Obama wins Florida! UPDATE: Bush Helps!

Remember when we were worried that Obama would lose Florida? Or that Florida was turning into a red state?

After all, with Hillary winning Florida during the primaryish thing that was held, and with the whole delegate craziness... not to mention bad feelings the remain from the Democrats 2000 and 2004 losses... well, Florida sure seemed out of reach for a while there... up until... today.

Yes, today. In a single fell swoop, John Sidney McCain, savior of the Democratic party, gave the Democrats Florida's electoral votes in 08, plus -- most likely -- another Senate seat in 10, and the Governor's mansion.

The answer, Encyclopedia Brown style, after the jump.

Today, thinking that America's desperate hatred of the current Administration's energy policy -- and its resultant record-high gas prices -- means that America wants giant oil platforms off the Florda coast. From the Miami Herald:


WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain plans to call Tuesday for lifting the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along much of the U.S. coastline -- but would give states like Florida veto power over opening up their shores.

McCain, who plans to unveil his proposal in detail Tuesday, said Monday that lifting the decades-old moratorium should be a ''very high priority'' with gas prices soaring.

Seasoned political partisans, like ourselves, found ourselves awakening not to this sweltering June day but to something far more Dickensian:


Running to the window, he opened it, and put out his head. No fog, no mist; clear, bright, jovial, stirring, cold; cold, piping for the blood to dance to; Golden sunlight; Heavenly sky; sweet fresh air; merry bells. Oh, glorious. Glorious!

'What's to-day?' cried Scrooge, calling downward to a boy in Sunday clothes, who perhaps had loitered in to look about him.

'Eh?' returned the boy, with all his might of wonder.

'What's to-day, my fine fellow?' said Scrooge.

'To-day?' replied the boy. 'Why, Christmas Day.'

Yes! It's Christmas! And Santa McClaus left us Florida under the tree. I'll let Politico take the credit for this awesome quote:


"Before $4.25-per-gallon gas, this would have been like pulling a pin on a grenade and rolling it into the state," said David Johnson, the former executive director of the Florida Republican Party. "It would have been a fool's errand to recommend it. It was never, ever a thing that a smart politician would have done in Florida."

And, until today, no smart politician did. After all, here is Governor Charlie Crist just last week:


Question: Gov. are you dropping your opposition to drilling for oil off of Florida's coast?

"I am not," he replied.

Question: There's also talk of drilling off Florida's coast.

Crist: Who's talking about that?

Question: What do you think about it?

Crist: "No. 1, I don't like it. But nor do I like the price of gas. I don't think the people of Florida are enjoying it, I know they don't. I know they're very frustrated.

Like a little chick emerging from his once 'ironclad' opposition to drilling shell, Crist peeks through that little crack and... voila! From the Miami Herald:


TALLAHASSEE -- Describing his position as evolving, Gov. Charlie Crist said he now supports exploratory drilling for oil and gas off Florida's coast because ``Floridians are suffering.''

''When you're paying over $4 a gallon for gas, you have to wonder whether there might be additional resources to bring that price down,'' Crist said.

The governor said he ''applauds'' Republican presidential candidate John McCain for calling for a lifting of the ban on offshore oil drilling off most of the nation's coastline.

And what about Senator Mel "Sciavo" Martinez? He's on board too...


Ken Lundberg, a spokesman for Senator Mel Martinez, a Republican who has worked with Nelson to fend off efforts to explore the coast, said Martinez was "very sympathetic to the desire to increase domestic production" and was interested in seeing the details of McCain's plan.

Oh, the gifts of the season. But why, oh, why would such a gift be bestowed upon Democrats? Maybe some polling might explain it. The Politico:


Myrick and others pointed to a new Rasmussen Reports survey -- conducted before McCain announced his proposal on Monday -- which found that 67 percent of voters believed drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18 percent disagreed and 15 percent were undecided. According to the poll, conservative and moderate voters strongly support offshore drilling, while liberals are more evenly divided: 46 percent of liberals favor drilling; 37 percent oppose it.

OOooh, national support! Unless there's a plan to do away with the electoral college in McCain's Energy Plan, he's really screwed it here. The thing is, most Americans realized during the push to drill in ANWR that getting more oil for the oil companies isn't what will bring down gas prices. The fact that, 8 years after promising to drain the polar bears of all their sweet, light crude our oil-baron executive branch has only watched gas prices shoot through the roof has really driven, so to speak, the point home.

That's why you've seen the GOP attempts to turn offshore drilling into a NATIONAL SECURITY LOOK OUT RUN issue, thanks to recent, verifiably false, efforts by Dick Cheney and other GOPers to push a "China is drilling off Cuba" meme, that was resoundingly discredited by the likes of and embarrassed Sen. Martinez. Still, you can see where this is heading... national polls, blame Cuba... surely it's a win for McCain! Politico:


We have 1,300 square miles of coastline here and our whole culture and identity is tied to our coastline," said Holly Binns, field director for Environment Florida, an environmental advocacy group that opposes offshore oil drilling. "This is a state where if you don't understand how deep the connections are to our identity and our culture, you could step on a landmine. This could be one of those cases."

I PROMISE YOU once the tourism industry gets their fangs in this -- offshore drilling is anathema to the tourism industry in Florida and California..., the idea will be as dead in the water as all the sealife is in the footage of oil spills they'll use in the ads against lifting the offshore drilling ban.

And, quite likely, so will the political futures of the Florida GOP who, for want of staying on message with McCain, went back on their own, on-the-record, never-say-budge support for the ban.

UPDATE: Oh this will help. George Midas Bush's golden touch will surely launch this issues straight into the hearts and minds of America: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/offshore_oil;_ylt=AoNvGl5y9ecXroInOosk6sGs0NUE
WASHINGTON - President Bush plans to make a renewed push Wednesday to get Congress to end a long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, echoing a call by GOP presidential candidate John McCain.
It's Christmas and Channukah and My Crummy December Birthday all rolled into one!

Display:


Re: Obama wins Florida! (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, that oil drilling won't do anything for YEARS, and even then, the amount that could be gotten from that region is pretty slim pickings. It's a terrible idea, and McCain is once again pushing an idea that he ran against to score some points. Of course, this time he is running against something he was against as late as a week or two ago.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:22:46 PM EST

Re: Obama wins Florida! (none / 0)

I dunno.  Gas is so expensive that people may forgive them.

In all fairness, it is good leadership to adapt to the reality around us.  Things change.

I'm not endorsing off-shore drilling near Florida, but this is useful politics at the expense of good leadership.

I'm not accusing John McCain of good leadership on this issue.  It's the principle with which I am concerned.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST

Re: Obama wins Florida! (2.00 / 2)

I think, by now, most Americans realize that oil alone is not the answer.

And oil at the expense of Florida's tourism industry will never sell.

I would imagine that Obama is already planning the ad buys.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (2.00 / 1)

I don't think that domestic drilling will amount to very much.  I'd rather us save our reserves so we run out last.

Doesn't mean it's wrong to change your mind when things change.  That's all I'm talking about.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (none / 0)

It may make the difference between gas being $8.00 in 2012 and $8.50. By then, the fact that gas is eight-something will override whether or not the extra fifty cents is tacked on.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (none / 0)

This sort of thing is not estimated to work to fix anything, though. The best estimates are that it could work in a few years, and even then, the most positive estimates rely on surrounding factors.

Working on alternative energy, encouraging people to keep buying hybrids and figuring out ways to give states mass transit and carpool program money is a far better way to go to lower gasoline prices.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (2.00 / 2)

I wonder, as GM phases out the Hummer, if they are rethinking their killing of that electric car. I rode one in 97, the sound of the tires on the 405 the only real sound it made, and thought -- this is how GM retakes the lead from Japan.

Ho ho ho ho ho.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (2.00 / 1)

Exactly. Obama has gone on record as saying that Detroit has made some good moves in that direction, and that's the correct point to hit up. Perhaps ELECTRIC energy technology is still far off, but electric cars and hybrids are here now, and rewarding our industry for focusing on that is a very, very good thing. Much better than something that at BEST will postpone the inevitable but will also kill the desire to solve the problem.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:14:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (2.00 / 1)

And "adapting to reality" is not what's going on here. It's "trying to create a new reality, and failing."

Additional drilling is not the answer -- and I think people are beginning to realize it. The combustion engine is ridiculously inefficient, and its time has come.

If anything, I think McCain is making a run for Michigan with this, thinking Florida is safe bet. Michigan won't bite -- too many other things wrong for a Republican to get 20 feet from winning.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Willingness to exploit a bad idea (none / 0)

is not leadership.

And this is an election year. You don't give Bush/McCain credit for ANYTHING, even if you mistakenly think it might be right. If you can't say anything bad about them, don't say anything at all.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Willingness to exploit a bad idea (2.00 / 1)

And it's one thing to be "open" to new ideas, but drilling off the coasts has been a "new idea" that becomes VITAL CRAZY URGENT every few years, yet never seems to morph into an actual good idea.

Factory-farming teenager faces seemed a good idea in the early 80s too, but as Kentucky Fried Movie proved, it only ends in a large-muscled black man stealing your girlfriend to the militant strains of "Aveynu Shalom Alechem."


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:13:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A bigger pander than the gtax "holiday". (2.00 / 1)

The dood is shameless.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:28:23 PM EST

The ad writes itself (2.00 / 2)

Cue: Beautiful Florida beaches.
Menacing music
Cue: Exxon Valdez oil spill
Narrator: Is this right for Florida?
by elrod on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:31:21 PM EST

Re: The ad writes itself (none / 0)

Screw Valdez. There have been plenty of Gulf oil spills in the last dozen years or so to choose from.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The ad writes itself (2.00 / 1)

Cue: Crazy drunken Florida spring break party.
Gangsta rap
Cue: Exxon Valdez oil spill
Porn funk
Cue: Coed naked oil spill wrestling (think like those oil-covered birds, but sexy).
Narrator: McCain in the hizzouse, biatch!
by username on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (none / 0)

I don't know very much about the nature of oil drilling, and I'm hoping to be educated.  I am a pretty extreme liberal on just about everything, but I had been supporting renewed drilling if it was tied to very strong mandated oil-supported research on alternative fuels.  Hard to enforce, probably, but it seemed reasonable as a way to help the short term by providing more gas and the long-term by increasing R&D in wind, solar, biofuel, etc.

But I may be missing something.  I admit, I don't know of any oil spills other than Exxon Valdez, so I am hoping someone can explain how often oil spills happen at the rigs and/or from ships.  I also know that oil refinery is the big chokepoint, more than actual drilling.  Does it make sense to continue the moratorium on refineries as well?  I honestly have no idea about 99% of this issue, so help!


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:42:13 PM EST

Re: Obama wins Florida! (2.00 / 1)

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_ releases_folder/2006/03_07_2006_environm entally_gentle_drilling_causes_major_cru de_oil_spill.php


Last week during the Senate Energy Committee's hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget, Chairman Domenici praised Secretary Norton and the Department of Interior for promoting "environmentally-gentle" oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.   Just days after these remarks, America got an unfortunate preview of just how "gentle" oil drilling operations could be if allowed on the Arctic Refuge's fragile Coastal Plain.

On Thursday, March 2, a BP oil operator discovered signs of an oil spill at a caribou migration site on the snow-covered tundra of Alaska's North Slope.  Three days later, response workers finally uncovered the source of the spill - a breach in an oil transit pipeline feeding into the larger trans-Alaska oil pipeline infrastructure stretching some 800 miles across the state.

Clean-up crews have already vacuumed up more than 50,000 gallons of crude oil and melted snow off the delicate tundra but at least one report from an industry expert has indicates that this spill could be the largest crude oil spill in the history of North Slope - second in Alaska only to the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.  Oil is still dripping from the breached pipeline and the full extent of the damage and affected acreage are unknown. The multi-agency spill response team will attempt to come up with an estimated spill volume in the next two days.

This weekend's accident is just one in a long history of substantial spills seen on Alaska's fragile North Slope since development began there.  In fact, despite industry hype about the safety of development and new technology, the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 504 spills annually on the North Slope since 1996, according to the Alaska's own Department of Environmental Conservation.  Past spills have included a 300,000 crude oil spill from the Trans-Alaska pipeline that was detected as far as 166 miles away; a 110,000 gallon crude oil spill caused by a bulldozer which created a geyser that spewed oil over 20 acres of tundra wetlands; the infamous 285,000 gallons of crude oil that spilled into the boreal forest after a local hunter shot the pipeline with a high powered rifle; and the disastrous 675,000 gallons that were leaked after a saboteur exploded a two inch hole in the pipeline just a few miles north of Fairbanks.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (2.00 / 3)

The U.S. does not have enough untapped oil to affect prices to any significant degree, nor would any of that untapped oil even enter the system for years due to the time it would take to drill and develop the necessary infractructure.  

You can tell how much of a dog and pony show this is because, whenever Republicans talk about it, they focus on the billions of gallons of oil that could be drilled, but never mention the amount of oil that this country consumes.  If they did, people would be able to do the math and see that we are talking about a very small amount of oil in the grand scheme of things.  They want you to be entranced by the word "billions" and forget to ask what that number really means.


by rfahey22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (2.00 / 1)

They want you to be entranced by the word "billions" and forget to ask what that number really means.

My GOD, that is possibly the best summary of the Republican Party's campaign tactics I've ever heard.
If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:16:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Santa Barbara (none / 0)

I grew up in Santa Barbara. From Wikipedia:
The Santa Barbara oil spill occurred in 1969 in the Santa Barbara Channel. The source was a January 28, 1969 blow-out on Union Oil's Platform A, six miles offshore. Over a 10-day period, an estimated 3 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the channel and onto the beaches of Santa Barbara County in Southern California.
I moved away in 1981 (12 years later) During all those years I never went to the beach once without getting oil tar on my suit, skin, feet, and in my hair. While the big spill was in 1969, the offshore oil rigs continued to seep long after the spill was cleaned up. They may still to this day. In addition, the offshore rigs are unattractive and spoil what should be a beautiful view of the ocean. I can never support drilling off our coasts.
by JackieinCA on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:00:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Santa Barbara (none / 0)

Thanks for the info about the oil spills.  That is a pretty devastating long-term consequence of a spill/leakage.

However, I have to take issue with the aesthetic point that they look ugly.  Rich people in Massachusetts make the same argument about wind farms offshore and have so far (surprisingly with Ted Kennedy's support) been successful in keeping wind power out of Martha's Vineyard.  The "but it's ugly" argument doesn't matter to me with regard to oil or wind power.  The health and safety effects of a spill do matter to me.


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:32:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (none / 0)

Im not convinced this will make a difference.  McCain's plan said states could veto... so unless Crist pushes it, I don't see how this blows up on McCain.  But I guess we will have to wait and see when the next polls come out.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:44:06 PM EST

Re: Obama wins Florida! (none / 0)

"Unless Crist pushes it?"

I seem to recall Obama has some ability to raise funds for advertising in states during this election year. If he's hurting for topics, this case of craven GOP pandering + politically disasterous local issue might prove useful.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama wins Florida! (none / 0)

Don't get me wrong, I'm certain it will help... but I'm just a bit more cautious on my expectations than you on this if the States have the right to veto.  NOW, had he come out and said that taxes on tourist businesses would be raised to 50% or something, then YES, he'd be done in Florida.  

Every bit helps, I'm just curious to see how  it plays with future polling.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:40:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Oil are Liars - (Who could have known) (2.00 / 1)

Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act

Current Cosponsors: Markey, Emanuel, Rahall, Hinchey, Chandler, Moran (VA), Shea-Porter, Welch, Yarmuth

June 12, 2008

Dear Colleague:

Today, we will introduce the Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act. At a time when our constituents are paying $4 per gallon at the pump, the answer is to make sure that oil companies are producing on the land they currently own.  They need to either use it or lose it.

Our legislation will help lower gas prices by compelling oil companies to begin producing oil and gas on the roughly 68 million acres of public land they currently hold but are not using. This legislation will also invest in programs to develop renewable energy technologies to reduce our overall dependence on oil and help low-income consumers.

Oil companies are not producing oil or gas on the vast majority of federal land onshore and offshore already under their control.  Offshore, Big Oil is producing on only about 23 percent of the land they hold, while onshore, companies are producing on roughly 27 percent of the acres to which they hold the drilling rights.

The Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act will assess an escalating fee on land that oil companies have leased but are not using for production.  This fee would be a mere $5 per acre for the first 3 years that a lease is not producing, but increase to $25 per acre in the fourth year and $50 per acre in subsequent years, providing a strong incentive for oil companies to stop stockpiling these leases and begin using them. The revenue raised from these fees will go towards renewable energy and energy efficiency investments that will reduce our dependence on oil, as well as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

For more information or to sign-on as an original cosponsor, please contact Morgan Gray (Markey) at 5-4012 or morgan.gray@mail.house.gov, Jonathan Levy (Emanuel) at 5-4061 or jonathan.levy@mail.house.gov, Steve Feldgus (Rahall) at 5-9297, or Anne Georges (Hinchey) at 5-6335 or anne.georges@mail.house.gov.

                                                           Sincerely,

/s                                                                                  /s

Edward J. Markey                                                        Rahm Emanuel

Member of Congress                                                    Member of Congress


by xdem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:48:38 PM EST

Re: Big Oil are Liars - (Who could have known) (2.00 / 1)


Oil companies are not producing oil or gas on the vast majority of federal land onshore and offshore already under their control.  Offshore, Big Oil is producing on only about 23 percent of the land they hold, while onshore, companies are producing on roughly 27 percent of the acres to which they hold the drilling rights.

Wow. I didn't know that. What a disasterous stat. Might also prove useful for some Florida advertising, as previously noted.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Oil are Liars - (Who could have known) (none / 0)

Well, just to play devil's advocate, it makes sense as a business strategy to buy up as much land as possible first, then determine how much of that land contains oil deposits.  Doing it in reverse wouldn't make a lot of business sense.


by rfahey22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:54:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Oil are Liars - (Who could have known) (none / 0)

Then why keep holding it, as the legislators ask?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:58:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Oil are Liars - (Who could have known) (none / 0)

I don't know, there's probably no incentive for them to get rid of it.  If oil becomes sufficiently scarce, maybe it will make economic sense to develop deeper drilling technologies, and maybe then some of that land would have profitable deposits.  But I agree, we might as well force their hands.


by rfahey22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Oil are Liars - (Who could have known) (2.00 / 1)

I'd bet a good amount is shale is somesuch. The point is its high-time we had a better energy source than dead ceratopsians. We've had 20 music formats in the same time since the combustion engine was developed. It's embarrassing we're still tooling around with the prepulsion equivilent of the 8-track.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Oil are Liars - (Who could have known) (none / 0)

People used to squat on Domain names they never used or intended to ever use, hoping to extort a huge sum from a company or person who wanted it. Oil companies can squat on leases, preventing anyone who would drill from doing so.

Does that help?


by xdem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Oil are Liars - (Who could have known) (none / 0)

I watched when the big oil ceo's were in front of the committee on cspan.  The Dems really pushed this point...It was great...


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:32:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

One big problem. (none / 0)

Marriage Amendment. These things turn out the far-right in droves. Now, we should always treat every state as if we're 20 points behind in the polls, but a marriage amendment means that we really need to kick ass at GOTV.


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:04:38 AM EST

Re: One big problem. (none / 0)

God help me for saying this, but if Obama can get some of the evangelical voters, it might not matter. I feel like slime, but that might be how it goes.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:18:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One big problem. (none / 0)

I hate people that say that... treat every state like your 20 points down...

NO... YOU DON'T.  Period.  Most often, especially ina  Presidential election, you don't waste resources on these states.  You do STUPID and DESPERATE things to move up.

Instead, treat it like your tied and the extra effort pushes you to victory.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:42:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.