There were a few things made clear in this election -- and no doubt, the blame game will begin (it already did before the polls closed, really) -- and I wanted to hit on a few of them, briefly, while they're fresh in the mind.
First, hats off to Scott Brown. While I find little to admire about his politics, there's a lot to admire about him when it comes to his ability to campaign. He maximized every advantage he had, which is not easy to do. He ran a serious race, when most Republicans in his position would assume defeat. He got on the air early, not only defining himself, but also his opponent -- the two most important things to do when developing an effective campaign message. Finally, he got out and reached enough voters to win, brewing excitement that became a tidal wave.
But we have to be honest, he didn't win this election alone. Martha Coakley stayed silent early in the election, giving opportunity to Scott Brown. It allowed herself to be defined by unpopular Washington policies that she's stood against as Attorney General for years, while Brown, one of the Bay State's most conservative politicians, defined himself as a populist (!) "Independent Republican." If you don't give voters a reason to vote for you, then give your opponent the stage to control the message and momentum, prepare to lose.
Additionally, one can't forget the environment this election took place in. Barack Obama and national democrats, after gaining massive majorities and a mandate for real change, refused to act on that mandate, creating those changes. Big mistake. Reform was watered. Lame attempts were made to bargain with the Party of No, which lead to bad concessions, making for even more unpopular bills, and we usually didn't get the votes anyway. Meanwhile, Democratic refusal to put the Party of No down, giving them opportunity after opportunity to stonewall and win, got their base excited and left our base despondent. We felt as though we worked for nothing -- and many of the people who worked so hard just months ago, were not willing to work again.
So, where do Massachusetts democrats and progressives go from here? Well, we take Republicans seriously, because Scott Brown will not be the last. No Democrat in Massachusetts should think they can walk to victory; even powerful incumbents and favorites shouldn't just try to win, they should try to win by 40. Furthermore, we cannot allow national democrats to flee to the right -- we need to get quick victories and get government moving, even if that means twisting arms. That reform must be good reform, not just policies that are acceptable to Wall Street and HMO lobbyists. We need tough leadership from Obama and Congress that's willing to tell the Blue Dogs of the world that they'll receive no DSCC, DCCC or DNC cash if they don't vote for our popular reform efforts. In effect, they have to do what the voters put them there to do in the first place -- and if they don't, they'll end up like Martha Coakley, too.
Showing posts with label Martha Coakley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martha Coakley. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
You Shall Not Pass!
I think this scene from Fellowship of the Rings is a perfect metaphor for today's election.
The part of Gandalf is played by the collective Massachusetts Democratic activist base. Coakley is Frodo the Ring Bearer. I think people can guess who I think the Balrog is...
As a bonus, here's the damned funniest video ever.
The part of Gandalf is played by the collective Massachusetts Democratic activist base. Coakley is Frodo the Ring Bearer. I think people can guess who I think the Balrog is...
As a bonus, here's the damned funniest video ever.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Problem with Scott Brown
I just did 2 hours of phone banking for Martha Coakley tonight. A lot of people may wonder why I'd be willing to invest that kind of time to her campaign when I've been fairly critical of her on this blog, but I think the answer is pretty clear. While I think she'll be an okay Senator (and potentially a very good one with a few years' seasoning), Brown would be an absolutely horrible one.
My biggest problem with him, though, is the fact that he's not even a moderate Republican -- this guy is no Governor Weld, or the type of socially liberal, fiscally moderate kind of Republican Massachusetts voters have proven willing to vote for in the past. Brown was anti-marriage equality. He's boasted that he wouldn't support the Senate health care bill, even though it's very much like the Massachusetts bill he voted for not so long ago.
He's very much more like national Republicans than he is the standard variety Massachusetts Republicans -- and he's even running to the right of where he's been in the past. He's doing that for two reasons: it's getting him national support, with the Tea Bagger brigade readily on board. Furthermore, there really is some angst around the country directed at Democrats -- not because they've been too liberal, but because they haven't gotten stuff done (no thanks to Republican obstructionists, but it's difficult for the average voter to understand all that Washington nuance -- so it's not very helpful to even try to make that point).
Activists need to focus on reminding voters why we need Martha Coakley over Scott Brown. The critical policies that effect children, seniors and working families are all at stake. Even if the Democratic brand has been tarnished, those are all still programs that the rank and file citizen still widely supports -- and those are the reasons why they'll support Democrats, if they're reminded to do so. Brown would obstruct and attack all of those priorities, which would do very tangible damage to this country. Coakley will expand and save them. That's what's at stake here -- and that's why people need to vote for Martha Coakley.
My biggest problem with him, though, is the fact that he's not even a moderate Republican -- this guy is no Governor Weld, or the type of socially liberal, fiscally moderate kind of Republican Massachusetts voters have proven willing to vote for in the past. Brown was anti-marriage equality. He's boasted that he wouldn't support the Senate health care bill, even though it's very much like the Massachusetts bill he voted for not so long ago.
He's very much more like national Republicans than he is the standard variety Massachusetts Republicans -- and he's even running to the right of where he's been in the past. He's doing that for two reasons: it's getting him national support, with the Tea Bagger brigade readily on board. Furthermore, there really is some angst around the country directed at Democrats -- not because they've been too liberal, but because they haven't gotten stuff done (no thanks to Republican obstructionists, but it's difficult for the average voter to understand all that Washington nuance -- so it's not very helpful to even try to make that point).
Activists need to focus on reminding voters why we need Martha Coakley over Scott Brown. The critical policies that effect children, seniors and working families are all at stake. Even if the Democratic brand has been tarnished, those are all still programs that the rank and file citizen still widely supports -- and those are the reasons why they'll support Democrats, if they're reminded to do so. Brown would obstruct and attack all of those priorities, which would do very tangible damage to this country. Coakley will expand and save them. That's what's at stake here -- and that's why people need to vote for Martha Coakley.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Passing it forward
Because not only I should be inundated with a gazillion Senate campaign emails in the past 48 hours, I figured I'd share snippets from today's inbox.
Here's one from Coakley's campaign,
That's just a very small sampling, but things I think are imperative people know before they go into the voting booth. Not only would Brown allow hospitals to deny coverage to rape victims, but he's also Scott Brown lying when he says he's never voted for a tax increase -- and he's lying when he says he wouldn't raise your taxes. He'll just raise all your fees and pretend as if those aren't taxes.
I find it hard not to express my frustration with the way Coakley and her people have campaigned since almost the beginning, but they're finally starting to get the picture. It can be tough to be favored in a race by overwhelming odds, but the recipe for success there is not to rest on your laurels or run a wishy-washy campaign, where you're afraid to go out there and engage on the issues. The way to go about a campaign like that is to, as they'd say in sports, "run up the score." Don't just try to win, try to win by 30. Brown's record was always an eyesore; it's Martha Coakley's job to make sure the populace knows that.
Here's one from Coakley's campaign,
Brown says: “Never Voted for a Tax Increase”, but supported hundreds of millions of dollars in fee hikes, a gas tax increase, and over $7 billion in increased spending
Boston, MA - In tonight’s Senate debate, Republican Scott Brown continued to misrepresent his position on taxes. At the debate, Brown said:
“I’ve never voted for a tax increase while in elective office. In fact, I’m proud of fighting the line on taxes.”
But facts are stubborn things.
While a State Representative, Brown voted for a 2004 budget that contained hundreds of millions of dollars in fee hikes. On May 8, 2003, Brown voted for passage of the FY 2004 state budget. Media estimates placed the total number of fee hikes placed on Massachusetts families and businesses that were contained in that budget ranging from $390 million to $700 million a year. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation linked the fees to tax increases at the time, saying “It's been disingenuous to say there's no new taxes, in the sense that there's very little connection to the fee increases and the cost of services that the fees are supposed to represent.”
Here's another from her campaign,
As a final blog-forward, Coakley finally goes after Scott Brown's record in her latest ad. It was a somewhat generic ad, but ithighlighted the biggest issue that has emerged in the final days, Brown's support for policy that would allow hospitals to deny emergency contraceptive treatment to raped women.Scott Brown Denies That He Would Deny Rape Victims Emergency ContraceptionBrown Wanted to Provide Religious Exemption to Bill Allowing Doctors to Distribute Emergency Contraceptives to Rape Victims. During debate on a 2005 bill to allow doctors to dispense emergency contraceptives to rape victims, Brown sponsored an amendment to the bill allowing hospital personnel to be exempted on religious grounds from a requirement to inform victims of the availability of the morning-after pill, and dispense it to those who request it. Brown’s amendment was rejected and he voted in favor of the bill to require emergency rooms provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims. [Senate, No. 2073, 6/16/05; Telegram & Gazette, 6/17/05]
Brown Recently Reiterated His Belief That Hospitals Have The Right To Refuse Emergency Contraception To Rape Victims Based On Hospital Personnel’s Religious Beliefs. During the WTKK debate Margery Eagan pressed Brown on his sponsorship of an amendment to an emergency contraception bill that would allow emergency room personnel to turn away rape victims based on their religious beliefs. Eagan asked, “Should if a woman come to the hospital in that situation should she get the emergency contraceptive or if there are people that for religious reasons oppose, she should have to go, and get back in her car and go to another hospital?” Brown replied, “That’s really up to the hospitals.” [WTKK Debate 1/5/09]
That's just a very small sampling, but things I think are imperative people know before they go into the voting booth. Not only would Brown allow hospitals to deny coverage to rape victims, but he's also Scott Brown lying when he says he's never voted for a tax increase -- and he's lying when he says he wouldn't raise your taxes. He'll just raise all your fees and pretend as if those aren't taxes.
I find it hard not to express my frustration with the way Coakley and her people have campaigned since almost the beginning, but they're finally starting to get the picture. It can be tough to be favored in a race by overwhelming odds, but the recipe for success there is not to rest on your laurels or run a wishy-washy campaign, where you're afraid to go out there and engage on the issues. The way to go about a campaign like that is to, as they'd say in sports, "run up the score." Don't just try to win, try to win by 30. Brown's record was always an eyesore; it's Martha Coakley's job to make sure the populace knows that.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
It's Time to Fix Martha's Ugly Mess
Martha Coakley should be ashamed that it ever got this close. Candidates who are out ahead by name recognition only -- and sit on that lead, taking few, if any, risks -- have the nasty tendency to risk embarrassment (and in this case, disaster). At this point, Massachusetts Democrats have to hope this is Nikki Tsongas, Redux, because at least she squeaked by with that win, even if it wasn't really warranted based on campaign skills and strategy. If you don't go after a candidate in a race, explaining not only why you'd be the best choice at precisely the same time as you explain why your opponent isn't the right person, then you're going to have a rough time winning.
I'll be out on election day. I've been bitching and moaning at my friends to get them to vote. People did not take this race seriously -- and it's come back to bite us. Martha Coakley's done little to get anyone excited, but she'll be far and away better than Scott Brown. Simply put, Scott Brown would damage our country. BMG lays that case out quite well here, so I'll simply leave it at this: We cannot go from one of the most effective and best Senators in the history of this country, and certainly this state, to Scott Brown. Martha Coakley was never the ideal candidate in a general election, but at least she won't support policies that will do damage to the American people.
I'll be out on election day. I've been bitching and moaning at my friends to get them to vote. People did not take this race seriously -- and it's come back to bite us. Martha Coakley's done little to get anyone excited, but she'll be far and away better than Scott Brown. Simply put, Scott Brown would damage our country. BMG lays that case out quite well here, so I'll simply leave it at this: We cannot go from one of the most effective and best Senators in the history of this country, and certainly this state, to Scott Brown. Martha Coakley was never the ideal candidate in a general election, but at least she won't support policies that will do damage to the American people.
Monday, November 30, 2009
People Forget, Coakley is a Progressive
Alternatively, I could title this piece, "The Path to Senate Victory." It has become clear to me that people don't understand the dynamics of this race. With my endorsement of Khazei yesterday, some people have inevitably said, "Ryan, you're going to split the vote!" In most elections, I probably would have agreed with them. However, the dynamics of this election are not at all like the dynamics of, say, the election that first put Steven Lynch into power. There are no two progressives in this race, with a third conservative candidate hoping to be able to sneak by. That's just not happening.
What we have in this race are three progressive candidates and one corporate-gobbler who's come out as a lefty on social issues. While there isn't any liberal/conservative battle in play this election, no matter how much people try to manufacture one, there is certainly identity politics. It's identity politics, not a liberal/conservative divide, that has divided up the progressive camp -- and not into two, but at least three sides.
I'm going to paint in the broadest of brush strokes with the following comments, so let's all take a deep breath and understand it's just a generalization, and proceed. Who's supporting what candidates? Coakley's support is coming from a lot of civil rights activists, with organizations like MassEquality, NARAL and Planned Parenthood on board. I know a lot of glbt activists who have fiercely lined up behind Martha because, to her credit, she's pushed for our rights on a national level. Coakley took a firmer stance on the matter of choice than any single person in the House of Representatives did, including those so strongly in favor of a women's right to choose that they sit on the boards of some of these national civil rights organizations. There are certainly some unions on board her campaign, too, but that's not where the bulk of her support is coming from, at least not in my eyes. Feel free to argue otherwise in the comments.
Capuano's support is coming from a lot of the party base; the local activist bread-and-butter types have, at least in my opinion, lined up heavily behind him. I can't think of a single person on my Town Democratic Committee or the North Shore Young Democrats, both organizations I'm a part of, that supports Coakley (which isn't to say there aren't some, but they're certainly not being vocal about it, which is in huge contrast to Capuano supporters in both groups).
And why not? As anyone would notice who listened to my LeftAhead interview with Capuano, his local experience in Somerville as Mayor is key to why he understands constituent service and the big no-no of passing unfunded mandates. He's also been around for a longer time in many of these circles -- while the bulk of the state doesn't know who every Congressperson in Massachusetts is, party activists are a whole lot more likely to know them. Many union/blue collar types are lining up behind Capuano, as well, because he has a strong track record there. This is why, before I got to know Alan Khazei better, I was lining up behind Capuano, because these are among the most fundamentally important issues facing America -- and the one issue almost all Americans face together, because 97-99% of us aren't extraordinarily wealthy.
Pagluica's 14% or so of the electorate are not progressive activists. His strategy has seemingly changed from ad to ad, but he's certainly tried to paint himself a liberal. However, he has not been doing much of anything in this campaign beyond the ads and he hasn't done anything on the political scene before then, except give political donations -- and often to Republicans. The people who will vote for him in the Democratic Primary may be persuadable voters, but they're not the well informed ones, which probably means it'll be hard to actually reach these voters in a state-wide special election, least of all in the last week. For the other candidates, his votes are a black hole. There probably isn't enough time for them to escape, but they may not show up at all.
So where's Khazei's support coming from? Given that it's only recently that he had any sort of a political pulse in this campaign, coming in the form of the Rasmussen poll and Globe endorsement, it's a bit harder to tell. He has a natural connection to the progressive, college-educated, wonky types -- the people who are movement progressives, but may not specifically line up with any particular subgroup within more than any other. Like I said, harder to define. Polls have also suggested that instead of stealing votes from Capuano, he's been stealing some from Coakley. He's no doubt gained some traction on issues like health care, whilst more people have had the opportunity to learn more about him. People who learn more about his background are much more likely to vote for him; the only question is if there's enough time for him to cash in on this momentum he's gained over the past week.
The Globe poll that came out just before Rasmussen showed around a quarter of those polled were soft Coakley supporters, in addition to her strong supporters, which pushes her into the 40s in that poll. If any candidate is going to upset Coakley in this election, it's going to be because they ate significantly into that 26%, as well as the undecideds. That's the only path for victory for anyone not named Martha Coakley. What does that mean for the supposed liberal/conservadem divide? It means in this race, it's nearly nonexistent. One of the three progressives is going to win and if Khazei or Capuano are to pull off the upset, it won't be because their votes were pooled -- it'll be because theystole persuaded the bulk of Coakley's soft support to switch sides.
What we have in this race are three progressive candidates and one corporate-gobbler who's come out as a lefty on social issues. While there isn't any liberal/conservative battle in play this election, no matter how much people try to manufacture one, there is certainly identity politics. It's identity politics, not a liberal/conservative divide, that has divided up the progressive camp -- and not into two, but at least three sides.
I'm going to paint in the broadest of brush strokes with the following comments, so let's all take a deep breath and understand it's just a generalization, and proceed. Who's supporting what candidates? Coakley's support is coming from a lot of civil rights activists, with organizations like MassEquality, NARAL and Planned Parenthood on board. I know a lot of glbt activists who have fiercely lined up behind Martha because, to her credit, she's pushed for our rights on a national level. Coakley took a firmer stance on the matter of choice than any single person in the House of Representatives did, including those so strongly in favor of a women's right to choose that they sit on the boards of some of these national civil rights organizations. There are certainly some unions on board her campaign, too, but that's not where the bulk of her support is coming from, at least not in my eyes. Feel free to argue otherwise in the comments.
Capuano's support is coming from a lot of the party base; the local activist bread-and-butter types have, at least in my opinion, lined up heavily behind him. I can't think of a single person on my Town Democratic Committee or the North Shore Young Democrats, both organizations I'm a part of, that supports Coakley (which isn't to say there aren't some, but they're certainly not being vocal about it, which is in huge contrast to Capuano supporters in both groups).
And why not? As anyone would notice who listened to my LeftAhead interview with Capuano, his local experience in Somerville as Mayor is key to why he understands constituent service and the big no-no of passing unfunded mandates. He's also been around for a longer time in many of these circles -- while the bulk of the state doesn't know who every Congressperson in Massachusetts is, party activists are a whole lot more likely to know them. Many union/blue collar types are lining up behind Capuano, as well, because he has a strong track record there. This is why, before I got to know Alan Khazei better, I was lining up behind Capuano, because these are among the most fundamentally important issues facing America -- and the one issue almost all Americans face together, because 97-99% of us aren't extraordinarily wealthy.
Pagluica's 14% or so of the electorate are not progressive activists. His strategy has seemingly changed from ad to ad, but he's certainly tried to paint himself a liberal. However, he has not been doing much of anything in this campaign beyond the ads and he hasn't done anything on the political scene before then, except give political donations -- and often to Republicans. The people who will vote for him in the Democratic Primary may be persuadable voters, but they're not the well informed ones, which probably means it'll be hard to actually reach these voters in a state-wide special election, least of all in the last week. For the other candidates, his votes are a black hole. There probably isn't enough time for them to escape, but they may not show up at all.
So where's Khazei's support coming from? Given that it's only recently that he had any sort of a political pulse in this campaign, coming in the form of the Rasmussen poll and Globe endorsement, it's a bit harder to tell. He has a natural connection to the progressive, college-educated, wonky types -- the people who are movement progressives, but may not specifically line up with any particular subgroup within more than any other. Like I said, harder to define. Polls have also suggested that instead of stealing votes from Capuano, he's been stealing some from Coakley. He's no doubt gained some traction on issues like health care, whilst more people have had the opportunity to learn more about him. People who learn more about his background are much more likely to vote for him; the only question is if there's enough time for him to cash in on this momentum he's gained over the past week.
The Globe poll that came out just before Rasmussen showed around a quarter of those polled were soft Coakley supporters, in addition to her strong supporters, which pushes her into the 40s in that poll. If any candidate is going to upset Coakley in this election, it's going to be because they ate significantly into that 26%, as well as the undecideds. That's the only path for victory for anyone not named Martha Coakley. What does that mean for the supposed liberal/conservadem divide? It means in this race, it's nearly nonexistent. One of the three progressives is going to win and if Khazei or Capuano are to pull off the upset, it won't be because their votes were pooled -- it'll be because they
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thought the MassPike Was Bad?
Per one of the comments on my site, AG Martha Coakley estimated that a thousand -- yes, a thousand -- new state employees would be necessary to regulate the slot industry in Massachusetts. That's not going to be ripe for waste, greed and corruption, is it?
All this reform effort can be thrown out the window if we allow the slot industry in. The industry lobbyists must be having themselves a ripe, little chuckle over this. The joke is on us.
Update: Got my hands on the transcript. Coakley was referencing NJ. She said that there were 1,000 members of their AG's office -- and 500 of them were dedicated to Gaming Regulation. For the math inept among us, that's half of the entire AG's office - and doesn't account for other state employees in NJ that deal with the industry, which is probably many, many thousands, especially if one includes police, fire and health officials. It's pretty scary that NJ requires 500 people just to regulate that industry - and still there's tons of corruption. Also, bear in mind that Patrick's original proposal was calling for three Connecticut-like casinos in Massachusetts -- and the Connecticut casinos are actually the two largest in the world. It could very well be that if such a plan passed, we'd have more to regulate and attempt to mitigate than New Jersey.
All this reform effort can be thrown out the window if we allow the slot industry in. The industry lobbyists must be having themselves a ripe, little chuckle over this. The joke is on us.
Update: Got my hands on the transcript. Coakley was referencing NJ. She said that there were 1,000 members of their AG's office -- and 500 of them were dedicated to Gaming Regulation. For the math inept among us, that's half of the entire AG's office - and doesn't account for other state employees in NJ that deal with the industry, which is probably many, many thousands, especially if one includes police, fire and health officials. It's pretty scary that NJ requires 500 people just to regulate that industry - and still there's tons of corruption. Also, bear in mind that Patrick's original proposal was calling for three Connecticut-like casinos in Massachusetts -- and the Connecticut casinos are actually the two largest in the world. It could very well be that if such a plan passed, we'd have more to regulate and attempt to mitigate than New Jersey.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Martha Coakley: Marriage Banning Amendment Illegal
NECN was on for a bit tonight and they did a very short segment on how Martha Coakley was speaking in front of some group and said that the amendment to ban marriage could have been illegal, or something to that effect. She urged legislators to stop it, but from what the news anchors were saying, made it sound as if she may be pursuing it as well. Needless to say, this is a positive development and we need to learn more about it. Unfortunately, I don't have much information on it (and I've looked!), but if anyone knows more, luckily we have this interactive feature called comments in the blogosphere - so have at it. Thanks!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Did MassResistance Break the Law?
MassResistance, a homophobic radio show and a rabid group of hate-mongerers, apparently have a peculiar hobby - one that's potentially illegal. Here's the alleged story,
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know it's illegal for people to take pictures of minors and post them publicly - at least, a newspaper couldn't take a picture of a 13 year old boy and post it in the newspaper without parental consent. So, is what MassResistance is reportedly doing illegal? Enquiring minds want to know.
Update: Apparently, the authorities have already been alerted. Even MassResistance has admitted* that the Attorney General is looking into it, but if the AG attempts to shut them down, they recklessly said "go ahead, make our day." Please, Martha Coakley, feel free to make it. After all, they posted pictures of a transgenered teenage male - calling him a "female with sideburns" - and posted a picture with that person's name and description. This, when violence against transgendered people is a serious concern.
*Please don't follow the link to MassResistance, I don't want to give them the traffic. The only reason why I even linked it to begin with is because it's a serious matter and it's important to show where these allegations can be answered for those who want to know more. Accountability is something I understand, even if MassResistance doesn't. Hopefully the authorities will quickly make sure MassRestistance ceases and desists from posting pictures of minors - especially those who are particularly at risk to cruel violence, merely for being a little different.
Once again [MassResistance is] attending meetings of the Massachusetts Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. Now supposedly they are not gay or lesbian nor are they youth so why are they attending? I'd guess it's because of their gay and lesbian photo fetish, after all, they did bring their cameras.... For the life of me I still don't get how they think posting pictures of attractive, happy GLBT people is going to SHOCK their viewers.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know it's illegal for people to take pictures of minors and post them publicly - at least, a newspaper couldn't take a picture of a 13 year old boy and post it in the newspaper without parental consent. So, is what MassResistance is reportedly doing illegal? Enquiring minds want to know.
Update: Apparently, the authorities have already been alerted. Even MassResistance has admitted* that the Attorney General is looking into it, but if the AG attempts to shut them down, they recklessly said "go ahead, make our day." Please, Martha Coakley, feel free to make it. After all, they posted pictures of a transgenered teenage male - calling him a "female with sideburns" - and posted a picture with that person's name and description. This, when violence against transgendered people is a serious concern.
*Please don't follow the link to MassResistance, I don't want to give them the traffic. The only reason why I even linked it to begin with is because it's a serious matter and it's important to show where these allegations can be answered for those who want to know more. Accountability is something I understand, even if MassResistance doesn't. Hopefully the authorities will quickly make sure MassRestistance ceases and desists from posting pictures of minors - especially those who are particularly at risk to cruel violence, merely for being a little different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments