THE WAY WE ARE: Cokie describes the storylines!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2014

Part 5—Our most dishonest elite:
How “professional” is our press corps when reporting a White House campaign?

Historically, the record isn’t real great. In his iconic book, The Making of the President 1960, Theodore White painted an embarrassing portrait of the national press corps in action.

By the end of the 1960 campaign, reporters covering Candidate Kennedy had abandoned all pretense of objectivity, White seems to say in his famous book.

Flying around on the Kennedy plane, scribes sang satirical songs about Nixon, with Kennedy staffers singing along, White reported. Why did they favor Kennedy so? Because he’d been pandering to them, White’s account seems to suggest:
WHITE (page 337): He would ask advice of newspapermen, which, though he rarely followed it, flattered them nonetheless...

There is no doubt that this kindliness, respect and cultivation of the press colored all the reporting that came from the Kennedy campaign.
For a more detailed account, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/14/03.

According to White’s iconic book, “all the reporting that came from the Kennedy campaign” was “colored” by the candidate’s cultivation of the press. White offered a very different portrait of the attitudes on the Nixon plane, and of the reporting which emerged.

White was never willing to state what seems to be blindingly obvious. Judging from his portrait, his colleagues behaved extremely poorly, especially in their sing-alongs.

That said, there never was a White House campaign whose reporting was “colored” to the crazy extent observed in the twenty months of Campaign 2000. From March 1999 on, all the reporting of Candidate Gore was “colored”—more accurately, was determined—by a set of negative storylines.

Facts were invented and discarded in fealty to these narratives. President Clinton described the general process in April of this year:
BILL CLINTON (4/30/14): If a policymaker is a political leader and is covered primarily by the political press, there is a craving that borders on addictive to have a storyline. And then once people settle on the storyline, there is a craving that borders on blindness to shoehorn every fact, every development, everything that happens into the story line, even if it’s not the story.
In his unpleasant remarks, Clinton doesn’t seem to have been describing campaign coverage as such. But that is a perfect account of the way Campaign 2000 was reported, with every fact and development shoehorned into preferred “storylines.”

In a word, the press corps’ behavior was heinous. Thanks to a far-reaching code of silence the press corps maintains about its own conduct, that heinous conduct has virtually never been discussed.

This increases the possibility that such behavior could happen again. Before we return to that possibility, let’s enjoy a bit of comic relief, courtesy of Cokie Roberts.

Uh-oh! In the aftermath of the first two Bush-Gore debates, the Gore campaign complained that the press corps was applying “a double standard” to the candidates.

In a 1400-word piece in the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz analyzed this charge. He reinvented the facts of the twenty-month campaign in an assortment of ways. As a general matter, he removed the press corps’ fingerprints from the invention of the “GORE LIAR” storyline which had ruled the coverage from March 1999 forward.

Back in 1999, Kurtz had challenged the “negative coverage and punditry” aimed at Candidate Gore on at least three occasions. Now, he seemed to be in the tank for the guild.

That said, it fell to Roberts to provide the most memorable moment in this analysis piece.

Why was Gore being battered for alleged misstatements and “lies” while Bush’s errors were being given short shrift? In this passage, Jonathan Alter explained the guild’s misconduct away, in comments which were drawn from his Newsweek column.

Roberts, though, provoked the gods’ laughter, with an explanation which was absurd on its face:
KURTZ (10/15/00): Some journalists acknowledge that Gore is "under extra scrutiny" on "the fib factor," as Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter put it, because of his history. The broadcast networks all played up Gore's mistakes after the first debate, as did major stories in the New York Times ("Tendency to Embellish Facts Snags Gore") and The Washington Post ("GOP Homes In on Gore's Credibility").

NBC, ABC and the major papers all reported Bush's misstatements last week, but with far less prominence, perhaps in part because the campaign was overshadowed by the violence in the Middle East.

“The story line is Bush isn't smart enough and Gore isn't straight enough,” said ABC correspondent Cokie Roberts. “In Bush's case, you know he's just misstating as opposed to it playing into a story line about him being a serial exaggerator.” If another politician had made the Witt mistake, "people wouldn't have paid any attention," Roberts said.
One week later, on This Week, Roberts would join Sam Donaldson in yukking it up about the hilariously funny Dingell/Norwood bill, the centerpiece of a discussion in the third debate. It was one of the most appalling displays in the long, appalling coverage of this presidential campaign.

On this Sunday, Roberts was quoted making astonishing claims about the way she and her colleagues had covered the two major candidates. With forked tongue, she discussed the campaign’s alleged “story lines.”

In a slightly more rational world, it would have been seen that Roberts was copping to highly peculiar conduct. In her account, the press corps had apparently worked from two “story lines” as they covered Campaign 2000.

These were the two alleged storylines:

“Bush isn't smart enough and Gore isn't straight enough.”

That almost sounds like it’s fair! That said, are journalists covering a White House campaign supposed to work from “story lines?” We’d say the obvious answer is no. But Kurtz let this statement pass.

In our view, that part of Roberts’ statement was wonderfully comic. She seems to be admitting to highly peculiar conduct 1) because she knows Kurtz won’t regard it as such and 2) because this conduct is less egregious than the conduct with which her cohort stood charged.

They weren’t applying a double standard or being unfair to Candidate Gore! It’s just that they had one “story line” for Gore and another for Bush! It was because of these “story lines” that they had downplayed Bush’s misstatements!

This was the first part of the ludicrous thing Roberts said. We regard that statement as highly comical in the way it seems to cop to obvious journalistic misconduct.

It was also illogical on its face and blatantly untrue. Roberts was telling the truth about the one storyline, misstating the truth on the other.

It was true! Ever since March 1999, the storyline “Al Gore is a liar” had driven the press corps’ coverage. At three crucial points in the long campaign, the corps had invented new “lies” by Gore, thus keeping their story alive.

(For chronology, see below.)

Al Gore is a liar, like President Clinton? That storyline had always driven the coverage.

George Bush isn’t smart enough? The press corps never pushed that storyline, as Roberts’ own statement made clear.

Please! In the first Bush-Gore debate, Bush made several egregious misstatements about his own major proposals. Most dramatically, he made an egregious set of misstatements about his own prescription drug proposal.

Uh-oh! Gore challenged him on it! The candidates went back and forth, then back and forth once again, in the longest exchange of its kind in the history of presidential debates.

At one point, Jim Lehrer begged the hopefuls to stop, so extended was their discussion. When Lehrer extended this plea, Gore stated an accurate point:
LEHRER (10/3/00): One quick thing. Gentlemen, these are your rules. I'm doing my best. We're we're way over the three and a half minutes. I have no problems with it, but we want— Do you want to have a quick response, and we'll move on? We're already—we're almost five minutes on this, all right?

GORE: Yeah. I mean, it's just— It's just clear. You can go to the [Bush campaign] web site and look.
“You can go to the web site and look,” Gore said—and the dispute about Bush’s proposal continued from there.

It was a very long, highly dramatic dispute. As it turned out, Bush had been wrong, about his own proposal.

When people went to the web site and looked, there was no doubt about that. A few newspapers even reported this fact as they fact-checked the first debate, though they did so in small tiny voices.

The New York Times never reported who had been right and who had been wrong in this remarkable, lengthy dispute. One week later, Cokie Roberts emitted a howler right in Kurtz’s face, telling him that her guild had been pushing a storyline: “Bush wasn’t smart enough.”

Good God! This lengthy dispute, in that first debate, had been about Bush’s own prescription drug plan! Bush had been aggressively wrong about his own plan, in a long, extended way which included a bunch of name-calling directed at Candidate Gore.

(Bush: “Look, this is a man, he’s got great numbers. He talks about numbers. I’m beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It’s fuzzy math!” Bush said this during this long dispute, in which Gore’s math was correct.)

George Bush isn’t smart enough? If they had been pushing that storyline, we’d still be hearing about that historic exchange, right to this very day! Instead, the press corps buried that dispute—and the NBC team pulled the world’s greatest flip, renouncing their original claim that Gore had “dominated the debate,” that Gore had “cleaned Bush’s clock.”

This is the actual way the press corps covered that campaign. People are dead all over the world because of the way they behaved.

Cokie Roberts’ statement to Kurtz shows us something more. It shows the way our most dishonest elite is allowed to discuss its own conduct.

Plainly, the press corps didn’t cover Campaign 2000 in the way Roberts described. Her statement to Kurtz didn’t even make sense. If they were working from that storyline—“Bush isn’t smart enough”—why didn’t they jump on Bush's errors from the second debate, the errors Kurtz was now asking about?

Presumably, such errors would show that Bush wasn’t smart! But the press corps never pushed that storyline. Presumably, Roberts and Kurtz both understood that plain fact.

Roberts’ statement to Kurtz that day is highly instructive. It helps us see a basic fact about one of our most important elites.

The press corps doesn’t discuss its own conduct! This is a very important fact, a fact which is never discussed.

From that day to this, the press corps’ conduct in Campaign 2000 has never been discussed. That said, it was much as President Clinton described, as he spoke about something slightly different:

They adopted a storyline about Candidate Gore. Then, they shoehorned all facts into that preferred narrative.

People are dead all over the world because these people engaged in that conduct. Amazingly, to this very day, their conduct has gone undiscussed.

Such discussions are not allowed within the mainstream press. This obvious but troubling fact has been proven again and again.

Dionne and Drum refuse to discuss that astonishing conduct. Alter and Weisberg will never discuss it. Chris Matthews played one of the leading roles in the twenty-month scam. It won’t be discussed on Fox.

Because this conduct is never discussed, this type of conduct could more easily happen again. For reasons we discussed yesterday, it could most imaginably happen to a Candidate Hillary Clinton, in part depending on the identity of the Republican candidate in a general election.

In Campaign 2000, their storylines sent a Republican to the White House. In part because of the subsequent silence:

Yes. It could happen again!

The chronology of the invented lies: Al Gore is a liar, like President Clinton!

Starting in March 1999, that storyline drove the coverage of Campaign 2000. At three major junctures, the press corps invented new “lies” by Candidate Gore, keeping the storyline going:

December 1999: The storyline was dying on the vine, due to a lack of examples. Just like that, a new “lie” was invented:

Al Gore said he discovered Love Canal!

It began with a flat-out misquotation of Gore, but nothing could stop it from taking hold. The dying storyline was revived. Within weeks, it had been set in stone.

September 2000: In the aftermath of the conventions, Gore had moved far ahead in the polls. In a gloomy column, Robert Novak discussed the “undeniable panic” which was “gripping partisan Republicans, from rank-and-file voters to seasoned political operatives.”

Presto! Two different mainstream journalists came up with new “lies” by Gore:

Al Gore lied about the union lullaby!
Al Gore lied about the doggy pills!


The “lie” about the lullaby had been an obvious joke, as everyone finally acknowledged. In his statement about the doggy pills, Gore had repeated standard data about drug prices, accurate data many Democrats had stated before.

So what? The new “lies” were trumpeted to the skies. Howard Fineman explained Gore’s horrible week to Brian Williams: “I don’t think the media was going to allow, just by its nature, the next seven weeks, the last seven or eight weeks of the campaign, to be all about Al Gore’s relentless, triumphant march to the presidency.”

Sure enough! The press corps trumpeted two new “lies.” Gore’s large lead disappeared.

October 2000: Gore was back ahead by roughly four points as the first debate occurred. He won all five overnight surveys about the debate—and then, the corps swung into action.

A trivial error about the unknown Jamie Lee Witt was turned into a “lie.” A trivial statement about overcrowding at a Florida school seemed to be basically accurate. Meanwhile, Bush’s gigantic howlers were widely ignored, for reasons Roberts misstated to Kurtz. Two days after the debate, Chris Matthews and the rest of the Jack Welch gang pulled history’s largest flip.

Presto! Bush shot ahead in the polls. Gore spent the last few weeks catching back up.

We think you know the rest of this story. And yes, because of all the silence, this could all happen again.

35 comments:

  1. I agree. What do we do about it? The mainstream corporate media seem completely immune to such criticism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the late 70 or so the corporate media has favored Republicans-- I suspect because that's about the time the management changed. The post WWII guys were leaving quick, and the management school types were taking over. Carter was treated just awful by about 79 or so.

      Delete
  2. I agree. There were storylines in 2000 because Bush WAS not very smart and because Al Gore DID frequently stretch the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean because Gore said he, "took the initiative in creating the internet," instead of saying he, "took the initiative in the creation of the internet?"

      Delete
    2. Except that Gore was a Boy Scout and DID NOT "stretch the truth." I challenge you to find a single example, research it completely instead of regurgitating something you find on a right wing web site, and report it back here.

      Delete
  3. "In his statement about the doggy pills, Gore had repeated standard data about drug prices, accurate data many Democrats had stated before."

    Facts, meet Disappearing Trick.

    Disappearing Trick, Why don't you show Mr. Facts the view from over there, out of sight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Look, a president is a politician, especially while campaigning. If a politician can't figure out how to get the press on her side, she should find another job. JFK figured it out. Reagan was a genius at it, he went from an All In The Family joke as a presidential candidate, to a landslide victory in 4 years. He didn't do that by whining about how much the press hates him, although he did stick an ear worm in everyone's head that the press had a liberal bias...(no i didn't vote for him, i worked on the Carter campaign in fact).

    Hillary is in front and has the ear of the world more than any other current candidate. She should be able to turn them around. I'd say a first step would not to make up anymore stories about dodging bombs, especially when Sinbad is around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Astonishingly naive and simple-minded. Outside of her own circle, she doesn't have any "ear" that is unfiltered by media. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Every word she says, every action she takes. every ad she buys is analyzed and talked about and spun, before the vast majority of people even exposed to them, and even afterwords. coloring judgments of the few people who did get the information straight from her "campaign," if one may call it that at this stage. There is no way for anyone to magically wave a wand and make the media like them, any more than you can magically wave your wand and make people who dislike you, suddenly like you. Here in the world of adults, we learned this in elementary school.

      Delete
    2. 10:15, She can go on any show at anytime and say what she wants. If she can't get the drooling sycophants of the DC press to like her or at least give her a fair shake, she'll have a real problem with Putin.

      Delete
    3. This is silly. Dealing with Putin has nothing to do with being liked. Further, she dealt with Putin for 4 years as Sec of State and did fine. It fell apart after she left -- with Kerry.

      Too many people don't watch the interviews on TV or the debates. They get their views of candidates second-hand. If pundits create a common wisdom about a candidate, that permeates the atmosphere and infects the people who don't do their own research. So it is pernicious. There is nothing you can do to correct the common wisdom because it is not based on what the candidate says and does. That is the point being made here day after day.

      Delete
    4. She didn't handle Putin while Sec or State. What are you talking about? jesus. And once retired, her comparing him to Hitler was pathetic and deserves to be mocked.

      Look, you got your script "the media hates Clinton! and there's nothing she can do."

      Others got their script "the media dotes on Clinton and reports on her every move, and has effectively crowned her next president. No one can compete with that!"

      My script "the media is often unfair to Clinton, as they were to Gore, Bush Jr and Bush Sr before that. A good candidate can turn that around, and that ability reflects a skill that would be useful as president. JFK had it. Reagan had it (i'm old enough to remember when the thought of Reagan running for president was a joke on sit coms). Hillary doesn't appear to have it, but if she does she should start using it"

      Delete
    5. Being a good candidate isn't the same as being a good president. Someone always wins. TDH is about the inadequacies of the media.Are you saying that it's not the media's fault if it gets conned?

      Delete
    6. AC you may be very right, but in our democracy you need to be a good candidate to win. Now you can stamp your feet and say the media likes the other guy better, or you can figure out a way to change that. Compared to the issues you'll come against as president, figuring out how to "work" the DC media types should be easy, Reagan managed it,, or figure out how to work around them... like Nixon.

      Or you can assume you'll be crowned the candidate and lose to a young, multi-racial relatively unknown candidate with a muslim name.

      Yes, yes, i know being a black guy with the middle name Hussein was much easier than figuring out how to deal with the press.

      Delete
    7. She compared what Putin did in the Ukraine to the way Hitler took over Czechoslovakia. She didn't compare Putin to Hitler. Her job as Sec of State was diplomacy, including with Putin's govt.

      Delete
    8. 9:46. Russians still recall how the USSR suffered during WW2. The total USSR deaths for the entire war was over 20 million. Total British and US deaths was about 900 thousand.

      So it's a bit of a sore point with them. Comparing Putin to Hitler (which is exactly what she did) is not what i'd call diplomatic or helpful, rather it's tinder for the state controlled Russian press. In other words, unbelievably stupid thing for a retired sec. of state to mutter.

      But she was out of office by then, so she clearly didn't give a sh!t.

      Delete
  5. This behavior actually began about 1978 or so with Carter. The press was unmercifully awful to him, misreporting the public reaction to the "Malaise Speech," calling his reign "America Held Hostage," blaming him for Iran, and then giving Reagan the famous Teflon treatment.

    I think the conclusion is pretty obvious: the corporate media gives the GOP a clear pass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear god. How about what the media did to Ford? Or Bush Sr? Or Romney. What nonsense, and you got me defending Romney for chrissakes, stop it.

      Delete
    2. Oh dear God, The media was soft on Romney, sugrcoating how deeply awful he was.

      Delete
    3. "What the media did to Romney"

      Please, enlighten us! [/kidding]

      Delete
  6. It looks to me like some pre-emptive ground is being laid for some more good old-fashioned Clinton bashing: Any attempt by Clinton to defend herself will be fronted as examples of her "hostility" and "paranoia," or, like the dimwit above said, "whining." In 2008, internet liberals loved this kind of shit because except for some women, they'd gone all-in for Obama, who was going to be Lincoln and FDR and Washington and Truman all rolled into one. In fact, internet liberals were even more vicious towards her than the media were, as I recall: there was some really, really ugly stuff out there. The big liberal people all either fell in line and became an Obama supporter to protect their webhits, or else stopped talking about the primary at all, except in the most general terms. I wonder if, now that The Savior will have left the scene, they'll enjoy this kind of shit again. I don't see any Obama figure out there this time around for them to rally around, but this time in 2006, Obama was only a whisper. Then the media started talking to him. And about him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what a bunch of gibbering paranoia fueled nonsense.

      Delete
    2. well, except for, you know, being utterly accurate about what happened in the campaign. except for that little matter, yes, gibbering, paranoia fueled nonsense.

      Delete
  7. The only difference between Obama and Clinton in 2008 was you could be sure Clinton would toss the citizens overboard in favor of corporations and political expediency, while you couldn't be as positive, but you were pretty sure Obama would do the same (Telecomm immunity). Other than that, there wasn't a lick of difference between them.

    Berto

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama had already taken the most corporate-friendly line of any of the major candidates. IE, he had already "thrown the citizens overboard."

      There is no point in re-fighting the 2007-08 shit now. But there is lots of stuff to learn from it. The biggest lesson -- nobody who reads this blog ought to need to learn it -- is that when the media falls all over for a candidate, it's a HUGE fucking red flag. I started out an Obama man because, to put it frankly, he's black like me. Then the internet liberals got on board, and I got suspicious, because internet liberals are little more than buffoons, and the people they like -- Dean, Bradley -- are the true corporate shills (Dean would eventually make it official by becoming a corporate lobbyist). But in 2004 he was the "real" Democrat, in a cast of "Republican-lite" pretenders. God only knows how horrible things would have looked online in 2000, which was just before the internet began hitting critical mass, had more people been able to participate on the internet during that election. But I have no doubt the internet liberals, always on the look out for the fresh and cool, would have flopped for Bradley almost as bad as they flopped for Obama and Dean, and the media would have been feeding them stuff to work with.

      Anyway, back to 2008. It soon became obvious the media were not only supporting Obama, but had actually recruited him, had nudged him into running. Think about that: the most corrupt, self-dealing, fatuous, dishonest, greedy -- you name it -- press we've seen in 100 years had actively encouraged someone to run, and were collectively pushing for that person. It couldn't possibly turn out well, and it didn't. They see him up close, you don't. They talk to him, you don't. They have their own interests at heart, and their interests and yours don't coincide all that much. And they chose the guy. That was all I needed to know. It should be almost all anyone needs to know. Until the media's interests and the interests of normal people have more overlap, anyone they push out there should be extra-suspect; anyone they obviously hate should receive extra consideration.

      Delete
    2. I disagree. Obama supported school reform, was against the space program, talked about fixing social security and equated higher ed with trade schools (voc ed). He said nothing about increasing science funding. He had less diversity and fewer women on his campaign staff. He had Larry Summers advising him, suggesting disinterest in controlling Wall Street excesses. That adds up to a lot of difference for me.

      Delete
    3. @11:37 I fully agree with you. It was Berto's claim that Clinton & Obama were identical that I was disagreeing with.

      Delete
    4. Here's another website Howler readers might want to visit now and then.

      Delete
  8. To the republican base, not being smart is a positive attribute.

    Remember, in addition to being a psychopathic liar, Al Gore was also the nerd. And he was mocked and jeered for that reason by the cool kids in the press.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As Al Franken once said, in an era when our news hacks never fail to make the case that "both sides do it," the Democrats' so-called lies happen to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Replies

    1. Thanks to Dr great for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family?

      Hello to every one out here, am here to share the unexpected miracle that happened to me three days ago, My name is Success Story,i live in TEXAS,USA.and I`m happily married to a lovely and caring wife,with two kids A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my wife so terrible that she took the case to court for a divorce she said that she never wanted to stay with me again,and that she did not love me anymore So she packed out of my house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get her back,after much begging,but all to no avail and she confirmed it that she has made her decision,and she never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my wife So i explained every thing to her,so she told me that the only way i can get my wife back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for her too So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited.(greatpowerspelltemple@gmail.com}, So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my wife back the next day what an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my wife who did not call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that she was coming back So Amazing!! So that was how she came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and she apologized for her mistake,and for the pain she caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website http://greatpowerspelltemple@gmail.com, if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to “bringing your ex back. So thanks to Dr great for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again.{greatpowerspelltemple@gmail.com} , Thanks.


      Are you passing through any of these problems,

      DO YOU NEED YOUR EX BACK VERY FAST

      DON YOU WANT YOUR LOVER TO LOVE YOU AS NEVER LIKE BEFORE

      ARE YOU SUFFERING FROM A LONG TIME SICKNESS

      ARE YOU FACING FINANCIAL PROBLEMS

      ARE YOU SEEKING FOR A GOOD JOB

      DO YOU WANT TO BECOME A HOUSE OWNER

      ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A FIRST CLASS GRADE

      DO YOU WANT TO COME OUT FIRST IN YOUR EXAMS

      ARE YOU A STAR AND YOU WANT TO BE SO POPULAR TO THE WHOLE WORLD

      DO YOU WANT TO BE RICH

      DO YOU WANT YOUR BUSINESS TO KEEP MOVING

      DO YOU HAVE A COMPANY OF ANY KIND AND YOU WANT IT TO EXPAND

      DO YOU WANT YOUR HUSBAND OR WIFE TO KEEP TO YOUR WORLD

      ARE YOU FACING ANY MARITAL PROBLEMS

      ARE YOU FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO GET PREGNANT FOR YOUR HUSBAND

      ARE YOU EXPERIENCING MISCARRIAGES ANY TIME YOU TAKE IN

      DO YOU WANT TO COMPETE IN ANY LOTTERY GAME

      ARE YOU FACING HARDSHIP

      HAVE YOU BEEN THREATENED BY SOMEONE

      DO YOU WANT TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN ANY THING YOU LAY YOUR HANDS ON

      IS YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER BEHAVING STRANGELY

      ARE YOU FACING WITCH CRAFT MANIPULATIONS

      DO YOU WANT TO CAST A STRONG LOVE SPELL ON YOUR GIRL OR BOY FRIEND

      DO YOU NEED MAGIC POWERS TO DO ANY THING YOU WANT

      ARE YOU FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO CHOOSE A LIFE PARTNER

      DO YOU WANT YOUR PARENTS TO BE PROUD OF YOU

      ARE YOU EXPERIENCING FAILURE AND DISAPPOINTMENT IN ANY THING YOU DO.(ETC)

      I will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website http://greatpowerspelltemple@gmail.com,if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to “bringing your ex back. So thanks to Dr great for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again.{greatpowerspelltemple@gmail.com} , Thanks.

      Delete

  11. I want to testify that my wife is back after a Divorce !!!

    Hello to every one out here, am here to share the unexpected miracle that happened to me three days ago, My name is Jeffrey Dowling,i live in Texas,USA.and I`m happily married to a lovely and caring wife,with two kids A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my wife so terrible that she took the case to court for a divorce she said that she never wanted to stay with me again,and that she did not love me anymore So she packed out of my house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get her back,after much begging,but all to no avail and she confirmed it that she has made her decision,and she never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my wife So i explained every thing to her,so she told me that the only way i can get my wife back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for her too So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited.(bravespellcaster@gmail.com}, So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my wife back the next day what an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my wife who did not call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that she was coming back So Amazing!! So that was how she came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and she apologized for her mistake,and for the pain she caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website http://bravespellcaster.yolasite.com,if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to “bringing your ex back. So thanks to Dr Brave for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com} , Thanks.

    ReplyDelete



  12. Hello, my name is Miss faith, I'm from USA. I want to inform you all that there is a spell caster that is genuine and real. I never really believed in any of these things but when I was losing Garvin, I needed help and somewhere to turn badly. I found consultant.odia spells and i ordered a LOVE SPELL. Several days later, my phone rang. Garvin was his old self again and wanted to come back to me! Not only come back, the spell caster opened him up to how much I loved and needed him. Spell Casting isn't brainwashing, but they opened his eyes to how much we have to share together. I recommend anyone who is in my old situation to try it. It will bring you a wonderful surprises as well as your lover back to you. The way things were meant to be." you can contact the spell caster on ogbonispelitemple@hotmail.com he's very nice and great.

    ReplyDelete