 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||||
For those interested in the fate of the West (interior West, that is), AFF has a podcast up of the panel it held in Denver last week.
My portion of the panel starts at around 42:00. The real heat came, though, in the Q&A, which follows immediately after my portion.
And, yes, I really do subscribe to the Focus on the Family email blast just to enrage myself on a daily basis. Those people sure do hate teh gays.
My column in the Post this morning gives my rundown of the GOP’s prospects in the interior West this cycle and recounts Wednesday’s panel:
DENVER — CHEERED as Republicans may be by the Clinton-Obama wars, the fact is that long-term trends still favor the Democrats this fall. To see the problem, consider the interior West - the eight states between the Midwest and the Pacific Coast: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
This week, I spoke at a panel put on here in Denver by the America’s Future Foundation, a youth-oriented libertarian-conservative group. The topic: “How the West Will Be Lost.”
In fact, having heard my fellow panelists’ takes on the situation in Colorado and the rest of the region, the use of the future tense looks optimistic: The GOP is already well on its way to losing the West.
The reasons were well summed up by the president of Colorado’s Independence Institute and a popular conservative radio talk-show host in the state, Jon Caldara: “We lost our values. We lost our way.”
There is one way the GOP can pull it out: The Democrats can nominate Hillary.
The Rocky Mountain News this morning runs an account of the America’s Future Foundation panel I spoke at last night in Denver (cheery panel title: “How the West Will Be Lost”):
A group of conservative writers and thinkers gathered for a panel discussion Wednesday night at the Oxford Hotel where the beer was free, the talk was fast and the mood - at least when it came to the 2008 presidential race - was a deep blue funk.
The title of the forum - presented by Face the State, America’s Future Foundation and the Independence Institute - summed up the general pessimism, “How the West Will Be Lost - Democrats’ Strategy to turn the Mountain West Blue and What Libertarians and Conservatives Can Do About It.”
The speakers generally agreed that the coalition Ronald Reagan assembled of social conservatives, libertarians, limited-government proponents and free-marketeers is fractured.
They differed, however, on the extent of the split or what can be done to put that coalition together again.
I’m quoted in the story as the voice of pessimism — which will hardly be earth-shattering news to friends and family. Hey, I’m a gloomy guy.
It was a great panel and a great audience in a part of the country usually relegated to fly-over status. While we did disagree on how bad things have gotten and what the chances are for repairing them out here in the interior West, the one thing we all agreed on was that Colorado is Ground Zero in the changes that are coming to the region politically. Both houses of the Legislature taken over by the Dems in 2004, the governorship taken over in 2006. A Senate seat gone. Another House seat gone. All that’s left is for the state to get colored blue in November.
I’ll have more on the panel and why that may or may not happen shortly. In the meantime, thanks to AFF and Face the State for having me and to everyone who came out.
If you happen to be in the Denver area next Wednesday evening (March 26), I’ll be on an America’s Future Foundation panel about the political fortunes of the GOP in the West (a topic, of course, close to my heart): “How the West Will Be Lost.”
Pessimistic, but I think correctly so (at least it’s pessimistic from a partisan, GOP perspective). Here’s the description from the Web site:
It’s no mistake that Democrats will be hosting their national convention in Denver. Liberal funders have invested heavily in Colorado as part of a multi-cycle strategy to turn traditionally red states in the mountain west blue. But have Republicans and the Religious Right put more libertarian-leaning mountain states up for grabs? Looking at the primaries, does Huckabee’s success indicate the growing or waning influence of evangelicals in the Republican Party? Does Ron Paul’s fundraising success indicate a growing influence of libertarians? And what to make of McCain? Join our panelists as we discuss the future of libertarians, conservatives, and evangelicals in the West.
Also on the panel will be Gene Healy of the Cato Institute, Jim Pfaff, president of the Colorado Family Institute, and Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute. It will be moderated by Brad Jones of FaceTheState.com.
Should be a fun time. Colorado really is ground zero in the West-turning-Blue story.
In today’s Post, I review Grover Norquist’s new book, Leave Us Alone:
[Norquist’s] book manages to diagnose and prescribe treatment for the ills of the modern-day Republican Party with hardly a mention of the tumor in its guts: Bush-Rove-style Big Government Conservatism.
Norquist breaks down modern political actors into two camps: the Leave Us Alone Coalition and the Takings Coalition. The Leave Us Alone Coalition, he says, consists of taxpayers (the ones who want lower taxes, anyway) businessmen, property owners, gun owners, homeschoolers and conservative religious types threatened by the secular mainstream - Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and Mormons. The Takings Coalition consists of government workers, labor unions, trial lawyers, welfare recipients and much of academia - or, as Norquist puts it, folks who “raise your taxes to subsidize Piss Christ while explaining that your church cannot be used for child care until you cover up all those icky crucifixes.”
But has the Republican Party of the last 10 years really been under the sway of a Leave Me Alone Coalition? Far from it. That’s the sort of coalition libertarian Republicans wish they had, but it’s certainly not what’s existed in practice.
It would be nice if the GOP’s problems were as minor and self-correcting as Norquist argues — requiring, mainly, that Red Staters breed and New Deal liberals die (in the natural course of getting old, of course, nothing more drastic). They are, however, not.
I’ve been making the argument for a little while now (btw: you can now read my old Atlantic piece on this for free, since they opened up their archives): the Democrats’ key to victory in 2008 is the interior West.
And, so, along comes some interesting polling data from Rasmussen out of Colorado. It should be clear to anyone watching the primary results that Obama is the strongest Democratic candidate in the interior West. But here are some numbers: He’d start out the race with a seven-point, 46-39 percent, advantage over John McCain. Hillary? She’d start down 14 points. 35-49 percent.
Just something for all those superdelegates to think about.
(via Sullivan)
…move West.
Not sure precisely how this affects my thesis about the changing interior West, though I’m sure it does. On first thought, I’d say these boomers are unlikely to be social-conservative firebrands. At the same time, they’re probably not fiscal conservatives either. So, socially liberal (at least moderate) fiscal populists (at least as relates to Social Security and Medicare)? That sounds like straight-up Democrats to me.
Yet another reason the Mountains are turning purple.
Watching Mitt Romney’s big Mormon Speech this morning, I found myself unsurprised that I was unmoved; one probably wasn’t going to like this speech terribly unless one were already decided for Mitt Romney. I was (moderately) surprised, however, at how utterly cynical and offensive Romney’s speech ended up being. In short, if we didn’t know it before, we now know that in Mitt Romney’s America, there is no room for those without “faith.” What’s more — and this we already did know — Mitt Romney is willing to mislead people about his religion, while categorizing all follow-up questions about his religion as a form of “religious test.”
The most remarkable thing about Romney’s address — and even folks at National Review picked this out, notably Ramesh Ponnuru — is that is wrote atheists and agnostics out of the American nation. Whereas even President Bush, whose own cynical politics have done so much to pit believers versus non-believers, has long gone out of his way to include “good people of no faith at all” in his vision of America. While the president’s need to qualify that phrase with the word “good” might be offensive, it’s a warm embrace of the faithless compared to Romney’s declaration that “freedom requires religion.”
Got that? Those of us who don’t believe in Christianity, those of us who don’t believe in God, those of us who don’t believe in the divinity of human-written holy books have no place in the American experiment, can’t be relied on to uphold the principles of our Constitution, and don’t have the morality necessary to keep a Republic.
If any of this is not what the former governor meant, by all means let him correct himself. I emailed the Romney campaign this morning asking where atheists and agnostics fit into his vision of America. I’ve gotten no response of any kind, and I don’t expect one. Marginalizing non-believers is too central to Romney’s primary strategy for him to speak one word on their behalf. Romney may say that, “A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.” But his vision of who constitutes “the people” includes only the faithful.
As to Romney’s disingenuousness about his own religion, one need only note that the word “Mormon” appeared but once in his speech. (Kennedy mentioned the word Catholic roughly 20 times.) What’s more, he pulled this little number.
On the one hand, he declared:
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
So, presidential candidates shouldn’t delve into the doctrines of their churches? I suppose the key word is “distinctive.” Romney is more than willing to talk about the doctrines of his faith when it might accrue to his benefit. Such as … a paragraph earlier in the same speech:
There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.
It wasn’t quite as misleading as his comments about the Bible in the last debate (where he declared it the “word of God,” despite major differences Mormons have with Christians over the reliability of the Bible).
So, it’s OK to talk about the tenets of Mormonism so far as it presents Evangelical Christians with the impression that there are no major differences between the two faiths. Talking about it any further, dastardly religious test. Got it.
There was at least one line from Romney, though, that was worth the price of admission: “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.”
Amen, brother.
UPDATE: David Frum has a related observation about picking and choosing among theological questions that are “appropriate” to ask. If belief in Jesus is a prerequisite to the presidency, what else might be?
UPDATE II: Another interesting take: “threatened with political … exile.”
In today’s New York Post, I make the argument that Ron Paul’s success has far less to do with any “libertarian moment” than it has to do with an unfortunate rise of populist sentiment in the Republican Party:
December 1, 2007 — FOLKS in Washington seem to think that the unexpected success of Ron Paul in the Republican primary suggests the country is in some kind of “libertarian moment” that will reshape American politics. Sorry: While I’d be delighted if the GOP were gripped by libertarianism - that is, a resurgent commitment to economic and social freedom - the truth is actually quite the opposite.
Both The Washington Times and The Washington Post ran pieces over the weekend reading big things into Paul’s showing in the polls. He’s at around 5 percent nationally and in Iowa - far above the 1 percent blip you’d expect from a fringe candidate. And he’s done phenomenally in fund-raising, bringing in $9 million-plus so far this quarter (which may put him ahead of John McCain in the cash race).
But what does the Ron Paul Revolution, as it’s dubbed itself, really represent? Paul, a 10-term congressman from Texas and the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president, has a well-deserved reputation as a principled constitutionalist. But his success now has more to do with anti-war populism than radical libertarianism.
How else to reconcile the simultaneous rise of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee?
Jesse Walker at Reason takes a look, in this, the era of Larry Craig and Bill Richardson.
An rhsager.com exclusive…
On Thursday, I got hold of some early results from a large survey the fiscally conservative Club For Growth is doing of its membership. McCain is near the rock-bottom of the pack when Club For Growth members are asked whom they would like to see made the GOP presidential nominee in 2008, and he comes in at the very top when members of the group are asked whom they would not like to see nominated. His favorable/unfavorable rating is also very poor with this crowd.
The Club For Growth is in the midst of conducting an extensive presidential survey of its 40,000 members, by phone and by email. So far, they’ve gotten roughly 3,300 responses.
The preliminary numbers I have obtained are as follows:
* Club members’ top choice for 2008 GOP nominee for president: McCain received 5%
* Club members’ least favorite choice: McCain received 43% (first place)
* McCain’s favorable/unfavorable rating with Club members: Favorable 16% / Unfavorable 76%
(On those first two questions, Club members were asked to pick from a list, including: Romney, Pataki, McCain, Gingrich, Hunter, Huckabee, Hagel, Giuliani, Brownback, or no answer.)
Asked to comment, Club For Growth President Pat Toomey offered a rather bleak assessment of McCain’s chances at wooing fiscal conservatives in the GOP primary.
“This is a real reflection of a serious challenge McCain has with free-market conservatives and with limited-government conservatives,” Toomey said. “He very prominently spoke out against the Bush tax cuts … He spouted class-warfare rhetoric usually voiced by the Democrats.”
What’s more, Toomey said it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of McCain’s role in bringing campaign-finance reform to American politics with his McCain-Feingold bill. “Frankly, our members, almost by definition, are concerned with weighing in on issues and having a voice in American politics,” Toomey said. “His willingness to diminish the First Amendment is a matter of great concern.”
Despite the fact that McCain is good on trade policy and on opposing pork-barrel spending, Toomey said, “Fundamentally, limited government requires limited taxes, and economic growth requires lower marginal taxes.”
Asked whether McCain could do anything to woo back fiscal conservatives, Toomey offered only: “You never say never in politics.”
Of course, McCain has already spent some considerable time trying to win back fiscal conservatives, flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts (calling for their renewal after having opposed their original passage) and flip-flopping on the estate (a.k.a. death) tax.
McCain and the Club For Growth — a so-called “527″ organization — have long been at odds. McCain has repeatedly cited the Club For Growth as the type of group that made his campaign-finance-reform bill necessary, because they run lots of hard-hitting (and sometimes even negative) ads in House and Senate races in the days leading up to federal elections. In 2000, the Club ran ads boosting the candidacy of now-Rep. Jeff Flake, a rising fiscal-conservative star, for an Arizona congressional seat — leading to the defeat of an opposing candidate hand-picked by McCain.
Nonetheless, the vehemence of the opposition to the purported GOP frontrunner by the leadership and membership of the Club For Growth is pretty striking this early in the game.
Developing…
Seemingly, my apostasy of the last year or so hasn’t yet gotten me written out of the conservative movement. Thus, I will be speaking at the National Review Institute’s Conservative Summit, January 26-28. Specifically, I’ll be debating Ralph Reed as to the role of the Religious Right in the GOP (at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, the 27th, I’m told).
There are also going to be some other debates, including:
On immigration: Mark Krikorian v. Tamar Jacoby
On energy: James Woolsey v. Jerry Taylor
A fuller roster of speakers includes:
Jeb Bush, Tony Snow, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, John Bolton, Rich Lowry, John O’Sullivan, Kate O’Beirne, Mark Steyn, Laura Ingraham, Kathryn Lopez, Robert P. George , Maggie Gallagher, Ramesh Ponnuru, Ed Whelan, Marvin Olasky, James Woolsey, Jerry Taylor, Ward Connerly, Byron York, Jonah Goldberg, Rob Long, Pat Toomey, Ralph Reed, Ryan Sager, Mark Krikorian, Cliff May, Tamar Jacoby, Charles Murray, John Miller, Rick Brookhiser, Bill Kristol, Terence P. Jeffrey, Michael Steele, Abigail Thernstrom, Mona Charen, Ed Gillespie, Andrew McCarthy, Charles Kesler, Edwin J. Feulner
You can register for the Washington, D.C., event here.
Reason asks some folks (including yours truly): How awesome is divided government?
Today, my old New York Sun colleague Ben Smith gets hold of a 140-page memo from the Giuliani camp laying out soup-to-nuts everything they’re trying to do and everything they’re worried about over at Rudy HQ.
It’s a hell of a scoop, and there are some interesting tidbits. But, at first glance, it doesn’t look like there’s anything particularly damaging in there — just a lot of acknowledgments of things of things we already knew (e.g., Bernie Kerik and Rudy’s ex-wives will be problems).
I’ve had my problems in the past with polls from American Research Group.
Essentially, they refused to put Rudy in their polls (at least on the first round of questions) well past the period of time when that decision made sense.
Now, it seems they have started polling the GOP primary more appropriately. And the results are pretty encouraging for Rudy supporters:
Iowa: Rudy leads GOP caucus goers.
New Hampshire: Rudy is in second place, but within the margin of error.
Nevada: Rudy leads GOP caucus goers.
South Carolina: Rudy trails McCain by 7 points.
The Iowa numbers are fairly remarkable, given Rudy’s soft organization (OK, lack of organization) at the ground level in most states. His virtual tie in New Hampshire is also remarkable, given how popular Maverick McCain is in the Granite State. South Carolina is the most worrisome state for Giuliani in this set of polls. Voters are only going to learn more about his social liberalism coming into 2008, so a win in the Palmetto State would require some pieces falling into place.
Now, I think those pieces can fall into place. Wins in Iowa and/or New Hampshire could give Giuliani significant momentum coming into South Carolina. Also, I think the more voters see of him the more they’ll like him — even (perhaps especially) social conservatives. But it remains a close race.
Let’s just say, though, I’d rather be Rudy than McCain. I’d really hate to be Mitt Romney (IA: 7%, NH: 9%, NV: 4%, SC: 5%).
…to National Review for including The Elephant in the Room in its roundup of “Best Books, 2006.”
It also looks like I’ll be speaking at their Conservative Summit, in late January — most likely on a panel with Ralph Reed about the role of the Religious Right (somehow, I think he has more in-depth knowledge of this topic than me, but I’ll do what I can). More details on that when I have them.
Also, thanks to anyone who’s bought, read, or written thoughtfully about the book this year. It’s really quite an undertaking to write a book (so many words … and I’m a man of few of them). But it’s worth it when it can move a debate forward meaningfully. It’s been great to get feedback from so many of you, both on your blogs and in reader emails (there are a lot of you disaffected western libertarians out there, I have the inbox to prove it … stay strong!).
Anyway, it was a productive 2006. Onto a better 2007 and a time of rebuilding for both our parties and our country.
Over at Andrew Sullivan’s site, a guest blogger makes the case for Rudy having “the resume” to be president. Of course, I’ve also been making the case for Rudy in the “power rankings.”
I can’t wait until the CW has completed its 180-degree turn and acknowledged the obvious: Giuliani is, and long has been, the frontrunner for 2008.
Man, it felt good to not blog or write anything for the last week-plus. I’ve especially enjoyed not discussing the future of the Republican Party. May it rest in pieces.
But, alas, all good things must come to an end. So, here’s more from Brink Lindsey on “liberaltarians.” Needless to say, I think there’s a lot to be said for his arguments — especially given the fact that the GOP seems to have learned nothing from its defeat in November. While a libertarian alliance with the Democrats remains a fairly shocking proposition, it seems increasingly plausible.
Most notable fact from Brink’s latest piece: Democrats gained with libertarian voters in 2006, without alienating other major voting blocs. This at least puts a dent in the idea that no one can offer anything to libertarians without sending the rest of the electorate screaming from the room like a call girl from Milton Berle.
From the Washington Post today, an argument that libertarians should align themselves with the Democratic Party, and an argument that the Democratic Party should align itself with libertarians.
UPDATE: I should also link the underlying Brink Lindsey article from TNR to which the Washington Post column refers.
The Economist asks whether the GOP is becoming a regional party of the South (or, OK, makes the argument that it is becoming that):
The problem for the Republicans is that a regional stronghold can become a prison. The South has one of the most distinctive cultures in the United States—far more jingoistic than the rest of the country and far more religious. Fifty-eight per cent of deep southerners identify themselves as either evangelical or born-again compared with a third of non-southerners (the figure in Mississippi is 73%). But for every non-southerner who waxes lyrical about southern charm there are many more who associate the South with racial bigotry and cultural backwardness. The 2006 election—which saw social conservatives such as Rick Santorum and Kenneth Blackwell go down to humiliating defeat—suggests that non-southerners have grown particularly impatient with the South’s brand of in-your-face religiosity.
The magazine also argues, as I have, that Mitt Romney, despite being from Massachusetts, is the “southern” candidate in the GOP field coming into 2008.
(Also, isn’t their graphic great?)
The Washington Post takes a look at the changing West: less resource extraction, more tree hugging.
Deroy Murdock makes the case on NRO today.
I made the case back in July here (for his viability, that is, not for the reasons he should win).
Meanwhile, Rudy Blog notes that the conventional wisdom on Giuliani is changing, slowly but surely.
Chester Finn has a pretty brutal takedown of the modern GOP today on NRO:
What’s gone wrong with the GOP? Let me start by quoting a friend who is both gay and conservative (yes, I know several such): “I’m for low taxes, strong defense and limited government. Why doesn’t the Republican party want me?”
There’s a two-part answer to that question and neither half is good news. The first is that today’s GOP doesn’t really want gays — and it yearns to supervise everybody else’s bedroom and reproductive behavior as well as (implicitly, at least) their relationship to God. The second is that Republicans are no longer really in favor of limited government. Besides having their own version of a nanny state, they want to spend and spend, start program after program, ladle out the pork, make deals with influence peddlers, and spin the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street. Yes, they still pretend to favor low taxes but that’s an illusion; they pay for limitless government via huge deficits that will mean high taxes for my granddaughter.
And for daring to suggest that the GOP might back away from the homophobia and anti-immigrant nastiness, Mark Levin (another NRO-nik) dubs Finn’s article: “a prescription for disaster for the conservative movement.”
Like this year’s disaster?
I’m scheduled to be on the Rush Limbaugh Show at 1:15 p.m., tomorrow (Wednesday). I’ll be talking about the book.
A list of stations that carry the show can be found here.
I’ll also be traveling over the next few days. Wednesday night, I’ll be at the Dole Institute in Kansas. On Thursday, I’m scheduled to be on a panel in Washington, D.C., hosted by National Journal. We’ll be talking about the field for the ‘08 election. I’ll be — extremely unofficially — representing the pro-Rudy camp. My panel’s the one at 11 a.m.
UPDATE: I won’t be able to make the National Journal panel (trouble with travel out of Kansas). Hopefully, Rudy won’t go totally unrepresented.
…discovers the West.
Apparently, Mitt Romney has never heard of federalism.
In trying to get to the right of Rudy and McCain, Romney is criticizing John McCain for opposing gay marriage at the state level but also opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level.
While I disagree with McCain’s support for the Arizona gay marriage amendment (which failed on November 7), this sort of cultural federalism is exactly what the GOP needs to start embracing.
Romney, of course, is far too busy courting the National Review crowd to make any such fine distinctions. But his lack of intellectual honesty (or capacity) ought to be kept in mind as the campaign proceeds.
Rudy’s left-wing enemies in New York City want to go on the attack against him.
John Podhoretz writes this morning: Bring it on.
The Salt Lake Tribune picks up an interesting trend out West:
After the Republican landslide of 1994, Democrats spent six years in a Western political wilderness. But since 2000, Democrats regionwide have hacked into the Republican majorities.
A Tribune analysis of U.S. House results shows that Democrats have narrowed a 20-point GOP edge in 2000 to a slim 48 percent to 47 percent deficit in 2006. In three states - Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico - Democrats have turned their red states blue, winning a majority in the House races.
In 1996, the eight states in the Rocky Mountain West sent 18 Republicans and four Democrats to the House. When Congress convenes next year, there will be 11 Democrats and 15 Republicans representing the Western districts.
Democrats now control five of the eight governorships and, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, picked up seats in five of the eight legislatures in 2006.
Where have we heard this all before?
The paper also offers this handy map (download as PDF here):
It might be a little tough to read unless you download it, but, essentially, red is Republican, blue is Democratic (sorry for insulting your intelligence). You see a solid Republican advantage in most states since 1994. The red over blue dominance reached its peak in most places in 2000. But that’s been followed by a steady uptick in the Democratic vote in all eight states of the interior West over the last three elections.
Republicans can choose to believe this is just a blip (or that it hasn’t been caused by the GOP’s abandonment of small-government principle in favor of a God-and-government coalition). But the numbers don’t lie. Especially that pull-out pie chart in the bottom right-hand corner.
(HT: Darcy)
Some people have written in asking if I’m really banned at Heritage.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes.
UPDATE: OK, a slightly longer answer since this has taken on a life of its own.
Here’s what happened, to the best of my knowledge: I spoke to a small group called the Prosperity Caucus last Wednesday night. Heritage had had a very soft commitment to host the group this month, as the conservative think tank sometimes does. When Heritage found out I was the speaker, however, they asked the Prosperity Caucus to meet elsewhere.
Heritage is well within their rights — they’re under no obligation to host anything they don’t want to.
Their official response, which takes no issue I can see with any of the facts set out here, is here.
A new Pew poll shows Rudy and McCain neck-and-neck. I’m not going to stick cotton in my ears every time there’s good news for McCain. But I’ll just note that this poll is a pretty big aberration from most other polls of Republican voters. And it was taken November 9-12 — right when McCain announced but before news of Rudy’s toes-in-the-water committee hit.
While we’re on the topic of Rudy, however, I can’t believe I missed this a while ago … RudyBlogger highlights a poll from Cook / RT Strategies that shows Giuliani’s numbers remain strong even when respondents are prompted regarding his views on social issues. I continue to think the social-issues question won’t kill Giuliani in the primaries. His personal life and characters like Kerik … well, we’ll see.
Recent Comments