John McCain

Stay Classy, John McCain

|

Lest anyone doubt that John McCain isn't chagrined by his "Bomb, Bomb Iran" moment:

At both his Greenville stop and a later visit to Columbia, McCain was introduced as "Barbara Ann" played in the background. "I don't know why they keep doing that," McCain said when asked about the song selection.

"No one will acknowledge responsibility," he joked. "We'll play, maybe, 'Good Vibrations' next."

McCain's never had a problem with the like of us Reasonoids. He doesn't need us, probably doesn't want us. But he needs conservative Republican voters to back him, and he's figured out that those voters have a Pavlovian response to pro-war, kill-thuh-Arabs fooferah. The newest CNN poll is offline right now, but what it recorded was a surge in support for McCain among "conservative" voters. They haven't changed their mind about him on campaign finance reform or life issues or anything besides his chest-pounding support of the Iraq surge.

What's happening is that the GOP base is moving away from adherence to its traditional issues and candidate demands and replacing all that with one big Y/N question—do you support the war? Jim Antle (read his Reason work here) explains this ably in the new cover story for the American Conservative.

Instead of making Iraq an issue that transcends partisan politics, groups like his help fortify the war as a dividing line between the two parties—a risky position for Republicans when more than 60 percent of the electorate is antiwar. Moreover, while foreign policy drove many intellectuals to the Right, social issues were actually a bigger draw for voters. Can the Iraq War rally the millions who entered politics to fight the Culture War?

Many conservative writers think (or perhaps hope) so. Jonah Goldberg wrote in his syndicated column, "Taken together, terrorism, Iraq, and Islam have become the No. 1 social issue." Social conservatives will embrace candidates like Giuliani not because "pro-lifers are less pro-life" but because they "really, really believe the war on terror is for real." Emery argued similarly that the war appeals to "the need to use force when one's country is threatened; the need to make judgments between good and evil; the need to protect and assert the moral codes of the Judeo-Christian tradition; the need to defend the ideals of the West."

Some careful observers of evangelical politics agree. U.S. News & World Report senior editor Dan Gilgoff reported that Romney faced harder questions from the National Religious Broadcasters convention about Islamic terrorism than abortion or same-sex marriage. Gilgoff wrote in the Los Angeles Times that "tough-on-terrorism credentials" could lead evangelicals to "deem Giuliani not just the lesser of two evils but a national savior." The fact that opposition to the Iraq War does not equal giving up on the fight against terrorism—and is often based on the idea that our present strategy has actually increased the dangers of radical Islam—seldom enters into the partisan debate.

Not coincidentally, McCain's support among conservatives is coming at the expense of his hard-won support among Democrats and independents—swing voters who'll elect the president in 2008. For the first time since 2000 his favorable numbers have fallen below 50 percent. He's trailing Obama, who was six years old when McCain was shot down in Vietnam. It's almost a perfect relationship: As McCain gets more bellicose, he wins more Republican votes and loses more votes for the general election.

NEXT: More Ungodly Goodness

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s not forget rule number one of presidential elections: No one cares what crazy crap you say in the primaries. Just so long as you stop saying it in the general election. Should we accept that? No. Do we? Hell, yes.

    Anyone who allows the war or pretty much any other single issue to decide his vote is a fool. Unless his single issue is limited government. Then he’s not a fool, he’s a loser 🙂

  2. McCain has zero, zip, nada, zed, zilch (insert any other foreign or nonsensical word you can think of) chance of being the next or any other president. He makes Bob Dole look like a sure thing. He’s worn out and he has worn out his welcome. Nice knowing you, John. Now for Christ’s sake, beat it already! And get that neck looked at.

  3. McCain’s time was 2000.
    No one cares what one says in primaries? Bet your ass your eventual opponent has recorded and sifted it all and will use it in the general election.

  4. I’m still trying to figure out why there’s a John McCain 2008 ad on the right side of this page.

  5. “Instead of making Iraq an issue that transcends partisan politics, groups like his help fortify the war as a dividing line between the two parties-a risky position for Republicans when more than 60 percent of the electorate is antiwar.”

    An even riskier proposition for our country, and our military personnel.

    Deliberately stoking partisan animosity over war and peace as a political strategy while sending troops to fight wars is perhaps the most irresponsible thing any administration has ever done our nation’s history.

    Remember when Sun Tzu wrote, “Sow dissent behind your own lines?” Me neither.

  6. creech,

    There’s always a little of that, but far less than you’d expect. There were some just crazy things said by Kerry in the primaries, for instance, that just disappeared. He was appealing to some extreme elements for primary purposes and got a bit of a pass because of that. The same happens when the GOP has primaries.

  7. David,

    I’m not sure you’re correct. McCain is a special case because Iraq really is all the guy has to endear him to the base; however, I’ve watched the other candidates doing quite the high-wire act on Iraq. Of course, all of their statements are consistent with what you would expect from a GOP candidate in ’08, but the “base” (and I would argue the pundits as well) are NOT nailing them down to specifics.

    However, that doesn’t seem to be the case in other issues. Where I have seen them get hammered are (surprise) on the issues that candidates would usually get hammered on in the lead up to a GOP pres. primary. Abortion, immigration, immigration, and some more immigration. The media might not be wired to it completely, but you watch a GOP candidate appearance anywhere in middle america and immigration is a big talking point. My guess, if a Y/N vote is necessary on anything to guarantee the nomination, it would probably be with immigration. You are either with the open border crowd, or you aren’t.

  8. he’s figured out that those voters have a Pavlovian response to pro-war, kill-thuh-Arabs fooferah.

    Because there is of course no reasoned case to be made directly confronting the primary sponsor of world-wide terror and the chaos in Iraq and Lebanon. Its just a bunch of rednecks baying for Ay-rab blood.

    Deliberately stoking partisan animosity over war and peace as a political strategy while sending troops to fight wars is perhaps the most irresponsible thing any administration has ever done our nation’s history.

    joe, I honestly don’t think the Dems’ hands are clean when it comes to “partisan animosity” over this war.

  9. The GOP campaign is basically going to premised upon “We hate Arabs and Spics”. Well, at least it gives black folks a break for a change–although maybe the GOPers just assume their crackerass base knows how the GOP feels about blacks.

  10. Pro,

    Kerry had an advantage, a very pliant media that forgives and refuses to publicize crazy things said by Democrats. McCain may not have that advantage. Yeah, the media has loved him in the past, but that was only because he was the Godfather of campaign finance reform, something the media loves, and was making trouble for the Republican establishment, something the media loves even more. If he ever did become the nomine, I would imagine the media would do everything they could to remake his image from maverick Republican, to sell out stooge of the radical right.

    The bottom line is if the U.S. doesn’t stabilize Iraq and draw down the U.S. commitment before the fall of 2008, the Democrats are going to benifit greatly in the election. That is why the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to make sure the U.S. fails in Iraq. If the U.S. were to succeed it would be a disaster of enormous proportions for the Democrats. Petreaus and the military simply must fail. There is no other option for the Democrats. Perhaps that has already happened and the Democrats have it made. Only time will tell. But I suppose from the Democratic perspecitve, there is nothing wrong with taking out an insurance policy on that outcome.

  11. Oh, I forgot the third leg of the GOP stool:

    “We hate fags, too.”

    Suddenly, what were formerly mere caricatures of “conservatives” as cryptofascists are increasingly unfunny–because they are increasingly real.

  12. Regarding Americans breaking 60/40 on Iraq, I think it unlikely it’ll break down that way in the general election. …if McCain can get more than 50% of Republican primary voters, he’ll be doing great.

    …’cause anybody who thinks the general public is going to break 60/40 for Clinton/McCain or 60/40 for Obama/McCain in the general election, doesn’t get it.

  13. By the way, has anybody here read Peter “The Genuinely Right-Wing One’ Hitchens report from Iran?

    http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449880&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

    Sorry if it doesn’t comport with the cartoonish reality now inhabited by McCain (the very same reality his type chose to dwell before the Iraq debacle).

  14. A shortened link for Hitchens article:

    http://snipurl.com/1ig07

  15. Nuke the gay iranian arabs for jesus.

    Pretty clever on McCain’s part. Rip off a little talk radio bit that teh Base have already heard. (Happily, Barbara Ann works for both Iran and Iraq and takes us back to 2003, when this war thing was fun). Get an easy pop. You don’t have to do anything or give them anything.

  16. RC Dean,

    “joe, I honestly don’t think the Dems’ hands are clean when it comes to “partisan animosity” over this war.”

    The Dems didn’t sent anybody off to war.

    This president and his allies have deliberately worked to alienate half of America from the war effort, even as they put American troops into war zones.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, spent 2001-2003 bending over backwards to minimize partisan differences over issues of war and security, even as the Republicans worked to use them as wedge issues. Hell, Kerry lost the 2004 election because he refused to launch a straightforward attack on the President and the war.

    No, the parties are not equally guilty here.

  17. henry,

    What color is the sky in your world?

  18. The base:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/27/fox-parody/

    Substitute “Jews” for “Muslims” and how fucking funny would they bozos have been?

    The right wing in this country has become truly sickening.

  19. Huh?

    You mother named you well.

  20. Uh, Iranians are not Arabs.

  21. And they may not be Muslims, either.

    Doesn’t matter to the audience being played to.

  22. What’s happening is that the GOP base is moving away from adherence to its traditional issues and candidate demands and replacing all that with one big Y/N question – do you support the war?

    Sure, but exactly the same thing is happening to the Dems in reverse.

    Henry,

    I don’t recall any media circuses about Jews complaining over ham being thrown on their table.

    joe,

    The Democrats, on the other hand, spent 2001-2003 bending over backwards to minimize partisan differences over issues of war and security,

    Of course they did, Repubs were polling so far ahead on those issues that it was killing Dems.

    Hell, Kerry lost the 2004 election because he refused to launch a straightforward attack on the President and the war.

    Kerry lost because of his idiotic hyping of his Vietnam service, which so pissed off 254 of his fellow vets that they started raising money to put on commercials publicizing his anti-war tirades about how awful American troops are. Meanwhile, slimy Dem operatives tried to pass off forged National Guard documents to embarass Bush and it backfired on them big-time. Take those away and the Dems probably win in 2004.

    No, the parties are not equally guilty here.

    No, the Dems are far, far more guilty. At this point, they’re openly admitting they would rather see America do badly in Iraq so they can pick up more seats.

  23. joe, not sure what alternate universe you were living in.

    Kerry “refusing to launch a straightforward attack on the President and the war.”:

    “I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq.
    ..
    Kerry assailed the president’s economic policies and paid special attention to the war in Iraq, calling it “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” He said he aimed to withdraw U.S. troops from the country during his first term.
    ..
    Kerry termed the war in Iraq “catastrophic.” Still later, he referred to it in a statement as “a quagmire,”

    …he nonetheless called the administration’s contention that there were coalition forces fighting alongside 125,000 Americans troops “the phoniest thing I’ve ever heard.” “You’ve got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it’s American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it’s American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war,” he said. “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

    That was all from ONE Washington Post article in Sep 2004.

  24. “Henry,

    I don’t recall any media circuses about Jews complaining over ham being thrown on their table.”

    Uh, neither do I. Point?

    But go toss some ham at table where Orthodox Jews are eating and test the results.

  25. But he needs conservative Republican voters to back him, and he’s figured out that those voters have a Pavlovian response to pro-war, kill-thuh-Arabs fooferah.

    Convenient, as conservative Republican voters are just about the only people left still unaware that Iranians aren’t frickin’ Arabs.

  26. Grant Gould,

    Ask most Democratic voters if Iranians are Arabs. I bet most will say they are as well.

  27. TallDave,

    “Of course they did, Repubs were polling so far ahead on those issues that it was killing Dems.” Yes, R C’s contention that they were working to make it a partisan issue is silly. Thanks for agreeing with me.

    “Take those away and the Dems probably win in 2004.” It was a terribly close election, so you can pretty much point to anything that went wrong as “the” reason he lost. The point remains, he went through great pains to avoid being too anti-war.

    Those are some, close-cropped quotes you’ve got there. The universe I was living in was the one where Kerry stood at the Grand Canyon and said he still would have voted for the AUMF, and where he limited his criticism to the conduct of the president’s policy, as your quotes demonstrate.

  28. “But go toss some ham at table where Orthodox Jews are eating and test the results.”

    when I toss my ham at christians, they tell me that’s how you go blind. And they notice my mehair gloves and nod knowingly.

    Flyover – good point! Ask them if there’s a difference between Sweden and Switzerland, too – they’d mess that one up, prob’ly!

  29. “Ask them if there’s a difference between Sweden and Switzerland, too – they’d mess that one up, prob’ly!”

    Try Idaho and Iowa.

    “OHHH, there’s a NEW Mexico!”

  30. “Try Idaho and Iowa.”

    Bravo! awesome.

    I grew up in Ohio, and many of the east coasters in college would say, “Idaho?” or something like that. Hilarious. (“you’re in the ‘wrong’ time zone”, too. Ohio is on eastern time)

    Where’s Old Mexico? And why isn’t it “New and Improved Mexico”? Lone Wackoff probably could answer that one for us!

  31. joe,

    No, thank you for admitting Dems were avoiding being too weak on the security issue for the same partisan reasons, not out of any love for bipartisanship or principle.

    The point remains, he went through great pains to avoid being too anti-war.

    Of course he did, just like all the Dems who wanted to win; again, the polling on that issue said it was killing them.

    Now polls on the war have changed, and so have Dems, who are openly bragging the war will give them votes. So it’s obvious which party’s position has stuck to principle and which has consistently done whatever it was convenient for partisan gain.

  32. “No, thank you for admitting Dems were avoiding being too weak on the security issue for the same partisan reasons, not out of any love for bipartisanship or principle.”

    Actually, I admitted no such thing. First of all, trying to blur the differences between the two parties cannot be described as “partisan” in any way that makes sense. I’ll just assume you mistyped “political,” so I won’t have to believe I’m wasting my time by replying to you.

    Second, agreeing that politics influenced their decision does not rule out “love of bipartisanship or principle.” Democrats sided with the president on Afghanistan and (a minority of them) Iraq for a combination of political calculation, desire for national unity on security and war issues, and principle, with each individual Democrat combing the three in different ways.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but no, you’re still wrong about this.

    “Of course he did, just like all the Dems who wanted to win; again, the polling on that issue said it was killing them.”

    Yes.

    “Now polls on the war have changed, and so have Dems, who are openly bragging the war will give them votes. So it’s obvious which party’s position has stuck to principle and which has consistently done whatever it was convenient for partisan gain.”

    First of all, Republicans in safe Republican districts are not demonstrating any great courage by continuing to back the war, so you can take that set of posters off your locker.

    Second, the majority of Democrats in Congress were agains the Iraq War even before it began, by a 58%-42% margin on the AUMF vote.

    Third, if you are going to assume that those who supported the war did so for political reasons when they were opposed to it in their hearts, you can’t turn around and attribute their current opposition to politics as well.

  33. The Dems didn’t sent anybody off to war.

    Oh no you don’t. The Democrats fell all over themselves supporting the war at the outset. There was nary a peep from the Democrat politicians, and they voted in droves for the AUMF.

    It was only when a successful war turned into a disastrous occupation that the Democrats started to find some anti-war chops. And it was only when the country decidedly turned against the occupation that the Democratic Party really came out against it. And even now, there are mongrels running for your presidential nomination baying for more troops and more wars.

    You yellow bellies don’t get to back off now and say, “Well, uh, no, it wasn’t us! Promise!”

    – Josh

  34. The Democrats (or most of them) undoubtedly supported the “war” (sic) in/on Iraq, and they should be held accountable for this. I don’t know that Gore did, and –maybe–Obama (he was not forced to take a stand, of course).

    I’ll just stick with Ron Paul.

  35. Josh,

    Oh no YOU don’t.

    “There was nary a peep from the Democrat politicians, and they voted in droves for the AUMF.”

    As a matter of record, even in the Fall of 2002, just before the elections, 58% of the Democrats in Congress voted against the AUMF. Even among those who voted for the Authority, many, such as John Kerry, stated at the time that they were concerned about the president’s handling of the issue, and wanted him to use the authority to compel Iraq’s cooperation, not to rush to war.

    This was a Republican war from the beginning, and with few exceptions, those Democrats who supported it were going along with the inevitable. They were riding the bandwagon, and shame on them for their go-along-to-get-along cowardice, but the Democrats did not get it rolling; the Republicans did.

    “And even now, there are mongrels running for your presidential nomination baying for more troops and more wars.”

    Name one who wants to send more troops to Iraq.

    Name.

    One.

  36. “”” That is why the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to make sure the U.S. fails in Iraq.”””

    John, up to this point, it is admitted that we are not winning, even though they say we are not losing either. The only thing the Democrats have done thus far to ensure defeat was to vote for a war good plan for victory.

    The Commander in Cheif is in charge of the war. If it doesn’t go right, either on the battlefield or in politics, fault rests with him first. I don’t want to hear any crybaby shit about how the Commander in Chief is having a hard time wrapping up this war. Or how he lost American support. Hey man, it tough for people to support him when we have been bullshitted about what is needed to complete this mission. That is his fault! If he was honest about the time it would take, the money needed from the start, and Cheney didn’t keep telling us “They are in their last throes” we might, as a citizen be more supportive.

    If they were to cut the funds, the loss it’s not the fault of Congress’s anti-funding action but the inability of the war managers to get Iraq under control in the last four years.

    The concept of we haven’t lost if we don’t leave sounds alot like a stock investor that continues to hold on to a losing stock when it bottoms out.

    Congress has nothing to do with the day to day operations of war. Therefore it would be wrong to point the finger at them as the prime mover of a lost war.

  37. “””The only thing the Democrats have done thus far to ensure defeat was to vote for a war good plan for victory.””

    CORRECTION
    The above should have read

    … vote for a war without ensuring a plan for victory

  38. Flyover Country,

    Heck, I know people (not all conservatives) who refer to Indians as Arabs (or actually “A-Rabs”).

  39. If Democrats wanted to ensure defeat in Iraq, they would have just kept their mouths shut for the past four years, and let Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld do whatever they wanted.

    Yes, sir, there’s no insurgency. Yes, sir, there’s no civil war. Yes, sir, freedom is messy, you don’t need to do anything different. Yes, sir, stay the course.

    Talk about your recipe for defeat.

  40. Three generals passed on the war czar position, and it wasn’t because of the Democrats or funding.

  41. So the intolerant Christian conservatives are starting to care less about telling people what to do with their sex lives and more about preventing the spread of an ideology that is more wicked and evil on its best day then modern Christianity on its worse.

    David Wiegel seems to be upset by this, but all lovers of freedom should say good for them.

  42. Even among those who voted for the Authority, many, such as John Kerry, stated at the time that they were concerned about the president’s handling of the issue, and wanted him to use the authority to compel Iraq’s cooperation, not to rush to war.

    Good lord, you can’t possibly believe this ridiculous spin. Everyone, absolutely everyone, understood that the war authorization vote was the moral equivalent of a declaration of war, because the odds of the President not starting the war as planned were, oh, maybe 0.001% (that being the probability of Saddam Hussein spontaneously combusting).

  43. Great Post! I am sharing it on the Mitt Report.

  44. Grand Chalupa,
    If only they were preventing the spread of Islamic terrrorist ideology. Instead they are stoking it. Despite their half-hearted intentions, they have provoked most Sunni and some Shiite in Iraq. The war in Iraq makes excellent propaganda for terrorists in other countries. Even non-militant Muslims don’t seem any happier with us.

    Nor have we scored many geo-polical points in Iraq. While it’s true Sadam’s regime was atrocious, it was not nearly the threat it was sold as. Converting Iraq from a contained Sunni dictatorship to a strife ridden, fledgeling democracy that survives only with American military support isn’t really the best bang for our buck.

  45. GC–

    The Christers don’t care about “an ideology”. The care about a competing brand of bullshit taking their market-share.

  46. arbitrary designation,

    If only they were preventing the spread of Islamic terrrorist ideology. Instead they are stoking it. Despite their half-hearted intentions, they have provoked most Sunni and some Shiite in Iraq. The war in Iraq makes excellent propaganda for terrorists in other countries. Even non-militant Muslims don’t seem any happier with us.

    Nor have we scored many geo-polical points in Iraq. While it’s true Sadam’s regime was atrocious, it was not nearly the threat it was sold as. Converting Iraq from a contained Sunni dictatorship to a strife ridden, fledgeling democracy that survives only with American military support isn’t really the best bang for our buck.

    I pretty much agree with this. Iraq may have been a fuck up but in the long run I’d rather have my fellow Americans taking the Islamist threat too seriously then seeing it as morally equivalent to our own problems as most secularists seem to.

    henry,

    The Christers don’t care about “an ideology”. The care about a competing brand of bullshit taking their market-share.

    Yeah, but if you’re one of those people that think the vast majority of humanity needs some bullshit to believe in you pick one that you think is needed to beat the ones that are infinetley worse and go with it.

    Quite simply, I don’t think an atheistic volunteer army is going to go to be willing to go hunting cave to cave in a third world hell hole looking for Bin Laden.

  47. Max,

    It’s easy enough for you to google up the Congressional Record from the relevant period.

    It’s easy enough to google up some old political journals from the period.

    What you’ll find is the Republicans, including those in the White House, assuring the country that they were not determined to go to war, and the Democrats telling them that their votes for the AUMF were not authorizations for war.

    What you will also find is that the Republican media was disparaging anyone who asserted that “the odds of the President not starting the war as planned were, oh, maybe 0.001%” as pathological haters suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    There are no plans on Donald Rumsfeld’s desk. Remember?

  48. joe,

    You’re delusional. If Saddam had cooperated there would have been no war. That was always the deciding factor.

    Democrats over and over made the same assertions as Republicans: Saddam had WMD and was going to have nukes.

    “Republicans in safe Republican districts are not demonstrating any great courage by continuing to back the war”

    Yes, your grasp of the obvious is impressive. What about those NOT in safe districts?

  49. “Second, the majority of Democrats in Congress were agains the Iraq War even before it began, by a 58%-42% margin on the AUMF vote”

    Yes, what about the 42%?

    “Third, if you are going to assume that those who supported the war did so for political reasons when they were opposed to it in their hearts, you can’t turn around and attribute their current opposition to politics as well.”

    Yes, you can. It’s very very easy. You just watch polls and do whatever’s popular.

  50. “””You’re delusional. If Saddam had cooperated there would have been no war. That was always the deciding factor. “””

    I wouldn’t be so sure of that. If you go back, Bush’s very first reason to invade was regime change. He made this clear BEFORE he starting talking about WMD. The international community balked, some decried it as illegal. So Bush tried a different way to sell the idea, WMD and fear.

    Bush made it clear, regime change. Therefore, I would say any cooporation by Saddam other than him stepping down from power, would not have satisfied Bush.

  51. TallDave wrote-No, the Dems are far, far more guilty. At this point, they’re openly admitting they would rather see America do badly in Iraq so they can pick up more seats.

    Which Democrat has made any comment of the sort? Direct quotes, please. And, do keep in mind that in order for you to be right, you need a quote that says, more or less “We want to lose in Iraq because it’s a political winner for us.” You can indulge in hyperbole all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that words have meanings, strong ones like “openly admitting” especially so.

    Grand Chalupa wrote-So the intolerant Christian conservatives are starting to care less about telling people what to do with their sex lives and more about preventing the spread of an ideology that is more wicked and evil on its best day then modern Christianity on its worse.

    Wow, more hyperbole! just lovely. All I’m going to do is point out that most abortion clinic bombers do so out of Christian conviction. There, you see? On it’s worst day, Christianity is just as bad as Islam. But then, you certainly don’t agree that we should judge all Christians on the basis of a small, mentally-ill minority, and I couldn’t agree more. That would be foolish and unfair, holding the many responsible for the actions of the few. So, having demonstrated that it’s wrong to generalize the behaviors of a group of a billion or so people based on an impossibly tiny sample set, I look forward to you beginning the process of actually thinking rather than parroting xenophobic talking-points and anti-foreign hysteria. Won’t that be wonderful for us all?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.