Posted by John Publius Jr. on October 18th, 2010 — in Republican Party, Democratic Party, Issues/Policy, Barack Obama, Talk Radio, Blog
The 2010 midterm elections take place on November 2nd, 2010. Voters must choose a direction: affirm the 2008 election of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party OR return to Republican Party policies.
Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, we learned about Obama’s policy positions, agenda, style, and campaign promises. I think it is clear that Obama’s presidency has fulfilled any reasonable expectations.
By the time Obama won the election on November 4th, 2008, the United States faced one overwhelming priority: prevent another Great Depression. The Obama administration worked with Congress to enact critically important legislation that stabilized the economy. Economists generally agree that the “stimulus package” of 2009 and other measures saved the U.S. from a much more severe recession or even a depression. Virtually every Republican in Congress opposed this, and in doing so, Republicans emerged as “the Party of No”. “No” has been the Republican Party strategy since Obama took office.
Obviously, the right thing to do is for all Americans to work together to find practical solutions to our many serious problems. Instead we are mired in power politics. I am for progress. The Republicans have no interest in solving any problems.
“He who controls the past, controls the future.” - from 1984 by George Orwell
For many years, Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and assorted other right-wing media have built up a sophisticated American mythology to replace reality. This mythology is like “Lord of the Rings” or “Star Wars” in that it creates a detailed alternative reality with its own heroes and villains, fictional history, plots and subplots, typography, and language. Right-wing media perpetuate their mythology 24 hours a day, every day, year after year.
The Tea Party Movement celebrates this mythology and has pushed the Republican Party toward an extreme and reactionary agenda. The Tea Party movement unites two key factions of ultra conservatives: Sarah Palin “Christian Nation” dittoheads allied with Ron Paul libertarians. The Palin faction is larger. The two factions unite in their belief in America’s #1 Myth: “the U.S. Government taxes me and takes my money just to give it to lazy people”. These two factions have serious disagreements about foreign policy and social issues, but this #1 Myth is especially popular lately. Some people find comfort in this myth.
For many years, U.S. Federal tax rates have been quite low historically speaking, and Obama’s 2009 tax cuts made tax rates even lower. There are many reasons the “great recession” of 2008 happened, but no serious economist suggests “taxes too high” as a reason.
Reality #1 is that the “free market” on its own cannot result in a workable national economy. People who believe otherwise need to study the U.S. economy and history of the 1890’s. No one in their right mind would want to return to that misery. Through decades of progressive legislation, basic government interventions eventually helped lift the U.S. population to a higher standard of living and a more decent life. These government interventions included: child labor laws, legalizing labor unions, allowing women to vote, civil rights, worker safety regulation, environmental protection, minimum wage, public education, food and product safety standards, public transportation, investment in infrastructure, assistance for the elderly, a safety net for disabled people, unemployment insurance.
Any country that does NOT have this basic government involvement is called a hellhole.
Tea Party mentality decries even minimal government involvement as “socialism”. A scary word if you do not know what it means. Obama is not a socialist. Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism. Historians will likely say Obama also saved the U.S. capitalist economy at one of its most critically unstable times. The U.S. economy is still in very bad shape. We need to address many structural problems. Healthcare reform is a step in the right direction, but again the popularity of right-wing mythology attempts to thwart every effort to move us toward stability and prosperity. The right-wing believes we all need to suffer just to make sure that no lazy people benefit.
The Tea Party Movement says it is rooted in the tradition of the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution. Actually, they have much more in common with the “Know Nothings” and other reactionary movements that promoted hatred of immigrants and any one else who was somehow different than themselves. Sarah Palin and her followers believe that they are “the real America” and the rest of us somehow are something else. The historian Richard Hofstadter described this as “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”. Fear, paranoia, tribalism, and hatred are the exact opposite of the traits our Founding Fathers tried to instill into our nation.
The U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the Federal Government must “promote the general welfare”. This is in the first sentence of the constitution and is really part of the “mission statement” for our government. The Republican Tea Party ignores this fundamental duty. Instead of the “general welfare”, they think everyone should be on their own in a “survival of the fittest”. In their vision, working together to help us all is “socialism” and must be opposed. Protecting the wealth of the rich is their top priority.
Most people are unhappy that the economy remains in poor shape. The wealthiest always seem to do fine. I think it is sad that some people have lost faith in the Obama Administration. Some progressives feel the administration has not done enough. Some of the moderate independents who voted for Obama in 2008 have moved toward the Republicans.
Voters made the right choice in 2008 in electing Obama and by giving Democrats the chance to run both houses of Congress. January 20th, 2008 (Obama’s inauguration) until now is simply not enough time to solve the most severe economic crisis since the 1930’s. Giving Republicans more power now will only slow us down further and prevent us from solving the many problems we face. The United States needs to invest in the future, including educating the next generation. The choice between the two parties is very clear.
I hope voters wake up to reality and avoid the mythology of the right-wing. I find it amazing that many people simply will not vote. Voting is a quick and easy thing to do. Yes, presidential elections are a big deal, but so are the midterm elections. Spending maybe an hour every two years is the least all of us can do to ensure we have a decent country.
President Obama cannot change America on his own. He needs the support of Congress and intelligent voters who pay attention to the news and vote every two years. It would be very easy for us to keep the momentum of 2008 simply by getting people out to vote for the Democrats. Yes we can, and maybe we will.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on July 19th, 2008 — in Issues/Policy, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
John McCain and Barack Obama face the same challenge of all presidential candidates: to consolidate and energize the party base while winning over the center.
This challenge presents many dimensions for each candidate. Today I focus on John McCain and the Republicans, and soon I will post a separate article about Obama’s coalition.
John McCain is remarkably unpopular among conservative Republicans. During the Republican primaries, conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity continually criticized McCain. At times their attacks were so vicious that they reached the level usually reserved for Democrats and liberals. One of my first articles on this blog was about this phenomenon: The right-wing attacks on John McCain.
According to some critics on the political right, John McCain is not a “true believer” in core conservative principles, especially on these specific issues: taxes, immigration, and the environment. McCain’s advocacy of campaign finance reform angered some conservatives. They especially dislike McCain’s willingness to sometimes work with Democrats. For purists of all ideologies, “compromise” is one of the most hated words and deeds, and McCain is guilty of occasionally committing this political sin.
Once McCain clinched the Republican nomination, criticisms of him from the traditional right diminished considerably as conservative talk radio shows shifted their focus back to what they do best: attack Democrats. “Hold your nose and vote!” This is a popular slogan for purists in both parties every four years. Most conservatives dislike McCain, but they see him as “the lesser of two evils”. In their perception of political reality, McCain may be a “liberal”, but he is much less dangerous than that “radical leftist”, Barack Obama.
The Three Legs of the Republican Stool
I always thought “stool” was a poor choice of words, but it holds an honored place in the Republican lexicon. Technically, “modern” conservative Republican thought goes back to William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, but Ronald Reagan was the culmination of theory and practice. Reagan effectively combined three key elements: 1) strong national defense, 2) limited federal government (especially low taxes), and 3) social conservatism.
These three concepts held special and specific meaning when Reagan was first elected president in 1980. The United States and the world have changed significantly since then. The Reagan administration was part of that change. In 2008, we face new challenges and none of the Republican candidates in 2008 effectively captured the hearts and minds of today’s conservative Republican voters.
John McCain won the nomination largely by default. He was perhaps the candidate closest to representing conservative principles simply by not violating any one of them too much. His biography as a war hero and one who has sacrificed so much is beyond reproach. McCain is especially popular with moderate Republicans and some independents. These voters gave McCain an important edge over his competitors. Without a Ronald Reagan in the mix, John McCain ultimately emerged as the compromise candidate for Republicans.
The Traditional Republican Base is in a Quandary
Of course, most people who voted for George W. Bush will vote for John McCain. Bush’s approval rating is among the lowest ever recorded at about 28%, but that still translates into approximately 34 million voters (Bush won over 62 million votes in 2004). Many believe that President Bush and his administration have greatly damaged the “Republican brand”.
A very effective theme for the Democrats in 2008 is: “John McCain would be Bush’s third term”. It would be political campaign malpractice for the Democrats NOT to use this.
Most of the Rush Limbaugh “ditto-head” Republican base will vote for John McCain. Again, the emphasis is on voting against the Democrat Obama. Many voters in every election vote against someone rather than voting for someone.
A segment of conservative voters may reject McCain and instead vote for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr. (See my previous article: Libertarians, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and the “Revolution”). Libertarians know that Bob Barr is not going to win the presidency in 2008.
Additionally, John McCain is not especially popular among “conservative Christians”, many of whom supported Mike Huckabee in the 2008 Republican primaries. This church-based constituency was a key to the success of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Political organizing of this base has been a cost-effective way for campaigns to tap into volunteers, resources, and many votes.
John McCain shares the same positions on some issues important to conservative Christians, especially his opposition to both abortion rights and gay marriage. However, candidates like Huckabee and Bush more “speak their language”, while McCain appears less comfortable talking about religion. McCain’s lack of familiarity with this community resulted in making ill-conceived alliances with “televangelists” John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama hopes to attract some of this constituency and widen the discussion with this community to include other topics central to Christianity, such as caring for the less fortunate. Conservative Christians are often misunderstood and unfairly pigeon-holed. Labels often cause confusion, for example, someone may be “conservative” in their religious beliefs without necessarily being politically conservative. Political campaigns would be wise to pay attention to these voters and avoid making assumptions about them.
Turnout is Key
The 2008 presidential election may be very close, especially if recent history is a guide. Both Barack Obama and John McCain must win overwhelmingly among traditional party voters of their respective parties. Turnout is perhaps the most under-rated key to winning elections. Even if McCain wins more than 90% of traditionally Republican votes, how many will turn out to vote? Obama’s success in the Democratic primaries was largely due to high turnout.
Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, Republican presidential candidates especially have enjoyed the benefit of good grassroots “get out the vote” organizational efforts to produce high turnout on election day. While high turnout (for your candidate) is an important key to winning an election, having many highly motivated volunteers is a key to producing high turnout. This is perhaps John McCain’s biggest vulnerability. Many Republicans may “hold their nose and vote” for McCain, but few are motivated to work on getting their friends, neighbors, and undecided voters to do likewise.
McCain suffers “an enthusiasm gap” as reported in this article by Yahoo News:
For now, the numbers favor Obama: 38 percent of his supporters say the election is exciting compared to 9 percent of McCain’s. Sixty-five percent of Obama’s backers say they are hopeful about the campaign, double McCain’s, and the Democrat’s supporters are three times likelier to express pride.
The Fight for the Center:
John McCain and Barack Obama want to win over the center, the undecided voters, independents. At the same time, they need to keep their respective party bases happy and enthused. John McCain especially has enjoyed a successful political career by gaining the favorable label of a “maverick”. He does NOT mindlessly vote the “party line”, instead he sometimes “reaches across the aisle” to the other party in order to get legislation passed.
See my recent article McCain and Obama Are Both Flip-Floppers, So What? and check out our Interactive 2008 Electoral Map Calculator. The campaigns are focused on having a winning electoral map strategy, and honing optimal policy positions on key issues is essential to achieve this.
A good case study is John McCain’s recent flip-flop on offshore oil drilling. His earlier opposition to offshore drilling fit his somewhat popular maverick image by taking a pro-environmental stand contradictory to most of his party members. Voters in Florida are especially concerned about potential environmental hazards of drilling for oil off the Florida coasts. Soaring gas prices emerged as an immediate concern for many voters across the map and the ideological spectrum. The McCain campaign calculation is that flip-flopping to now support offshore oil drilling will pay off. They are hoping McCain’s flip-flop will gain votes in some key swing states while maintaining enough support in Florida to win there as well. It’s also a nice sop to the voracious ideological appetite of the conservative Republican base.
Republican political strategist Dick Morris is well known for his work in Bill Clinton’s presidential administration. His advice has often been effective, at least in terms of helping politicians increase their short-term popularity. Morris is especially associated with the concept of triangulation: take policy positions that remove an argument from the opposition, help win over the center, and leave your base with no where else to turn. Bill Clinton’s support of welfare reform and Bush 43’s policy of extending federal prescription drug benefits to seniors are two recent examples of political triangulation.
I have seen Dick Morris on the Fox News show Hannity and Colmes several times recently. Sean Hannity, in case you don’t know, is one the guardians of conservative Republican ideological purity. While Hannity continues to urge John McCain to move to the right, Morris argues for the opposite approach. Read this Dick Morris article published by the Washington Post. This short excerpt sums up Morris’ broad strategy advice:
McCain can win by running to the center . . . His base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers.
In some elections one candidate is able to unite and enthuse the base while also winning over voters in the middle. That candidate becomes President.
Note: Coming Soon - an article about Barack Obama’s coalition building challenges.
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 25th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Comic Relief, Talk Radio, Mainstream Media, John McCain, Blog
The 2008 general election battle between John McCain and Barack Obama is starting to take shape. This election is a critically important referendum on the future direction of the United States. We have very serious decisions to make about both our bad economy and problematic foreign policy, including the Iraq War.
Meanwhile, much of mainstream media and talk radio focus on unfounded, meaningless, and downright stupid attacks on candidate spouses Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. I cannot possibly find a better way to address this than to include some comic relief with this video from The Daily Show’s John Stewart:
I hope that this video is final word on candidate spouse controversies. This election should be about the policies and character of the candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. The attacks against both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama are ridiculous and frustrating distractions from important issues. People perpetuating these attacks are shameless.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 15th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
Last week the Obama campaign announced the opening of a new website: FightTheSmears.com.
The unfair and ridiculous attacks against Barack Obama are numerous and frequent. The new Obama website addresses some of the smears against Obama and directly and convincingly refutes them. FightTheSmears.com as a web-based rapid-response tactic is an interesting and significant development in the election campaign.
Political attacks come in all shapes and sizes. Of course, political smears are nothing new and I think go back to the first cave council elections in 56,742 B.C.
Often candidates directly attack their opponents in debates, official statements, and campaign commercials. This is a legitimate and above-board tactic because the candidate who is attacking must be accountable for the message. Sometimes the message is unfair, but at least it is out in the open for discussion, and the attacked candidate can choose how to respond directly to the attacker.
Barack Obama and John McCain have already engaged in some good clean “debate” on substantive issues. Both campaigns will do plenty of “spinning” to paint their opponent negatively and themselves positively. No doubt, some of their statements will be unfair and perhaps even blatantly false. But, I have some faith that both McCain and Obama want to run clean campaigns and will not tolerate smear tactics by their official surrogates.
A political smear is when people (often anonymous) create a lie about a candidate and aggressively spread the rumor. A smear campaign (focused in South Carolina) against John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries possibly impacted the contest enough to guarantee that George Bush would win the Republican nomination that year. That was an example of an effective “whisper” campaign because no one was accountable yet the disgraceful rumor spread widely.
Swift-Boating is a new verb:
During the 2004 presidential election campaign, a political group ironically named “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SWVT)” sponsored a $546,000 advertising campaign to air television commercials attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.[ref] The ads focused on undermining the reputation of Senator Kerry’s military service as a highly decorated officer and veteran of the Vietnam War. Right-wing radio talks shows picked up on the SWVT message and repeatedly perpetuated this line of attack on Kerry. Many analysts believe that John Kerry and his campaign failed to recognize the seriousness of this smear. Kerry and his campaign were slow to respond and this may have cost Kerry the election.
527 Political Groups:
SWVT was one of many 527 political groups, as described by Wikipedia:
A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Although candidate committees and political action committees are also created under Section 527, the term is generally used to refer to political organizations that are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission or by a state elections commission, and are not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs.
527s are key in recent presidential elections. They legally can (and do) pour unlimited millions of dollars into attack ad campaigns while operating as officially separate from any candidate’s campaign. 527s fly beneath the radar of campaign finance reform. Expect to hear much more about 527s as we approach the general election.
One argument is that a campaign should not respond to smears because doing so simply helps advertise the falsehood. The Obama campaign decided that it is better to respond. Barack Obama has been and will be smeared. “Swift-boating” is the spreading of the lies, but a candidate is “swift boated” only if the smear works. FightTheSmears.com helps prevent Obama from being “swift boated”.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 16th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
On Thursday, commemorating the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, George W. Bush gave a speech before the Israeli Knesset (congress). One part of Bush’s speech has been controversial:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
The Obama campaign and some political analysts have interpretted Bush’s statement as a direct attack on Barack Obama’s policy of willingness to “meet with our enemies”. Obama hit back and proclaimed he “welcomes this debate”. In campaign rallies, John McCain focused criticism on Obama’s foreign policy ideas.
The general election battle between Obama and McCain has started in earnest. Some interesting Democratic Party stories are still playing out, but now the media is paying much more attention to John McCain, and, of course, Obama vs. McCain.
George Bush does have a way with words. Some Bush supporters claim that Bush was referring to Jimmy Carter. It really doesn’t matter now, and who wants to spend more time looking into “Bush’s brain”?
“Appeasement” is one of the most historically-politically charged words in the foreign policy lexicon. At least we have a good history lesson and it’s the first real salvo in a critically important foreign policy debate. If you never have, now is good time to read a book about World War II (or at least read these links: Munich Agreement, Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill). Appeasement is when you give up something important (for example, Czechoslovakia) to your enemy with the hope that the concession will end their treachery.
This foreign policy debate is just beginning.
I enjoyed watching MSNBC’s Chris Matthews give a history lesson to right-wing talk show host Kevin James. Rachel Maddow’s introduction and follow-up interview with Chris Matthews are good too!
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 6th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Talk Radio, Mainstream Media, Blog
Talk radio superstar Rush Limbaugh occasionally breaks out of his insular bubble and gains mainstream media attention. Recently pundits have been discussing Limbaugh’s latest effort, which he calls, “Operation Chaos: Rush the Vote“. Rush Limbaugh has been encouraging his Republican listeners (aka “dittoheads”) to vote for Hillary Clinton as a way to prolong the Democratic Party nomination process. The dittohead hope is that by keeping the Democratic contest going, the Democratic Party nominee will be damaged and the party will be further divided.
Cross-over voting is an interesting phenomenon and has been a political tactic for many years. It requires a bit a of sophistication in that people vote for someone they don’t want to be elected. I don’t fault people for promoting or engaging in this type of cross-over voting. People have the right to cast their vote any way they choose without providing reasons. One could argue that it’s “poor sportsmanship”, but I say “deal with it”.
Limbaugh argues, probably correctly, that Democratic voters helped John McCain win some primaries, especially in 2000.
Generally, this cross-over voting tactic has only marginal impact at best because relatively few voters actually vote this way. Operation Chaos may end up being the largest implementation of the tactic ever organized because Limbaugh has thousands of listeners in states still left to vote after McCain clinched the Republican nomination.
Today’s primaries in Indiana and North Carolina are probably the best test of Operation Chaos’ impact so far. My guess is that enough Republican voters will vote for Hillary Clinton to sway the contests by a few percentage points. Someone who is only an occasional dittohead might be confused because in the past they’ve been told to hate Hillary Clinton. Casual dittoheads might accidentally vote for Barack Obama. The vast majority of Republicans will not vote in the Democratic primaries.
Limbaugh goes beyond this call for “cross-over” voting. According to Wikipedia:
On March 27, 2008, Limbaugh said “The dream end of this [of Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here [of Operation Chaos].”
Hyperbole is the lifeblood of political talk radio and the Rush Limbaugh show especially. Obviously, sharing his wishes for violence is incredibly irresponsible to say the least. I don’t believe that Limbaugh actually believes most of the nonsense he projects. Unfortunately, probably some of his listeners take him literally and even agree with his most reprehensible proclamations.
Getting overly upset about Rush Limbaugh is like yelling at rain.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on March 15th, 2008 — in Rev. Wright controversy, Barack Obama, Talk Radio, Mainstream Media, Blog
Yesterday, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign suffered perhaps its largest political setback, as all U.S. news media focused on controversial videos of inflammatory sermons given by Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Barack Obama is member of the Trinity United Church of Christ. I visited this website months ago and concluded that it was not especially controversial, but this issue has been on my radar. The mainstream media dismissed the issue months ago, but they say the story has re-emerged because “now there’s video”.
This ABC News video summarizes the story well:
For the first time, Obama’s presidential campaign appears tainted in the eyes of the mainstream media. “Guilt by association” is not fair, but Obama had a long-standing, close relationship with Rev. Wright. Barack Obama’s message of transcending social divisions is in stark contrast with the highly divisive rhetoric in some of Wright’s fiery sermons.
Read the rest of this entry »
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on March 6th, 2008 — in Referee whistle, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
Now that John McCain is the Republican Party presidential nominee, we wonder if the right-wing attacks on McCain will subside.
Because our blogsite is so new, this is really a late call, but an important call to make before we move forward.
Referee whistle: against Talk Radio, Clipping (illegal hit in the back) , 10 yards
I listen to political talk radio almost every day: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham. When I refer to “talk radio”, this quartet of radio show hosts is a fairly definitive representation of whom I mean. I listen to other shows too: Michael Medved, Dennis Miller, Dennis Praeger, Michael Savage, Air America Radio, and some local shows.
Read the rest of this entry »
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on February 27th, 2008 — in Referee whistle, Barack Obama, Talk Radio, Blog
Referee whistle: against Talk Radio, Personal Foul - Roughing the Passer, 15 yards
On Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 talk radio host Bill Cunningham spoke at a John McCain rally. Cunningham made an inflammatory attack on Barack Obama, and John McCain condemned these comments. Here is a link to the basic story: McCain condemns remarks on Obama.
John McCain deserves credit for distancing himself from Cunningham.
The bigger story:
Bill Cunningham is not alone. For several months, the right-wing attack machine has been laying the groundwork for a disgraceful “big lie” campaign against Barack Obama. The strategy is to portray Obama as not being “American enough”. Within this strategy are tactics such as pointing out that Obama’s name doesn’t sound like a “regular” American name.
Read the rest of this entry »
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on February 27th, 2008 — in Referee whistle, Hillary Clinton, Talk Radio, Mainstream Media, Blog
Referee whistle: against the Mainstream Media, Personal Foul - Roughing the Passer, 15 yards
This criticism is more general than typical judgements of election fairness.
Background:
It really goes back to 1992 when some talk radio hosts especially began attacking Hillary Clinton. They never stopped attacking her. The general message seems to be that “Hillary Clinton is a power-hungry anti-christ”. It is a “big lie” strategy - keep repeating it long enough and loudly enough, and eventually more and more people believe it.
Read the rest of this entry »
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Loading ...