Video: Fred’s first ad
posted at 10:44 am on September 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The plan was (and is) to roll this out tonight at the start of the debate, then informally announce on Leno right after midnight just as a 15-minute video is going live on his website. I guess they couldn’t wait, though: both Jim Geraghty and Marc Ambinder just posted copies of this spot, presumably leaked to them by the campaign. Contrary to popular belief, says Ambinder, this isn’t going to air during the debate but during the last block of commercials for “The O’Reilly Factor.” Smart thinking: given the size of Bill’s audience and the creeping boredom with the debates leading people to tune out, he may get more viewers doing it that way.
They shed another staffer today and Geraghty says the secretive yet influential Arlington Group might be about to abandon ship. (Update: See below for more.) And then there’s this:
Roll Call columnist Stu Rothenberg already has an opinion: Thompson blew his best chance by not getting into the race in the spring or summer. “In delaying his entry into the Republican race, Thompson has looked indecisive and weak,” writes Rothenberg in in his Monday column (subscription only). “He has lost potential supporters and contributors to other campaigns. And he has limited the strategic options of his campaign. But maybe more than anything else, he gave an opening first to Romney and more recently to Huckabee that neither would have had.”
More on Mitt in a minute. Stand by for updates.
Update: Already linked in headlines, but be sure to read Tom Bevan’s enjoyably pissy shot at Hugh Hewitt and the other Fred-bashing water-carriers for Mitt. I especially liked the pointed inclusion of HH in the MSM. But let’s go easy on the term “fragging,” okay?
Update: Geraghty follows up on the Arlington Group. One of the things I most like about Fred is one of the things they like least. Ah, the libertarian(ish)/social con divide.
This individual said the Arlington Group members have not been able to agree on a candidate. “There has been a great deal of excitement about the possibility of a Thompson campaign; many of us are very happy about how clearly he criticized and called for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. But there is concern that the federalist constitutional amendment that he leans toward on marriage just wouldn’t work. How can you have a couple married in Massachusetts and then, when they move to Tennessee they’re not married anymore? It just seems to our legal people that America is going to end up with one definition of marriage. That’s what we want, actually, and we want that definition to be the traditional one… We hope to convince all the candidates that on this issue federalism is a not as high a value philosophically as making sure marriage has traditional configuration.”
The source goes on to hint that they’d probably be leaning towards Huckabee if they thought he could win. Which he can’t.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Well, it may be that freddie boys wife drives another qualified staffer away from freds? sinking ship.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:27 PM
csdeven, Fred’s not nearly out. Let’s see what happens.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Well, his organization IS going the wrong way.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Doriangrey, you make it tough for people to respect you. A simple apology for what was either an honest mistake or a purposeful deceipt would have been easy to do and appreciated by those of us who were misled. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that they caught your mistake. You should have thanked them for that, apologized and continued on with the discussion. The fact that you refuse to do that and continue to be defensive/combative tells us more about you then your original mistake ever did.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Yes, master political strategist, csdeven.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Guess you did not follow the link in the previous post
Otherwise all this ‘unknown’ about the poll would have been ‘old news’ to ya.
News2Use on September 5, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Oh, for crying out loud. Put a sock in it already, csdeven! If you spent half as much time telling us what’s great about Mitt instead of bashing Fred, you might have earned a few more supporters for Mitt around here by now.
I’ve been mild in my criticisms of Mitt, just in case I end up having to put a Romney sign in my yard in a few months. I know you’ll vote for Fred if he gets the nomination, cs, so maybe you should tone it down a bit, just in case, hmmm?
Note: To reiterate, I’m still leaning toward Rudy, with a strong hope that Newt enters the race. Therefore, I have no vested interest in either Fred or Mitt right now. I’m just tired of the bashing.
aero on September 5, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Yes, csd, Fred bobbed his head.
Your childish barbs at Fred! are pathetic. (He looks like …., he’s a whore, etc…) and transparent.
We all know you’re a “Rudy Girl” so just state how much better his qualifications are (santuary city, anti-gun, pro-abortion) and we’ll all make up our own minds.
Your Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak-minded!
omnipotent on September 5, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I’m afraid Fred’s providing too little, too late. Huck took a big step backwards with the national smoking ban. McCain is effectively done. Seems more and more it’s Mitt vs Rudy. I’m all-in on Newt if he jumped in, but then we’re back to the electability issue against Hillary.
Can Mitt bring out the base? He may be the best shot.
MT on September 5, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Paul Gillmore, (R) Ohio, is found dead in his home. Condolences and prayers go out to his family.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Dishonest? You seem to have a problem with what the word dishonest means, it apparently doesn’t mean what you think it means. Dishonest is what you are being, nothing I posted was factually inaccurate. The fact that I did not lead you by the hand to the source and now you are crying about it speaks more to your intellectual dishonesty than it does anything else.
Moreover the fact that I posted something that you found offensive and you screamed like a kos kiddie, well that speaks volumes about you.
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 12:35 PM
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Both Fred and Mitt have evolved in a more conservative direction on abortion since the 1990s, which should make that issue a stalemate for them.
That being the case, I don’t understand why the “Christian Right” is so pro-Fred but Anti-Mitt on this issue, particularly in South Carolina.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 12:35 PM
fred?: slyly disorganized like a fox. Bwahahahaha!
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Yeah, I spend more time talking about what’s great with Mitt than you do and I’m someone who had a huge debate with you about my opposing his religion the other day.
If I’m not particularly supporting one candidate and you are, surely you could find more time to relay his positive qualities rather than juveniley bashing Fred?
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Fred, what a weak ad. Meanwhile, Mitt’s ads are getting much better.
ps. The “Unity” part of his slogan is a code phrase for North American Union.
pedestrian on September 5, 2007 at 12:38 PM
freds? the one with the Jedi mind skills. Look at all the weak minded hair renting groupies he has hoodwinked.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I had to watch the ad a second time around to pay attention to the words because the bobbing was so distracting. This is one of the problems I have with teleprompters, you have to purposely move your head around so as to not appear that you are merely reading a script. What would have been nice is if he just memorized the script, like he had to in his recent career, and went from there. Emphasis is fine, but that was too much.
Is this what we have to look forward to? The Fred campaign has to have good first impressions. If they are going to play this ad during O’Reilly’s show, are people going to pay attention to his words or be distracted by too much vertical cranial oscillation?
Weebork on September 5, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Thus the reason why I give fred? no quarter. Maybe they watch more of freds? TV show in SC?
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I worry about people like you, mostly I just shake my head in sadness. It wasnt an accident, and it wasnt deceit. What it was was a very intentional pointed barb thrust into csdeven side, part of a long running feud over his Fred tactics. Oddly enough he seems to be the only person who got it.
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Translation:
Just because I tried to use the poll as evidence that Fred would get the nomination, without actually linking to it, posting its date, or mentioning it was only a poll of one state, doesn’t make the attempt dishonest.
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Does anybody else have the sinking feeling that if Fred wins the nomination the results of the general election are going to be hard to watch?
I feel that if Rudy or Mitt win, they, at least have the ability to campaign competently and make things competitive and interesting. Sure, they both have their negatives but they are also very strong in many other areas. I just don’t see Fred putting up much of a fight and I can’t see his seemingly inevitable downfall reflecting well on fellow republicans.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Dorian, you need to learn when to quit man. And don’t worry about me. I’ll be just fine.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 12:42 PM
The genesis of my approach towards fred? has been rooted in his refusal to get into the race. The minute he actually grows a pair and announces, you’ll see a change in my demeanor. (Until he starts to implode that is)
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Doriangrey, you said, and I quote:
† I had to go back over the last several days posts to excerpt what you said and arrange the letters as above. However, you did say it.
So nothing I said was factually inaccurate. The juxtaposition, however, may tend to mislead…
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Honestly, I didn’t see the reference to a comment of mine. I rarely read any of what you write, so if you want to get my attention you should reference a specific comment.
I still have no clue which post you are referring to.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:45 PM
While I have a running hypothesis why Fred will not win the presidency based solely by the generation he was born into, I will give the guy a chance.
I agree with some pundits and talking heads, and I think even Rush, unless Fred gives a whiz-bango performance in his first week as a nominee, he will fizzle promptly.
Weebork on September 5, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I fear that he can’t. He’s been running all-out, as hard as he can, for months and months now, and his national name recognition is still abysmally low.
Believe me, if Mitt gets the nomination, I will get behind him 110%. But I don’t see him winning the general against Hillary. I could be wrong, and I’m totally open to being surprised in that regard. We’ll see. He’s gotta get ahead of Fred, first. And I bet he’ll have trouble holding on as the “conservative alternative” against Newt, too, if Newt decides to throw his hat in at the end of September.
aero on September 5, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Bingo.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Thank goodness Fred kept it short. Any longer and he might actually have had to say something other than the job description of President.
I wish you were there Fred. You’ve been doing so much talk about how when you’re getting in you’re getting in, but you haven’t even prepared some original thoughts for a debate scheduled conveniently the day before your announcement.
The other candidates will be having Fred-a la-king with weaksauce for dinner tonight.
The man can’t keep his staff in order, and he wants to be in charge of the biggest everything on the planet? Fat chance.
BKennedy on September 5, 2007 at 12:49 PM
However, the Presidential election itself will raise his profile enormously.
Hell, it raised Michael Dukakis’ profile.
Will he get the nomination? Doubtful.
But he’s competent and that can’t hurt in the general.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Nice. First sentence, stupid observation. Second sentence, confirmation of stupidity.
What is excessive Fred-bashing an indication of?
fogw on September 5, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Funny how dishonesty works, you juxtaposition cut and paste and insert and equivicate this to where I quote verbatim, yet somehow my verbatim quote is dishonest.
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I gave up trying to shame him into being respectable a long time ago.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Allahpundit,
An off topic question: Is there any plan in the works to initiate a chat room system? Javascript or otherwise.
Maybe it would help free up server space in the long run.
Then again, the downside would be yet another thing you, the staff, would have to monitor and provide overwatch.
Weebork on September 5, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Sup is a naked grab for the youth vote.
JiangxiDad on September 5, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Now that is pure pot and kettle irony……
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Where does the psycho even come up with this stuff?
CS just keeps adding EVERYTHING he hears that sounds remotely insulting toward Fred Thompson to his freaky little list, and then he keeps saying it all over and over again like some weird sort of zealot’s litany.
logis on September 5, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Interesting, can I ask what your running hypothesis is in regards to Fred’s generation?
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote in that post.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 12:55 PM
WOW! OT Newsflash. Fox reporting Norman Hsu didn’t show up for his bail bond hearing today.
From the San Fran Chronicle’s report:
Maybe he got lost going home since he has so many different addresses?
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Nah, it was just a good way to get you to call yourself a sh*tbum. Like in FMJ with Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, “Choke yourself!”
Now what you did was without stating it was a local poll for a state of no more than 6,000,000 people and 10 electoral votes, you used this to make a sweeping statement Fred would win the nomination and what’s more this was your proof we would be eating crow.
That juxtaposition.
Simple honesty would have demanded you reveal that when making your point.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 12:56 PM
So, how long are you morons gonna keep up with this slapfight?
Bad Candy on September 5, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Bwahahahaha!! It is the balance to the slobbering hair renting rants of the fred? groupies. It always has been and always will be. Until he decides to grow a pair and announce that is.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Plus page refreshes and ad revenue. Or does your system distinguish between a commentator refreshing the page after a comment compared to a unique reader?
Is this why you haven’t put AJAX comments into play?
With those… a chat room system might not even be necessary. And chat rooms bite. Too addictive, and there isn’t really an archive of what happened.
Blogs are better. Chat rooms are so late 90s.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Dance 8itch, dance! hahaha
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Could he PLEASE be hiding under Hillarys skirt? Oh, that’s right she doesn’t wear skirts. But surly he could hide behind those huge hips of hers.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:00 PM
When are the primaries over?
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Oh I get it, sorry I didnt realize you were actually csdeven. My bad. Because you know I could have sworn I posted directly to cs…
But thats ok you just keep on believing that cutting and pasting individual letters in a juxtaposition somehow equates to a verbatim quote.
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 1:01 PM
I think he’s trying as hard as he can to turn this into the MSM’s lead story. Someone really has to tell him that his effort is doomed to failure.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Nevermind, forget the chat idea. Then we’d have these guys constantly bickering back and forth to each other like a bunch of whining children on a playground. Too much hairsplitting and personal sniping.
Weebork on September 5, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Off topic, but R.I.P. Paul Gillmor.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Mitt! cruises in recent poll! fred? has no chance to win the nomination!!!!
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Heh heh heh ya, but your still buying the beer…And I drink like Allahpundit…
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 1:04 PM
doriangrey, my dissembling fellow commentator, if you say you’ve got evidence Thompson will win — and what’s more, this proves we’re wrong — because three out of five people support him, without disclosing the fact that that’s you, your wife, and your barber, then yes, you are being dishonest for all practical purposes.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Off topic (again), but Hsu is on the run again.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Someone really has to tell him that his effort is doomed to failure.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Sad but true!
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:06 PM
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 1:10 PM
And Mitt really has no chance of winning the general election. Sorry, this country is not ready, the Libs and most Evangelicals won’t vote for an LDS candidate.
bnelson44 on September 5, 2007 at 1:11 PM
doriangrey, not one person here has supported your position. Several, whether we support Fred or not and I like him, feel you were intentionally or otherwise misleading.
We’re still open to accepting your apology.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:12 PM
OK, stop typing, take a deep breath and think about this for a second: are even YOU enough of a lunatic to believe you aren’t lying about that?
Or are the sane people all misreading this, and you’re really just trying to say that you expect to become even MORE hysterical the minute Fred Thompson officially announces?
logis on September 5, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Yes, you’re right in many respects. But then again Mitt! isn’t aiming for the bigot vote. Most Americans wont give a crap if his message resonates with them.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Stay out of public communications.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM
You haven’t been paying attention over the last 5 months have you?
Now I remember why I stopped reading your tripe.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM
One of his houses is in a fashionable neighborhood a few miles from my not-so-fashionable neighborhood. If it’s empty, might try the illegal immigrant thing over there.
JiangxiDad on September 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Yeah, no $hit!
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:17 PM
OK I apologize for your 459ing a conversation that wasnt directed at you. Feel better now?
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 1:18 PM
I’m still waiting for you to explain which of my comments you were responding to. A time stamp would be sufficient.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:20 PM
bnelson44 on September 5, 2007 at 1:11 PM
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Really?
Evangelicals for Mitt.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 1:21 PM
All of them, every post you have ever made about Fred…
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 1:23 PM
The missing link:
Evangelicals for Mitt
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Really.
bnelson44 on September 5, 2007 at 1:25 PM
I hope Fred lives up to his reputation because if so, I’ll be a supporter. I can’t wait until he shows up in a debate to find out if he’s up to the task — that is, if his boat is still afloat by that time. Sorry, Fred!heads, I can’t get too excited about somebody who hasn’t even been tested under fire yet, even if the current debate format isn’t very hot.
Regarding debates, I like Newt’s suggestion of nine nineties in nine.
FloatingRock on September 5, 2007 at 1:25 PM
I hope he doesn’t live near Fort Marcy Park!
IrishEi on September 5, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I don’t mean all evangelicals. Just the bigoted ones who wont vote because of his religion. And no conservative will get the libs vote. Why bother when the moderates are the ones who win generals?
I hope that makes my position a little more clear.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Good reading.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Bad Candy,
Good point. This is why I stopped chatting so many years ago. Too many people in chat rooms get like this because they feel they are immune to any real consequences. It is much easier to say a bunch of stupid crap from the safety of your home on your computer than to say the same stuff in person.
The reality is, they chat this way because they get away with it. If they tried this person to person, they would, most likely, get punched out.
Weebork on September 5, 2007 at 1:29 PM
What reputation is that?
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Has anybody else here seen the new TV show “Damages?” How many Americans really want to give power to a hyperkinetic freak like that?
If you want to run a negative add, then have the balls to run a negative add. It’s stupid to turn yourself into a characature to “prove” your opponent’s weakness. What would Mitt do against Hillary, talk about testosterone while the camera zoomed in on his jock strap?
logis on September 5, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Eh, I’m not above throwing down, but we’ve had this same slapfight a gazillion times here already, I’m bored with it.
Bad Candy on September 5, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Why? Because he’d like to see real conservatives in office instead of these RINO front-runners? Or is he insane because you don’t think such a ticket could win? Well of course not; not if so-called conservatives like yourself(?) continue to settle for closet liberals like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Hmmm, could be a good strategy for pulling the women vote away from the Hildabeast.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 1:34 PM
It’s too early. First he’ll build his positives: energy, family, success, business, athletic tie-in to olympics… then that will come later.
He doesn’t want to be the first to go negative. Hell, he’s surging in Michigan.
Why should he change strategy now?
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:35 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
This coming from a guy who supports fred?. The guy who dons blue jeans, flannel shirts, and a fake red pickup truck when he had been wearing Gucci etc.!!!
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:35 PM
One thing about Fred! He is a comment-count gold mine for HA.
Limerick on September 5, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Yeah, she’s got the lesbian vote pretty much locked up anyway.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:37 PM
The facts are that the more we find out about fred? the less appealing he is. The only way he can overcome that is to do very, very, well starting tomorrow.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Mitt even more so.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Those two may be real conservatives, but they aren’t impressive candidates. Neither has shown an ability to turn ideas into a base of support – a needed skill in a president.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Hey, I’ve got a comment awaiting moderation. That’s weird. Is it because I used the word “lesbian”?
Should I have said butch-dyke instead?
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:38 PM
lol… that comment’s awaiting moderation too… must be the word, which rhymes with Thesbian.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Good question, I’ve wondered the same thing. The way it seems to me is that Fred has built up a reputation based on his acting career, which when combined with the conservative message portrayed in his ABC radio commentaries has created, perhaps entirely fictionally, Fred’s reputation. About all I know about Fred is that he’s likable and those radio commentaries were nicely done.
It remains to be seen how well he’ll hold up in the real world.
Then of course there’s the reputation for laziness and the potential problems with his voting record, etc…
My point is, we’ll have to continue waiting to find out.
FloatingRock on September 5, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Great point from Evangelicals for Mitt:
csdeven,
Thanks for the clarification, since you certainly implied that all evangelicals were bigots with your first post. Generally speaking, I think it’s a losing strategy to pit one group against another.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Yeah. We had a huge knock down drag out here the other day and I made sure to specifically point out only the bigoted ones. I know that doesn’t translate to a different thread. I just got lazy.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:42 PM
A lot of moderates think prejudice against blacks and gays when they think of Mormons. I would expect a lot of moderates to vote for Hillary if the choice is Mitt or Hillary.
bnelson44 on September 5, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Bad Candy,
Fair enough. Defending one’s position is fine, it just seems a few of us get bogged down in hairsplitting and grade school type behavior far too easily. It gets tiring for me well before the gazillionth time as it does for you. You must have more patience than I do!
Weebork on September 5, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Hey, csdeven, I’m one of the strongest Mitt boosters here, but I thought I was the biggest bigot from the other thread?
Oh wait — could it be that I’m not a bigot and was criticizing Mormonism as a religion, but not condemning Mormons, many of whom are those I love in my personal life, as people?
Nah.
It’s easier to scream bigot every two seconds.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:44 PM
O/T
Lets talk about something really important. A new book claims that Howard Stern and Larry Birkhead had a sexual relationship.
I suppose AP will now abandon this hate fred? fest we have going?
J/K
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Those two may be real conservatives, but they aren’t impressive candidates. Neither has shown an ability to turn ideas into a base of support – a needed skill in a president.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 1:38 PM
What?
Speaking as a woman, jockstrap shots don’t do it for me, but then again I don’t think dancing Chippendales are sexy either, so what do I know.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 1:48 PM
I do.
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Where are they in the polls at present? Hovering around the 1 to 3% mark? Having the right ideas is not enough – one has to be able to communicate those ideas in a way that inspires people to follow him.
It seems Hunter and Tancredo are unable to do this.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »