April 06, 2010
— Gabriel Malor In the gubernatorial race, the emerging narrative is that GOP frontrunner Meg Whitman is buying the governor's mansion. She has given her own campaign $59 million dollars.
The latest poll has GOP voters picking Whitman over Poizner by 60 percent to 20 percent. California voters choose Whitman over Dem competition Jerry Brown by 44 percent to 41 percent while Brown leads Poizner by 53 percent to 22 percent.
In the race for Barbara Boxer's seat, the California Secretary of State has the list of 13 official challengers (PDF). Boxer will face blogger Mickey Kaus in the June Democratic primary.
All three GOP candidates are within the margin when matched up against Boxer, though Tom Campbell does slightly better than Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore. The NRSC has said that it will remain neutral in the GOP primary.
For a while, Campbell had a bit of a lead on Fiorina among GOP voters, but that has eroded in recent days as the National Organization for Marriage assails him for his pro-gay marriage stance.
Campbell has also been taking fire over his anti-Israel positions and recent revelations that a convicted terrorist raised funds for his 2000 campaign. The belief that he doesn't understand the threat of radical Islam led GOProud to repudiate Campbell's overtures to gay voters.
Meanwhile, Fiorina's old boss, Senator John McCain, endorsed her today, saying he thinks she's "eminently qualified" to be a U.S. senator.
Staunch conservative DeVore trails in the race only attracting single digits from GOP primary voters.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
05:47 PM
| Comments (103)
Post contains 282 words, total size 3 kb.
DeVore may indeed be the house conservative, but we need to be practical. California is bass ackwards and we need to pick our battles. Although in my mind, Fiorina is toxic and stinks to high heaven. Being blessed by McIneversaidIwasaMaverick, doesn't help at all.
Posted by: Olliander at April 06, 2010 05:56 PM (j4xgZ)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 06, 2010 05:58 PM (P33XN)
Posted by: Sparky at April 06, 2010 05:58 PM (r0u40)
Posted by: Jean at April 06, 2010 05:59 PM (CPefM)
I live in CA and did not realise AHHNOLD is out of it?
I admit, I dont watch or read any news anymore. Except here and other stops on the internet. Also listen to Rush, The Man, and the Band, and did not know.
Can I haz knowledge?
Posted by: Woolie at April 06, 2010 06:00 PM (Qxxeb)
Sparky at April 06, 2010 09:58 PM (r0u40)
Yeah. It's like someone campaigning real hard for an appointment as commandant of Auschwitz in March 1945.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 06, 2010 06:00 PM (P33XN)
Posted by: Jean at April 06, 2010 06:02 PM (CPefM)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 06, 2010 06:02 PM (P33XN)
Posted by: curious at April 06, 2010 06:04 PM (p302b)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 06, 2010 06:09 PM (P33XN)
Posted by: mghorning at April 06, 2010 06:10 PM (zCkI9)
I'll never vote Democrat again, so Fiorina? Fuck, why not. If it doesn't have a 'D' it's OK by ME.
PS: A lot of you fuckers holding your nose over these candidates probably don't actually live here right?
Posted by: Max Power at April 06, 2010 06:11 PM (q177U)
Posted by: BSKB at April 06, 2010 06:12 PM (VMQ3r)
I'll never vote Democrat again, so Fiorina? Fuck, why not. If it doesn't have a 'D' it's OK by ME.
PS: A lot of you fuckers holding your nose over these candidates probably don't actually live here right?
Posted by: Max Power at April 06, 2010 10:11 PM (q177U)"
No, don't live there but who do you think has a chance of winning, Max?
Posted by: curious at April 06, 2010 06:13 PM (p302b)
Posted by: mercanaire at April 06, 2010 06:14 PM (Izp7g)
PS: A lot of you fuckers holding your nose over these candidates probably don't actually live here right?
True, but when Curly Fiorina dives across the aisle into the warm bosom of the dems, don't say you weren't warned.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 06, 2010 06:14 PM (P33XN)
PS: A lot of you fuckers holding your nose over these candidates probably don't actually live here right?
NO. Some of us were smart enough to move the fuck out years ago.
Posted by: Barbarian at April 06, 2010 06:17 PM (EL+OC)
PS: A lot of you fuckers holding your nose over these candidates probably don't actually live here right?
True, but when Curly Fiorina dives across the aisle into the warm bosom of the dems, don't say you weren't warned.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 06, 2010 10:14 PM (P33XN)"
That's probably true, didn't even think about that but she was endorsed by the all time "Mr. dive across the aisle" so it is more probable ......
Plus, being a business woman she will want to get something done even if it isn't exactly what she wanted to begin with, it will be "something"
Posted by: curious at April 06, 2010 06:17 PM (p302b)
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 06, 2010 06:22 PM (d1FhN)
Posted by: mercanaire at April 06, 2010 06:24 PM (Izp7g)
Posted by: mercanaire at April 06, 2010 06:27 PM (Izp7g)
i may vote for Moonbeam in the fall, on the grounds tat only complete failure will get the attention of the idiots who have moved into my once wonderful state. besides, i have friends in Texas, so i can escape. :-D
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 06, 2010 06:27 PM (d1FhN)
Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer are very nice people. I prefer Sullivan over Kaus. For balanced news I like Huffington Post and TalkingPointsMemo.
Fuck Fox News.
Posted by: Tom Coburn at April 06, 2010 06:32 PM (sWZxV)
WTF is this guys malfunction?
Posted by: Barbarian at April 06, 2010 10:33 PM (EL+OC)
I'm starting to think the Goa'uld might be real.
Posted by: Burn DC to the ground at April 06, 2010 06:37 PM (dQdrY)
NO. Some of us were smart enough to move the fuck out years ago.
Hahah, *ouch* (that left a mark)
Having a republican replace boxer would be so sweet, IMHO. Maybe I'm not thinking long term, I guess.
Posted by: Max Power at April 06, 2010 06:40 PM (q177U)
And what's with this "eminently qualified" to be a U.S. senator bullshit? Because she ran HP into the ground? Because she appeared on television to prop up Juan McCain and then fucked up so badly that he pulled her off the media trail?
I'm better qualified to be a senator than this kumquat.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 06, 2010 06:41 PM (P33XN)
I love the taste of Potomac in the morning. I wear the title of NancyBoy like a badge of honor.
Posted by: Tom Coburn at April 06, 2010 06:42 PM (sWZxV)
I'll let the Cali Dems win this one because the Republicans this year will not make any difference and I don't feel like sharing the political blame for this state's economic collapse.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at April 06, 2010 06:48 PM (F09Uo)
That to me is reason enough not to vote for her.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at April 06, 2010 06:58 PM (Q75cY)
So you'll be voting for Boxer?
Posted by: Max Power at April 06, 2010 10:49 PM (q177U)
Just to be a dick, maybe I will. Either way, we get the same person.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at April 06, 2010 07:04 PM (F09Uo)
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at April 06, 2010 07:05 PM (8MuSQ)
Posted by: societyis2blame at April 06, 2010 07:15 PM (7ZyYf)
Posted by: mercanaire at April 06, 2010 10:24 PM (Izp7g)
I love you guys. You're like the fat ugly girl at the dance who waits in the corner for the best guy there to woo her. No, you should earn his attention because instead of you, there are a dozen flirty independent voters who will give him the time of day without you forcing him to tell you how pretty you look despite your too-tight dress and your face full of acne.
You think "your vote" is like your virginity. Your proud that you've never given it away, despite the fact that nobody wants it. If you actually want to do something, to make a difference, to get rid of these socialist douchebags, go out and do it, because you aren't worth the trouble of courting with your current prissy attitude.
Hell, no wonder politicians don't pander to us, we have way too many unappeasables.
Posted by: AmishDude at April 06, 2010 07:27 PM (Vo2Ef)
Is the public in California ready for change, or are they just too stupid and greedy?
Posted by: jane at April 06, 2010 07:29 PM (B/WwP)
Just to be a dick, maybe I will. Either way, we get the same person.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at April 06, 2010 11:04 PM (F09Uo)
Don't worry.
You're already a dick, apparently.
Posted by: AmishDude at April 06, 2010 07:29 PM (Vo2Ef)
Is the public in California ready for change, or are they just too stupid and greedy?
How about batshit insane? I live in norcal and I see John Kerry bumber stikers and "Drop Bush Not Bombs" all the freakin time. That's why replacing Boxer with an R is so very awesome, even if we have a shitty pool of candidates.
Posted by: Nazi Screen Name at April 06, 2010 07:35 PM (q177U)
You're already a dick, apparently.
Posted by: AmishDude at April 06, 2010 11:29 PM (Vo2Ef)
Apparently? Is that all you got?
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at April 06, 2010 07:37 PM (F09Uo)
Well that is problematic, it'll take something big to offset that...
Meanwhile, Fiorina's old boss, Senator John McCain, endorsed her today, saying he thinks she's "eminently qualified" to be a U.S. senator.'
And that should suffice yes. Good job McCain you've evened it back up again.
Posted by: Gekkobear at April 06, 2010 07:42 PM (jBr5Z)
I live in N. California, and we're stuck with Feinstein, at least for a while.
Say what you want about Fiorina, but the bottom line is this: She isn't Boxer.
Getting rid of Boxer will send a message to a lot of national D Senators, and maybe a few California D Congressman who managed to retain their seats.
Not sure about Whitman. Poizner is a bit of a problem; at least some of what she says about him is true. But Meg is at best the R Primary leader by a few percentage points, and it's a three-way primary.
Posted by: Arbalest at April 06, 2010 07:43 PM (BjcIH)
Posted by: Moron at April 06, 2010 07:45 PM (2h3VW)
Posted by: Bo Vossey at April 06, 2010 07:46 PM (vTB5A)
I'd have to go with both.
California is fucked unless we start rounding up the liberals and dropping them deep into the ocean.
Posted by: wherestherum at April 06, 2010 07:54 PM (gofDd)
Posted by: bigDon at April 06, 2010 07:55 PM (FSKXJ)
Posted by: societyis2blame at April 06, 2010 08:03 PM (7ZyYf)
In the Boxer race it just seems as though DeVore went negative right out of the gate with some accusations that weren't even accurate. I realize Fiorina said some dumb stuff, but overall I prefer how she's campaigned. I knew very little about Campbell and was surprised he was polling ahead of the others, but what I've read about him jibes with Gabriel's post and turns me off. So I'm thinking Fiorina. I've seen no ads for any of these candidates.
I really think it would be irresponsible to vote for Brown or Boxer to make a point or whatever. Brown showed a complete disregard for the voters on the Prop 8 stuff and Boxer is a moron.
Posted by: Y-not in SoCal at April 06, 2010 08:26 PM (Kn9r7)
Posted by: jane at April 06, 2010 08:29 PM (B/WwP)
The "we all need to stick together and be a team, you fucking idiots - AND you're a shit-eating man-stain if you disagree with me"
Weird. I have that exact phrase crocheted on a pillow on my couch in the living room.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 06, 2010 08:33 PM (P33XN)
Quite frankly, if I lived there (and I did for 4 years in undergrad) I would be sorely tempted to sit this one out, at least in the Governor's race, and let the next round of fiscal mismanagement be blamed on Democrats.
Of course, that's the rationale that's had me voting for Democrats in the last 3 mayoral elections here in NYC so it's admittedly not working for me.
Posted by: Oschisms at April 06, 2010 08:37 PM (Gs0qi)
The only flaw in your plan is that no one EVER blames Democrats. Ever. Look at the whole health care fiasco. The Rs didn't even have a majority and they were blamed for obstruction.
Posted by: wherestherum at April 06, 2010 08:39 PM (gofDd)
Posted by: curious at April 06, 2010 08:43 PM (p302b)
Bad idea. The next governor is going to have a significant role in redistricting after the Census.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 06, 2010 08:44 PM (Mi2wf)
Posted by: jane at April 07, 2010 12:29 AM (B/WwP)
OK, since you asked nicely. Boxer is going down, just don't expect her squishy RINO replacement to be substantially different.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at April 06, 2010 08:47 PM (F09Uo)
No, he is not an R. He talked like one then caved in to his D wife. I'm very bitter about it.
Whatever the case, I'm voting against both Boxer and Brown. I don't care if it's a plastic bag running against either of them.
Posted by: wherestherum at April 06, 2010 08:49 PM (gofDd)
Posted by: jane at April 06, 2010 08:50 PM (B/WwP)
Well that is problematic, it'll take something big to offset that...
I mentioned it because several folks kept claiming, without a shred of evidence, that GOProud was just a gay liberal organization masquerading as a place for gay conservatives. I was told in each of the three posts discussing it that GOProud wasn't really conservative and would always place gay marriage, DOMA repeal, and DADT repeal above other conservative concerns.
Now, I knew that was bullshit because I actually know the GOProud guys and what they stand for. But others didn't. So I'm just pointing it out as another example where the GOProud folks demonstrate that it's not just about gay marriage.
Campbell's pro-gay marriage position doesn't change that he's not a friend of Israel. And that's a dealbreaker since there are GOP candidates in this bunch who don't have Campbell's troubling ties to Islamic terror.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 06, 2010 08:51 PM (Mi2wf)
Posted by: jane at April 06, 2010 08:58 PM (B/WwP)
I was told in each of the three posts discussing it that GOProud wasn't really conservative and would always place gay marriage, DOMA repeal, and DADT repeal above other conservative concerns.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 07, 2010 12:51 AM (Mi2wf)
So do you have any examples of any GOP candidates that GOProud has supported that are not fully on-board with Gay gruppenthought? I only mention that because that was the other criticism against GOProud.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at April 06, 2010 09:03 PM (F09Uo)
And though Ahnold ended up being a squish, I do think he deserves credit for championing propositions that would have held the line on spending had the public voted for them. You can't say the man didn't have a strategy. You can say that when it failed, he had no Plan B and just said, "The hell with it, I'll enjoy the perks of the office and hope that a recession doesn't hit before I'm gone."
Gray Davis is weeping somewhere.
Posted by: Oschisms at April 06, 2010 09:10 PM (Gs0qi)
they allowed him to marry into the family because they are trying to breed a Kennedy that can take a bullet.
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 06, 2010 10:38 PM (d1FhN)
California is deep blue. Ocare has a majority of support here. There is no way the nanny state losers here are going to vote for real conservatives to replace Boxer, and I want that bitch gone. I say we start by settling for RINO's as a first goal and ease the liberal idiots here into conservatism. This crowd can't handle a 'cold turkey' approach, but I think incremental conservatism will work here.
As for Whitman, if she doesn't already have a team of researchers digging into the gift of campaign ad material that 8 years of a Gov. Moonbeam tenure will yield, then she isn't as smart as I think she is.
Posted by: Miss Fluffy McNutter at April 06, 2010 10:56 PM (xMSXs)
What makes you think Fiorina will be any different on social issues than Campbell?
Are there specifics on the anti-Israel claim? I didn't get that impression from his site. He seemed okay on foreign policy.
Fiorina is likeable but incompetent.
Devore. Where do I start? You need more than just the right positions to win here.
Posted by: misty at April 07, 2010 03:11 AM (W5Cmu)
Tom Campbell has ties to Islamic terrorists? Yeah, right. Get real.
That was a stretch and a cheap shot, the motives for which are sleazy.
To have made such a bitchy assertion, you've got to be neurotic and unstable.
Posted by: Dianne & Brian at April 07, 2010 03:59 AM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: Carly Fiorina at April 07, 2010 04:07 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: J at April 07, 2010 04:09 AM (T3/qP)
The "we all need to stick together and be a team, you fucking idiots - AND you're a shit-eating man-stain if you disagree with me"
Weird. I have that exact phrase crocheted on a pillow on my couch in the living room.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love love LOVE Jonathan Adler! No longer grandma's occupational therapy, needlepoint is hipper than hip! He should do a Paul Anka line.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at April 07, 2010 04:16 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: gm at April 07, 2010 05:42 AM (ELiBu)
Posted by: Major Kong at April 07, 2010 05:47 AM (I/z+1)
Do we really want people 'eminently qualified' to be senators (as we know them) in the Senate?
Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at April 07, 2010 06:10 AM (BbTsC)
Posted by: jjshaka at April 07, 2010 06:12 AM (4zeZx)
Posted by: AmishDude at April 07, 2010 06:32 AM (Vo2Ef)
Posted by: Blinky2010 at April 07, 2010 06:36 AM (eWDqI)
Posted by: Blinky2010 at April 07, 2010 06:38 AM (eWDqI)
I think that the illegal immigrant issue is not going to play well in California. Whitman's positive ads are playing well with voters. I may agree with Poizner about the illegal alien crisis, but I think his ad on that subject is a mistake.
Meg has much better polling against Brown than does Poizner. And as I understand it, the shift has come from Independents:
But independents – those who have no roots in either party and who are most susceptible to Whitman’s TV ad campaign – moved big time. They were 36-28% for Brown in January and by March they had lurched to 43-37% for Whitman – a net 14% shift in two months. In other words, eMeg’s positive ads for herself, her attacks on Poizner and his attacks on Whitman have helped boost Meg with independent voters.
Link
Posted by: Y-not in SoCal at April 07, 2010 06:56 AM (Kn9r7)
oh yeah.... as for the governors race, who cares? as long as the legislature is gridlocked into the gerrymander districts we have, the democrooks will pass what they want, and even a RINO like the two GOP candidates will accomplish squat.
Actually the partisan gerrymandering is such that the Republican districts that remain are *solidly* Republican, as far as State Senate ans Assemblymembers are concerned. Sadly, there have been more than a few Republicans--the late John Doolittle comes to mind--who went along with the partisan gerrymandering, because they became solidly entrenched in their remaining Republican districts.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 07, 2010 07:00 AM (ujg0T)
I live in CA and did not realise AHHNOLD is out of it?
Two term limit for Governors. Moreover, Ahnold has been such an eco-fiend and a bond debt junkie and a "ghey rites" sellout that he would probably get unseated in the GOP primary if he could run again.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 07, 2010 07:01 AM (ujg0T)
I think that the illegal immigrant issue is not going to play well in California. Whitman's positive ads are playing well with voters. I may agree with Poizner about the illegal alien crisis, but I think his ad on that subject is a mistake.
Poizner was a crybaby about Meg's money, but his illegal alien ads are spot on. I just hate to see Poizner and Whitman tear each other apart (although frankly Meg Whitman's side started that).
I will vote for either over Moonbeam, hands down.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 07, 2010 07:03 AM (ujg0T)
Fucking Carly Cue Ball. Shit. I'd vote for my own excrement before I'd give Fiorina a second of attention.
For all her flaws, she's *still* better than Tom "the putz" Campbell. And AANY of them would be better than the Soviet Slut, Commiecrat Cunt, Bolshevik Bitch Boxer, by far.
DeVore is better than Fiorina is better than Campbell, but all are far superior to Boxerbitch.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 07, 2010 07:05 AM (ujg0T)
I disagree for a couple of reasons - one trivial, one substantial.
The ad I've seen - the only one I've seen for Poizner - is too negative imho and I agree with him on the issue. I want to see positive vision. In other words, I may believe that the illegal population is a huge burden on California and I believe that that is ultimately what is a major cause of the anti-business tax policies here, but I don't think kicking out the illegals results in an instant fix for California. It's part of the equation, but not all of it. Poizner's ad doesn't show me what his positive vision for California is.
But, more importantly, the California electorate is not ready for a hard-line stance on illegals. They may be less sympathetic than they once were (because of the economy), but I think the polls show they are not aligned with Poizner:
According to PPICÂ’s polling, 66% of registered voters believe illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the U.S. for two years or more should be given a chance to keep their jobs and apply for legal status. And that includes 78% of Democrats, 68% of independents and even 49% of Republicans, compared to 46% of Republicans who say deport Â’em.
LINK
Posted by: Y-not in SoCal at April 07, 2010 07:15 AM (Kn9r7)
And though Ahnold ended up being a squish, I do think he deserves credit for championing propositions that would have held the line on spending had the public voted for them. You can't say the man didn't have a strategy. You can say that when it failed, he had no Plan B and just said, "The hell with it, I'll enjoy the perks of the office and hope that a recession doesn't hit before I'm gone."
That sums it up well. Ahnold was solid in 2005, but after his ballot initiatives were shot down by union demogoguery in November 2005, he gave up and by the time of the elections of November 2006, he stabbed the rest of the GOP slate in the back.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 07, 2010 07:19 AM (ujg0T)
I am not for Republicans attacking each other, but it seems to me that an effective ad for Poizner would be for him to talk about how his eyes were opened when he moved from the private to public sector. Lots of people seem to think that a major problem with Arnold is that he was ill-prepared to deal with politicians and the public sector -- that could also be a challenge for Meg. Poizner should play that up.
Posted by: Y-not in SoCal at April 07, 2010 07:22 AM (Kn9r7)
The ad I've seen - the only one I've seen for Poizner - is too negative imho and I agree with him on the issue. I want to see positive vision.
Hopefully, this is not your "trivial" disagreement. PPIC polls are skewed leftward a bit a la Gallup.
You are right about this. Meg Whitman's initial "Talk To Meg" ads, describing what was wrong with CA and what to do about it, were very appealing to me. It was only when her campaign pulled out the unfair attack ads against Poizner that I began to sour on her.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 07, 2010 07:23 AM (ujg0T)
What about USC/LA Times?
A new Los Angeles Times/USC poll has found a shift in California voter sentiment away from proposals to take away all social services from illegal immigrants, including access to schools and emergency medical treatment, from illegal residents.
Large majorities in the poll supported two alternative proposals: one that would couple stronger enforcement at the border with a temporary worker program, and one that would combine stronger border enforcement with a path to eventual citizenship for illegal residents who perform community service, pay back taxes and learn English.Do you have a set of polls you trust that show the majority of voters (not Rs) support a hard line on illegals?
I think the Poizner campaign has been somewhat ineffective and not just because of money. I'm a registered R - I even signed up to volunteer during last election cycle (but the McCain campaign was too screwed up to put me to work) - but I have not received anything on Poizner and the only ad I've seen from his side is the illegals one.
I am really open to hearing the argument about how Poizner is more qualified, but I haven't heard it from his campaign.
Posted by: Y-not in SoCal at April 07, 2010 07:30 AM (Kn9r7)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 07, 2010 07:34 AM (2fRBi)
What about USC/LA Times?
Even more leftward skewed.
That said, the adage about drawing more flies with honey than gall is true. Meg, before she started attack ads on Poizner, was clearly likeable.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 07, 2010 08:10 AM (ujg0T)
You may be discounting my premise (that Poizner shouldn't be leading with an issue that is not a strong one across the state, even in a primary), but I had the impression that you think the illegals issue is a winner. If so, I wonder if you have seen polls supporting that impression?
Posted by: Y-not in SoCal at April 07, 2010 09:07 AM (Kn9r7)
The governor's race is making my teeth grind. Poizner and Whitman are both flawed candidates, so I'm not really committed to either of them yet. If the primary were held today, I'd vote Whitman, but tomorrow might be different.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at April 07, 2010 09:30 AM (vEhUz)
We will elect another "R" to take over for a "R"ino, but we will keep the same Sacramento morons that have took us down the socialist/Communist path since Reagan.
Damn shame, this state once had promise. Now it's no more than the peoples republic of Kalifornia.
Posted by: Robert at April 08, 2010 03:50 PM (IEh7K)
Posted by: aziz at May 04, 2011 10:53 AM (mQ7gk)
Posted by: soccer cleats at June 26, 2011 10:00 PM (ESwwK)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
61 queries taking 0.1937 seconds, 228 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: logprof at April 06, 2010 05:53 PM (Mmw0q)