Is social conservatism hurting the tea party?

posted at 4:01 pm on March 6, 2014 by Dustin Siggins

Yesterday, Cato Institute senior fellow Michael Tanner made the case at National Review Online that the Tea Party is waning. He identified what he sees as the main problem: the Tea Party is getting mixed up in social issues, which is not only hurting their brand but also driving away libertarians.

It is true that on Capitol Hill, the Tea Party has lost a great deal of influence. Since September, the Tea Party has seen the government reopen without slowing – never mind stopping – the Affordable Care Act. The debt ceiling has been dissolved and raised, respectively, and a budget deal that neutered sequester got bipartisan support.

But I have my doubts that it’s due to a sudden upswell of social conservatism among Tea Party activists. Tanner cites socially conservative comments from Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation and Scottie Neil Hughes of Tea Party News Network, but then ties my former employer Tea Party Patriots (TPP) into his assessment by noting that “during last summer’s congressional town-hall season, Tea Party Patriots was organizing not against Obamacare or raising the debt ceiling, but against immigration reform.”

However, immigration reform is certainly an economic and spending issue as well as a social issue. Furthermore, when the immigration debate started a senior Capitol Hill press staffer asked me about TPP’s possible involvement in the discussions. I was told in no uncertain way by my boss that we were not going to get involved at the time, and we did not – until the costs started coming to light, and constitutional questions were raised.

So why is the Tea Party losing influence in Washington? While Monday Morning-quarterbacking is admittedly easier than being in the trenches during tough times – punditry is a field that does not seem to punish wrong conclusions – I see two major causes.

The first is by far the most important: the leaders in both political parties want power. They may disagree on how to garner the power for themselves, but they would rather gush over a terrible budget deal because suddenly everyone is singing “Kumbaya” than actually do what’s right, constitutional, and best for the country.

The Tea Party threatens that power, and for a while GOP leaders – and some Democrats – were too scared of Tea Party activists to revert fully back to power-grabbing form. Now, however, they are no longer scared of the Tea Party, and thus the grassroots have lost power on Capitol Hill.

Why they’re not scared brings us to the second reason the Tea Party has lost influence: Several tactical errors in the last 14 months gave GOP leaders all the excuse they needed to brush off the Tea Party and revert back to form.

Consider the following:

In early 2013, fiscal cliff legislation was passed into law. It was a pretty awful piece of legislation, complete with a one-year farm bill, delay of the sequester’s impact, and $67 billion in special interest tax loopholes. It also, most importantly, raised taxes on the American people.

Tea Party activists went into attack mode, with Erick Erickson declaring the whole disaster to be “the McConnell tax hike.” Yet what was often ignored was how, due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the unwise payroll tax cut, taxes were set to skyrocket. So, yes, the fiscal cliff legislation raised taxes, but thanks to the GOP the damage was somewhat limited. Not as limited as it should have been, but limited.

In June of last year, conservatives held the line and voted down the farm bill. Unfortunately, this strong stance was not backed by better legislation that had the backing of a conservative coalition. Which meant things went exactly as Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) predicted at the time: A very bad farm bill in June turned into an atrocious one earlier this year, and passed into law.

Should conservatives have held the line in June? I’m not such a Monday Morning quarterback that I would feel comfortable saying one way or the other. But given the way the bill’s underlying laws are written, unraveling the mess takes time, and multiple reform efforts. So it would have been good to see a more comprehensive strategy be brought to the fore by its opponents, instead of simply saying “no” to the bill that was brought forward. (To his credit, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), a leading opponent of the bill, did have his own plan drawn up and proposed.)

Finally, the partial government shutdown is what really did the Tea Party in on Capitol Hill. For two months, Republicans were attacked, and told if they didn’t stand with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) they were RINOs. This is opposed to being encouraged to stand with the Tea Party and fight for fairness for the American people because President Obama was delaying the law’s effects for his allies.

Even Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), one of the strongest fiscal conservatives in the last 20 years, was suddenly in the RINO category to many. All because, in many cases, of a difference of opinion on tactics, not principles.

And so the government partially shut down – fully 17 percent, which is pitifully small to everyone but the mainstream media and opportunistic politicians – and public opinion quickly turned against the Tea Party. The government reopened, the ACA continued to be implemented, and the establishment GOP finally had an excuse to push the Tea Party aside and ignore its principles and influence.

Could things have gone differently? Certainly, GOP power players prefer to spend, spend, spend. But what if the Tea Party had worked with Speaker Boehner on acceptable compromises on the fiscal cliff, the farm bill, and the shutdown?

For example, instead of fighting tooth-and-nail over fully delaying the ACA, conservatives could have pushed for a delay of the individual mandate, keeping the sequester in place, and eliminating the ACA congressional loophole. These would have had full GOP support, likely gotten passed into law, and had the GOP and conservatives focused on the debt ceiling.

Such a tactic would have also given the Tea Party the ability to say to Boehner, “Look, we compromised three times. We played your game. Now play ours, and don’t raise the debt ceiling.” And he would have listened, like he did during the partial shutdown – except with better results.

I would love to see a hard line taken on every issue, but that simply isn’t where things are in D.C. The farm bill is a convoluted mess that takes time to unravel, and the votes and public opinion weren’t there on the ACA/shutdown fight. The country won’t win on a hard-line approach to those situations, especially when small to medium chops can be made that would move the ball int the right direction.

However, on some issues, hard-line approaches are wise on both principles and tactics. With the debt ceiling, for example, conservatives should take a stand. No matter what the political consequences end up being, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in spending to balance the budget – which is what would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised – is worth the consequences in media attacks and complaints from politicians.

Again, the biggest problem here is the political class, its love for power, and its distaste for fiscal responsibility. The Tea Party made some tactical errors, and this gave the power players in the GOP an excuse to ignore the Tea Party. Of course, these same politicians, lobbyists, and media folks also ignore what Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle pointed out a couple of months ago: If it wasn’t for the Tea Party, gun control and amnesty would be law instead of largely editorial page wishes at the New York Times.

But, hey – that doesn’t fit into Washington’s “country bumpkins” image of Tea Party activists.

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 3 4 5

Another Moby

Murphy9 on March 7, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Nice turn. ; )

Bmore on March 7, 2014 at 10:09 AM

“So Con” is the term used by progressives to infiltrate the GOP the same way that “liberal” was used to dominate the Democratic Party. Its time has passed.

Another Libertarian on March 7, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Your eyes must be brown.

kingsjester on March 7, 2014 at 10:19 AM

We need to be Adult enough to realize the victories that are attainable, and not make the leap too far. We need a lot of fiscal sanity in this country, but the best way to make it palatable is to get economic growth going.

The GOP got tagged the last time with the Silly War on Women meme, when the big effort by the GOP was jobs, regulation, and the Economy. We were not principalled on issues such as Obamacare, taxes, and budgets. So we got distracted by the Todd Aiken’s.

Jay Galt on March 7, 2014 at 10:25 AM

HugoDrax on March 7, 2014 at 1:57 AM

Even for a Canadian, you’re an idiot.

Solaratov on March 7, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Another Moby

Murphy9 on March 7, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Projection.

V7_Sport on March 7, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Oh, if only the Republicans would go after the Democrats like everyone went after the tea party, we’d be up by 50 points in this election.

The establishment has been very successful at falsely labeling the tea party which, for the most part, is all about the budget and the debt, and trying to make it about social issues. Anytime a social issue comes up, they say it’s the tea party making the fuss. For the most part that’s a lie, but they have been successful making it appear that way.

The beauty of the tea party is not an organization that can be easily attacked and, although their brand may be successfully attacked, their ideas will not wane and the ability to vote people in to support that will not go away.

bflat879 on March 7, 2014 at 11:27 AM

What’s wrong with the Tea Party is their complete lack of political skill. They support candidates who cannot possibly win, and refuse to support those who can. The Tea Party is the best thing that ever happened to the democrat party, and they’ll stay in power as long as the Tea Party remains stubborn and unfocused on fighting democrats instead of eating their own. Hopefully they’ll realize that and stop insisting on 100% THEIR WAY.

Armyspouse on March 7, 2014 at 11:40 AM

Read the quote. He said “constitution”, not government. Not laws.

HugoDrax on March 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

I’ve seen dumb readings before, but yours is especially tasty. The Constitution is how a government is planned and not simply de facto.

And here Adams is saying that we can have NO government (laid out by a constitution) which will stand up to “human passions unbridled by morality and religion”. Which is why the Constitution works in the context of “a moral and religious people” and none other (per Adams).

By the way, he wrote this after the bit you quoted from the Treaty of Tripoli:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

This, however, was later revised when Americans got the upperhand against the Barbary pirates, to exclude that very passage. And it’s chief meaning was that we do not have a state church or have a history of warring with “the musselmen” (Muslims) over a religious rivalry.

And it’s odd that you can take the original language of this document as the true document. But can’t understand that the Bill of Rights, the part of the Cons that actually talks about rights, are amendments to the Constitution (needless, per Madison), which was mainly about the structure of our government.

So although the Treaty of Tripoli was revised to not contain that statement, you prefer the first, as an official statement. And although the Constitution had its chief focus upon the structure of representational government and original, unamended form, you prefer the latter version, to the point where in your bafflement, you can’t locate the central purpose of the Constitution to be a plan for government.

And as a plan, per Adams, it fails without the support of a “moral and religious people”.

The pieces were right before you, but you simply rubbed them in your hair rather than put them together.

The constitution does not restrict the People. It provides for freedoms of the People. It stands in opposition to government.

Oops there goes that broad brush again. Yup, it stood in opposition to the Government that it was laying out and all the various states which retained their sovereignty.

I will agree that Moral Majorit-arianism and Evangelical politics comes to the front in the 1970s. But that’s really not as solid a point as you try to make it. It was brewing from the early 1950s, inspired by the post-Holocausst “Back to Church” movement in the late 1940s. And often cited as an early manifesto in this movement was Buckley’s God and Man at Yale. Buckley’s chief note was that rural farmers were working and scraping and sending their hard-earned money to ivy league schools, whose goal was, similar to Woodrow Wilson’s view of college, “to make a man as unlike his father as possible”. And many professors thought of that as their highest duty. Buckley’s point was that this was a way of progressivism encroaching upon rural conservative communities.

It’s no surprise that as the federal government expansion and local intervention grew, conservatives decided not to just wait as the federal government rolled over them, but to try to act at the base of the momentum: at the federal level. So yeah, its a fact that a movement had it’s highest visibility later than some other statement.

But it’s simply an ambiguous “fact” that you simply plop down as if it means something important (and I believe this correlates to your digestion of nice, chewable liberal messaging). Something cam LATER than something ELSE, Doggone it!! Can’t you see, IT CAME LATER!! {sob}

Which shows me that the truth is not in what the x happens at time t represents about the situation, but what it SOUNDS LIKE , what it can be made to sound like. And that is the liberal art of “Messaging”. That free-participation propaganda of the left.

Again, ample proof that left-cons have been conditioned to liberal messaging, bad connotations, “sounds like”, “looks like” thinking, to the detriment of learning and deliberation and analysis.

My cause is not really “social conservatism”, but that we don’t get a whole lot stupider throwing back and forth liberal distortions. And that centralized manifesto-making of people in the libertarian sphere, where judges slap down everybody who’s “doing it wrong” could be no further from de-centralized power structure and self-governance that the Constitution was DRAFTED for. And that the purism of modern libertarianism does not match the pragmatic optimism of the founders either.

“Libertarian roots”? No, more like Randian co-option (which by the way, comes later.) Thomas Jefferson’s talk about minimal government to the side, he nonetheless sponsored legislation as the governor of Virginia that put people in the stocks overnight for “lewd talk”. The country was rife with homespun conservative participatory democracies, and the founders thought to preserve self-governance as much as possible.

Axeman on March 7, 2014 at 12:09 PM

What’s wrong with the Tea Party is their complete lack of political skill. They support candidates who cannot possibly win, and refuse to support those who can.

Armyspouse on March 7, 2014 at 11:40 AM

And one reason they “cannot win” is the susceptibility of left-cons to liberal messaging and image. You guys slurp this stuff up like sugary cereal in front of Saturday morning cartoons.

What’s so hard about cutting budgets and taxes that Christine O’Donnell couldn’t have done it? We need the “competency” of the years of skill of the establishment folks to “run” government and “manage” programs. But if your goal is to really have less of that, wouldn’t O’Donnell with a machete have been better than somebody who had never been associated with “witchcraft” or whatever slop you sopped up from the left.

People who appeal to the establishment may do so for reasons not entirely under our control.

Axeman on March 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM

For me, it’s simple: The GOP had my vote as long as I could believe that the GOP would someday get around to reducing the size of government and stop the federal bureaucracy from siphoning our freedoms away. That belief is no longer possible, so they don’t get my vote anymore. If both parties are going to simply suck the system dry, then there’s nothing left to do but watch it happen, prepare for the eventual collapse, and hope the perpetrators suffer for it — but there’s certainly no reason to vote for the useless weasel liars in the GOP.

Aitch748 on March 7, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Have to wonder how far the TP will go without the soc cons?

katiejane on March 7, 2014 at 1:39 PM

What’s so hard about cutting budgets and taxes that Christine O’Donnell couldn’t have done it? We need the “competency” of the years of skill of the establishment folks to “run” government and “manage” programs. But if your goal is to really have less of that, wouldn’t O’Donnell with a machete have been better than somebody who had never been associated with “witchcraft”….
Axeman on March 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Good case for incompetency. Seriously, aren’t we supposed to be smarter than the other side?

V7_Sport on March 7, 2014 at 1:57 PM

SMH at people who say they will not vote… Dolts

Bullhead on March 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM

listens2glenn on March 7, 2014 at 2:26 AM

Read the quote. He said “constitution”, not government. Not laws.

HugoDrax on March 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

.
For the purposes of discussing the John Adams quote that I posted earlier :

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

John Adams

. . . how can anyone separate the Constitution from our governments (all levels), and our laws ? !
.

The constitution does not restrict the People. It provides for freedoms of the People. It stands in opposition to government.

HugoDrax on March 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

.
I’m pretty sure we don’t disagree there, with the possible exception of the definition of “freedoms”.
.

So when you advocate for the government to outlaw gay marriage or abortion, or anything else, you are not dealing with the constitution.

HugoDrax on March 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

.
Formal recognition of homosexuality, as a valid, legitimate, alternate state of ‘normal’ has never been tolerated by American society AT LARGE (there are always a few pocket locations where almost anything is “tolerated”, however).
The ideology of openly accepting homosexuality on a full lawfully mandated basis is the “Johnny come lately” … about 1973.
.

If you believe America is not Christian enough for its constitution, then you are suggesting, therefore, that the Constitution needs to be more restricted. So that line of logic does not help you.

HugoDrax on March 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

.
Not “Christian” … disciplined. It’s not the Constitution I’m saying needs to be “restricted”, it’s the citizens … who have to be “self controlled” or “self restricted”.
What I’m interpreting John Adams’ quote (that I found) to mean is :

Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other a hedonistic society, that does not recognize God.

John Adams

.
Gotta finish this in two parts, other irons in the fire here.
I’ll be back.

listens2glenn on March 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Why are politicians ignoring the TEA party? Obama’s IRS targeting and refusal to grant tax exempt status severely hurt the party’s impact on the 2012 elections. We have seen the ranks of the Washington Establishment GOP grow in number as Republican leaders like Boehner and McCain have lashed out at the TEA party for attempting to hold them accountable, for insisting they adhere to their oaths of office – protecting and defending the Constitution – when ding so might make it hard to get re-elected. Republicans in Congress have made it harder to tell the difference lately between Republicans and liberals.

Perhaps if he TEA party reminded the Republicans of how powerful united Americans can be by voting more of them out of office in the upcoming elections they will be motivated to change their minds and remember why they are there…

easyt65 on March 7, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Fiscal conservatism is being framed as something everyone can agree on if only those social conservatives would keep their bigoted antiquated views out of it.

Cindy Munford on March 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM

My thought: Social(i.e., religious)conservatives are Fiscal Conservatives.

When I promise someone something I consider that a sacred obligation that I need to honor.

It should be the same with government in a republic – I consider my governments promises as obligations that I (or my family) need to honor. That’s why the whole entitlement scam bothers me. Because it’s morally wrong and hurts my family.

But I’m not going to vote for a Fiscally Conservative/Socially liberal candidate who supports abortion rights. I won’t do that and neither will a lot of other social cons.

So if you think nominating a candidate like that will win enough votes from socially liberal types who voted for Obama then feel free.

Personally I think you’re just fooling yourselves. And your real motivation is that you don’t want to be embarrassed in front of your friends who say: “How could you vote Republican? Didn’t you see the SNL skit? And all the cool people in the Hollywood and NY media say they’re racist and misogynist?”

kcewa on March 7, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Millennial and libertarians voted for Obama. And somehow they are the only hope for conservatives. It’s a nut-house in here.

To all the libertarians(small l large L) – you have NO grass roots organizations. You do not matter in electoral politics. You exist only on message boards and on a college campus. You can not compete with the DEM gotv machine because, frankly you are not even in the game. At least the TEA party(socon or not/ popular or not) are actually working in the real world – Y’know – organizing.

Oh, and I have asked several times and will not get an answer – Why is Christie pulling out the pro-life schtick now if Socon is a loser position?
Shouldn’t you little and big “l”‘s be criticizing him for ruining the GOP now? Nope, because this is not a real debate. It’s a moby/alinsky cynical tactic. Go ahead, prove me wrong – do some ranting about Christie’s new found pro-life agenda.
And guess what – All the gopE candidates will be touting their Socon roots in the primary. Let’s see you get upset then – you won’t because this is about the gopE smearing the grassroots, not about socon and fiscon.

BoxHead1 on March 7, 2014 at 3:38 PM

kcewa on March 7, 2014 at 2:47 PM

What are you talking about? I am discussing what is being done to the Tea Party, not my own views. I don’t even know how you got to the point of your comment.

Cindy Munford on March 7, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Cindy Munford on March 7, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Just been that kind of day I reckon. ; )

Bmore on March 7, 2014 at 11:37 PM

listens2glenn on March 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM

.
Okay, continuing . . . . .
.

The quotes I cited show Adams was a big libertarian. His political philosophy was diametrically opposed to that of social conservatives.

I leave you with the best example of John Adams on the subject :

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

- John Adams

HugoDrax on March 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

.
Context is everything. That is NOT a John Adams quote.

It is from article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the Senate … and signed by John Adams :

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

.
I am contending that this quote did NOT originate from John Adams, and further that his Presidential signature on that treaty does not constitute a representation of his beliefs concerning Christianity,
and the founding of the United States.

This however, IS a genuine quote, originating from John Adams :

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. *
.
* John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

Also this :

The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation. **

** John Adams letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush on December 21, 1809

I would be misrepresenting myself if I did not confess here, my ignorance of the “Treaty Of Tripoli“, before researching the quote, you presented.
I knew the origins of the verse :

“. . . to the shores of Tripoli …”

… from the Marine Corps hymn. I knew we had a “conflict” (war?) with Islamic pirates on the northern coasts of Africa, but that’s all I knew about the “Barbary Powers Conflict”, until researching this towards responding to you.

listens2glenn on March 7, 2014 at 11:51 PM

It is true that on Capitol Hill, the Tea Party has lost a great deal of influence.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha good one. Wishcasting.

bour3 on March 8, 2014 at 12:30 AM

But social liberalism is destroying the country.

bobcalco on March 6, 2014 at 10:23 PM

You sure got that right.

cimbri on March 8, 2014 at 1:51 AM

But social liberalism is destroying the country.

bobcalco on March 6, 2014 at 10:23 PM

.
You sure got that right.

cimbri on March 8, 2014 at 1:51 AM

.
Hol – y … BALLS, how did I miss that one, from earlier ?

That should hands-down … be “thread winner”.

Thanks cimbri, for re-posting that.

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 2:08 AM

listens2glenn on March 8, 2014 at 2:08 AM

But what do you do if you agree? I would think that there would be an astounding amount of evidence from the 60′s forward that the liberalization of social norms has not been good but I don’t see anyone willing to talk about it.

Cindy Munford on March 8, 2014 at 8:39 AM

The problem with the Tea Party and I love the Tea Party is that the Left has the main stream media repeating all the disinformation about the Tea Party and the main stream media has all the uninformed voters listening to there garbage.

One other thing that the Tea Party needs to fix is, there are too many Tea Party outlets and I don’t have the time to pay attention to all there different emails and websites. They need to consolidate.

Nat George on March 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The problem with the Tea Party and I love the Tea Party is that the Left has the main stream media repeating all the disinformation about the Tea Party and the main stream media has all the uninformed voters listening to there garbage.

One other thing that the Tea Party needs to fix is, there are too many Tea Party outlets and I don’t have the time to pay attention to all there different emails and websites. They need to consolidate.

Nat George on March 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

It NEVER was a unified, organized movement. It gelled in Obama’s inaugural year in opposition to taxation, ocare, tarp, etc.

Opposition to bloated, inefficient, ineffective, unconstitutional government should be a given in the USA, but it isn’t anymore.

Murphy9 on March 8, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Nat George on March 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

It doesn’t help when the Establishment Republicans hate them also.

Cindy Munford on March 8, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Is social conservatism hurting the tea party? No.

The Tea Party threatens that power, for GOP and Democrats – because they are scared of loosing their ability to grab power, via creating new laws and rules that only apply to others while exempting themselves.

Now is the time to throw some “Roundup” on career politicians grabbing form, and let the real grassroots grow on Capitol Hill.

We, U.S. are a competitive lot and while “We the People” have been eking out a living, career politicians(D) and (R) have convoluted our foundations, placing U.S. on a collusion course that threatens to tear us apart from within. While real competition thrives and is stronger when more than two interests are allowed to be heard.

As far as I am concerned we must repeal all laws that divide U.S. and reevaluate our foundation as a free society, which values life and welcomes all who honor our Constitution as originally written.

MSGTAS on March 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5