to not only get good policy but *keep* good policy, we need to "win politically," in the sense that the public actually *recognizes* that the More Energy lobby is right.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2008 10:01 AM (1WR4H)

20 Dear Senator Corker...you know how you win? By winning. It's not the complicated. Yes, you need to compromise at some point, this is the US Senate not Russia v. Georgia. I get totally destruction is not really an option.

But here's the thing...in no negotiation is the first deal the best deal. Pro-drilling types have not brought all our weapons to bear yet. Yes, there's a risk in pushing things but the potential good is so much greater than the downside it's near criminal incompetence not to push it.

Suck it up Bob and fight on.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 13, 2008 10:05 AM (hlYel)

21 It's pretty disgusting that we even have these issues 30 + years after our 70s gas crises.And this b.s. that it will take X years so it won't solve the problem? Sure, great reason to not do a fucking thing ever.

Is it true Pickens is trying to drive prices up because it will force people to the alternatives that he approves of (and probably has a financial interest in)? And is it true Pelosi is one of his investors?

Posted by: grc at August 13, 2008 10:08 AM (h4JIA)

Way to fuck up a winning issue, Gang of 10 compromisers.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies!

Yeah, the oil companies don't pay enough. Last time I checked Exxon's income statement, taxes were only 50% of their net income. Let's try to get that percentage up to 98%.

There goes McCain's best issue. Maybe he now understands what it's like to be on the other side of Republican maverickyness.

Posted by: Warden at August 13, 2008 10:13 AM (pfpG8)

Is it true Pickens is trying to drive prices up because it will force people to the alternatives that he approves of (and probably has a financial interest in)?

Yes. And I'm invested in Sandridge Energy right along side him just in case. We're sitting on a hell of a lot of natural gas in this country.

Posted by: Warden at August 13, 2008 10:15 AM (pfpG8)

24 Take a walk on the beach in Santa Barbara. You'll find oil globs. It's freaking SEEPING up thru cracks in the earth offshore!

Plus, the local SB TV news is always playing up the "irresponsible oil companies" line. The main target is Greka Oil. To be fair, they do have some serious problems, but the local media plays up every single leak. I've seen them run multiple major stories on a leak of 5-10 gallons of oil.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 13, 2008 10:18 AM (Ds4I5)

25 Is it true Pickens is trying to drive prices up because it will force people to the alternatives that he approves of (and probably has a financial interest in)?

It's more complex than that. Look at this story about Pickens, water rights, eminent domain and power transmission lines.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 13, 2008 10:23 AM (Ds4I5)

This is a good companion piece to the link provided by IllTemperedCur regarding the Pickens non-plan.

Posted by: Andy at August 13, 2008 10:36 AM (C3mTI)

27 Here's a second on the Pickens angle. That guy is banking on dummy Californians to pony up $2.9B in taxpayer money through Prop 10 later this year, in order to subsidize CNG vehicles... and guess who majority shareholder of Clean Energy, biggest supplier of natural gas for transportation in the US? And Pickens got the Texas legislature to pass a law permitting him to transmit electricity from wind turbines on water district land he already holds and is using to sell water to Dallas. Hey, make all the cash you can with your own property, but when you expect taxpayers to subsidize your business and get special treatment from legislators... you aren't a regular pay-as-you-go businessman any longer. You're a crony "capitalist." Or should I say, you're sucking your corporate milk off the public teat. Get out of our pockets, Pickens.

Posted by: George Orwell at August 13, 2008 10:45 AM (rf5CF)

28 It's the freakin' club atmosphere at the Senate. Some Senators (gang of 10, gang of 14) are more interested in being buddy-buddy with their fellow Senators than in actually doing their job and voting with what they claim are their principles. McCain's an example of this. I don't know how many other Senators act like this. Too many.

Posted by: Arthur at August 13, 2008 11:50 AM (rElR2)

29 What a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, compromisers! This Gang of 10 makes me want to puke. Who's side are they on? What part of "let's drill for our own oil" do they not understand? Fuck compromising with witless (Democrat) idiots and get down and dirty; Republicans need to demand, yes I said demand, that we start drilling everywhere we see an American flag and start calling those who oppose this what they are: Un-American!

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at August 13, 2008 11:56 AM (ZGhSv)

30 You're being silly to say you don't care who cares "politically."

Unless you mean "I don't care what party does the right thing, as long as it gets done."

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 13, 2008 12:19 PM (0+Ggj)

31 What does Bush have to lose?

Posted by: Bart at August 13, 2008 12:50 PM (8LEAn)

32 Bush can save time but just NOT signing a few CR's.

Posted by: John Galt at August 13, 2008 01:01 PM (SDkq3)

The "compromise" is a joke; the regulatory hurdles (inviting environmental and animal rights advocacy groups to the table) will stonewall the approval process. It might as well have been written by the Democrats.

Obama praised it as "progress". Thune (SD) wants more alternatives subsidies (paid for with additional taxes on oil companies), and Chambliss is beholden to those interests too (ranking minority member of Ag, Nutrition and Forestry Committee).

No thank you.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at August 13, 2008 02:01 PM (pzen5)

34 The Demoncrats may "agree" to more nukes and limited drilling, but their aiders and abetters in the envirowhackjobs will tie things up in court for at least 12 of those 10 years.

Posted by: Fox2! at August 13, 2008 02:18 PM (nTLxP)

Republicans in DC don't see this as a political war, so they refuse to lose a battle that would galvanize the base to help win the war.

So any overarching strategy on oil does not exist because that would entail actually pissing off alot of political opponents - and you know, they see them at cocktail parties and stuff so it would be really awkward.

Posted by: jjshaka at August 13, 2008 02:53 PM (LrS9M)

This issue is probably the last and best hope that Republicans can hold on to some power in the form of a filibuster-proof minority, large enough to hold over the feeble ones already mentioned.

If we won drilling in the short term - without the political win - it would be all too easy to reverse, even in the unlikely event McCain wins. People will fail if they try to get in between McCain and any Democrat he wants to deal with.

We need the political win first and that will lead to real and sustained drilling. So I agree.

Posted by: Robert at August 13, 2008 02:55 PM (Rb4Qc)

37 Why is it whenever Republicans make a deal with Democrats, they always get played for suckers? The Amnesty Bill was design to guarantee that illegals would receive Amnesty, but only made a half-hearted promise toward border security. And with the Gang of 14, the Republicans got 3 judges confirmed and the Democrats got to block three dozen more.

What Republican genius was the mastermind behind those deals?

Posted by: Socky at August 13, 2008 03:31 PM (d2fuu)

38 I live in Tennessee and I voted for Corker for the senate because he is was a conservative, at least, I thought so.

I sent him an email last week when I found out about this nonsense and him being a (RINO) member of the Gang-of-10 expressing my complete disgust with his stand. I have gotten NO response from him.

I called his Nashville office just now and expressed my outrage with this stance. I told her that I might as well vote democrat next time for his opponent because he has proved to be a democrat himself. I want to vote for the real thing and not some lying politician (I know, oxymoron). The lady on the phone said the responses to this issue has been overwhelmingly against Corker's stand. I urged her to inform him that if he persists, I and my wife will be voting against him next election.

Hope this does some good?

Tennessee Tarheel
aka, Granpaparazzi

Posted by: TennDon at August 13, 2008 03:38 PM (TTjg8)

39 but their aiders and abetters in the envirowhackjobs will tie things up in court for at least 12 of those 10 years.

That's the problem, any energy bill and policy has to cut through the red tape, reduce the lawsuit potential, cut back the environmental impact concerns, and streamline the whole process. We cannot let the entire nation be held hostage by 27 mangy old hippies.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 13, 2008 03:47 PM (0+Ggj)

The Stupid Party strikes again! Corker has been in the Senate for two years, yet he is as dense and out of touch as though he has been there for twenty.

Come to think of it - sucking up to the MSM was McCain's shtick as well. Ask him how well that worked out. Notice all the glowing, loving MSM coverage McCain has been getting lately?

Posted by: Mwalimu Daudi at August 13, 2008 05:06 PM (Hlii/)

By the way, you know how everyone is saying that it would take 10 years to get new deep-water production online?

It's bull. I spoke with an internal wholesaler at a major driller two days ago (I work in financial services, we get to do this kind of stuff...) and he said that if new areas were opened up, they could get new wells online within about three years.

THREE YEARS!!

Posted by: Mastiff at August 13, 2008 05:30 PM (6giML)

But hey, most especially, it helps incumbent Republicans keep their seats.

And isn't that job number one?

Posted by: Les Nessman at August 13, 2008 05:34 PM (8yfHZ)

43 re: coal liquefication

That is already a mature technology. The Nazis used it to fuel their tanks in WWII. The research going on is mainly to make it cheaper / more effecient.

Posted by: chad at August 13, 2008 05:44 PM (lNQg8)

But hey, most especially, it helps incumbent Republicans keep their seats.

I'm not sure it will do even that much. Ex-RINO Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorsed John Kerry in 2004, demended that the US cut-and-run in Iraq, and repeatedly bashed Bush leading up to the 2006 elections."Missing Linc" wound up on the short end of a tail-whipping when the votes were counted.

Posted by: Mwalimu Daudi at August 13, 2008 05:45 PM (Hlii/)

Somehow, victory may be grasped on this issue. The Boston Tea Party House members have done exactly the right thing and they will not have wasted their time away from home during what is supposed to be a recess, using their unofficial, but effective, bullypulpit to hammer Nancy into at least talking about thinking about maybe kinda hinting at drilling. No. Her back is against the wall and she's feeling the wrath of the American people, who are suffering at the pump, at the grocery store and in unnecessary tough economic times.

Screw them wimps in the Senate. The House Republicans are carrying the day and these 'go alongs' will shrivel in the face of this groundswell from the populace.

Sorry, but this issue is so simple that even public school educated morons can get it. If the Republicans play this right, they can take the presidency, in spite of this deeply flawed candidate, and maybe even some legislative seats. And again, Bush needs to get out in front of this issue and challenge the Dems to not bring a bullshit bill to his desk that pretends to open up drilling, but is in fact a drill kill bill that's tied to appropriations for continuing the mechanism of government. As far as I'm concerned, they can all pound sand except for the military, anyway.

Smack'em hard. Smack'em often. And let the voters decide.

Posted by: pistolero at August 13, 2008 05:50 PM (hBUN7)

46 Government shutting down and gas prices dropping.

How is this not a win-win?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 13, 2008 08:09 PM (/+Wbs)

47 Mastiff (#41) is more right than anyone knows. I know some will say this is anecdotal, but I just played golf last week here in the valley of the sun with a retired engineer from Shell. He said they already have wells and platforms off the CA coast. They got these platforms already to go and had to shut down because Shell was not allowed to transport the crude to a refinery. He said Shell worked with all the local officials and laid out millions to build parks, schools, bike paths, ball fields, etc. just to be told, in so many words, thanks but you can't transport that stuff through here.

Posted by: jbinnout at August 13, 2008 11:54 PM (fN3WP)

48 Re oil seeps in the waters off Santa Barbara (#11): the Santa Barbara channel is known to have more natural oil seeps than anyplace else on earth. Experts have calculated that the total sea-floor oil leakage in that area alone is on the order of a few thousand barrels every month.
   Now the kicker: there's almost complete agreement among geologists that oil production from *drilled wells* in the channel has drastically reduced pollution from these natural seeps, because it cuts the pressure in the undersea oil reservoir.
   In other words, that nasty oil drilling has actually *reduced* oil pollution in the Santa Barbara channel!
   But...but...but...oil companies always *cause* pollution, don't they? At least that's what the TeeVee tells us.
   Google SB and oil seeps and prepare to be surprised.

Posted by: sf at August 14, 2008 02:55 AM (EsQly)

49 Re the best tactics for GOP congresscritters in this issue: If the Dems try to extend the soon-expiring ban on offshore drilling by rolling it into a "continuing budget resolution," Republican senators should *not* filibuster and Bush shouldn't veto (unless after the election). Reason: the MSM will blame the GOP for "shutting down the government." And then we'd be seeing endless heart-rending stories of impoverished retirees starving because the gubmint didn't send their monthly SS check.

The MSM would keep up the steady stream of sob stories until the Republicans caved.

Obviously this would transform what should have been a slam-dunk win for the GOP into a net loss. It won't matter that ending the drilling ban is great for the U.S., because emotion trumps long-term good *every time.*

Instead, the GOP should simply hammer the Dems on their refusal to let American companies drill for oil in American waters at a time when oil is over $100 a barrel. That's an issue American voters can grasp pretty easily, and one that should be hard for the MSM to spin into an anti-Republican story.

But for certain, Republicans should NOT do anything that the MSM can spin into "Look! those heartless Repuglicans have shut down the entire U.S. government! And now you're all gonna die!"

Posted by: sf at August 14, 2008 03:30 AM (EsQly)

50 You can go to the http://www.newreplicawatches.com to find the gifts for merry Christmas!!!!!!!!

Posted by: guan at December 03, 2008 03:49 AM (2hHoG)

51 Hello everyone. I will love the light for it shows me the way, yet I will endure the darkness for it shows me the stars. I am from Guinea and now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "How to buy cheap renters insurance online." With respect :-(, Hartley.

Posted by: Hartley at July 14, 2009 10:12 AM (UlRN/)

great posting i<a href="http://www.flashreplica.com/" title="louis vuitton">Louis Vuitton</a> like it ..

Good movie, very<a href="http://www.flashreplica.com/" title="louis vuitton">Louis Vuitton</a> good

Posted by: louis vuitton at September 16, 2009 06:18 AM (iFT09)

53 It is reported by the British "fashion" magazine website. Last week, louis vuitton canvas handbag with printed flower pattern has appeared in Europe. The pattern is created in 1888. In order to celebrate the 100th anniversary of British Louis Vuitton Selfridges store launched this exclusive plain canvas handbags (Damier Neverfull). Tiffany Jewelry This package is sold in Oxford Street and Manchester's Selfridges store in six weeks.This package was first introduced Tiffany Jewelry in the 19th century, while the classic shape of the Neverfull latest had been used is in the well-known Stephen Sprouse series. The second launch of plain square pattern is in 1996, including a complete series, there are handbags and small leather goods. It is proved that such printing can be endured, and Louis Vuitton Replica will have further development under the guidance of the creative Mark – Jacob.This handbag has three sizes, priced range from 380 to 430. The series includes some small leather goods

Posted by: Louis Vuitton at September 18, 2009 01:23 AM (IPPI5)

54 the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article. As hard as it is to answer those questions, it would definitely not help by burying our head in the sand and refusing to talk about them.

Posted by: wholesale lingerie at October 21, 2009 04:47 AM (WssN6)

55 Calvin Klein glasses Calvin Klein eyeglasses Calvin Klein eyeglass frames Calvin Klein prescription eyeglasses

Posted by: chanel glasses at November 24, 2009 07:58 AM (fzJYR)

56 Quest-Masonry Tool Withdrawal-Craxion Quest-A Comrade in Danger-Craxion Quest-A Masked Woman's Favor-Craxion Quest-Lunatic Morabia-Craxion Quest-Amulet of Illusion-Craxion

Posted by: dfkj at December 18, 2009 01:32 AM (CQuij)

孕妇

怀孕注意事项

怀孕知识

Do you do when the mother prepared。 Thanks!

Posted by: huaiyun at January 05, 2010 01:07 AM (VMcQp)

58 MBT M Walk shoes MBT M Walk shoes MBT Lami shoes MBT Lami shoes MBT Chapa shoes MBT Chapa shoes

Posted by: MBT Shoes at January 06, 2010 01:40 AM (ZoH02)