Reply
Fri 2 Jul, 2004 11:49 am
Major Bush fund-raiser donates to Nader campaign
Democrats see strategy as bid to hurt Kerry
By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff | July 1, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Billionaire Richard J. Egan built his reputation in politics as a major donor and fund-raiser for the Bush campaign, steering hundreds of thousands of dollars into Republican coffers in recent years. But now it appears Egan and his relatives are bankrolling a new candidate: independent presidential contender Ralph Nader.
Egan, cofounder of EMC Corp. in Hopkinton, has given Nader the maximum $2,000 allowed under the law, according to federal elections documents that also show a $4,000 contribution to Nader from Egan's son and daughter-in-law, John R. and Pamela C. Egan. An independent campaign finance watchdog group lists the Egan-Managed Capital company -- another family business in Massachusetts -- as among the biggest contributors to the Nader campaign.
Donors often cross party lines to support candidates based on specific regional or business issues, but the Egans' sudden interest in Nader seems to reflect a more sophisticated strategy by Republicans to draw support away from Democratic challenger John F. Kerry by bolstering his third-party rival. For months, Democrats have accused Republicans of conspiring to put Nader on enough ballots to tip the election -- a theory that gained credence this week as two conservative groups in Oregon admitted making phone calls urging supporters to help win Nader a spot on the ticket in that evenly divided state.
Yesterday, a watchdog group in Washington filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing the Oregon groups of breaking campaign laws with their efforts on Nader's behalf. The complaint also names the Bush and Nader campaigns, saying that reports of the Bush campaign using its resources to help Nader, and Nader's acceptance of the assistance, would amount to illegal campaign activity. Both groups and the two campaigns denied breaking the law, calling the accusations ''frivolous."
The complaint points ''to no evidence of us doing anything wrong in Oregon -- if some Republican-leaning groups supported our convention it was done independent of us, and they offer nothing to disprove that," Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said.
Meanwhile, former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean plans to debate Nader on the very question of his candidacy in an event sponsored by National Public Radio's ''Justice Talking" show. The 90-minute debate will take place in front of a live audience. ''I am anxious to debate Ralph Nader in order to speak about why he wants to run for president," Dean said in a statement accompanying the announcement. ''This is the most important election in my lifetime and a third party candidate could make a difference -- this November and for years to come."
Nader campaign officials reject suggestions that his candidacy will hurt Kerry's chances, or that Nader played a role in Vice President Al Gore's defeat in 2000, although Nader did draw sizable support in several narrowly split electoral battlefields in the last election.
Egan, who was sent to Ireland as US ambassador by President Bush after his fund-raising successes in the 2000 campaign, returned home to Massachusetts last year. The financial disclosure documents list his occupation as retired, and a spokesman for EMC Corp., where Egan no longer works, said he could not reach Egan for comment or to confirm the documents are accurate. The name and address listed for Egan under the Nader address match the name and address that show his repeated donations to the Bush campaign, the Republican National Committee, and other Republican campaigns. The listing for John R. Egan shows his occupation as the manager of Carruth Management LLC, the family's commercial real estate firm in Westborough.
Odd Alliances Form to Get Nader on Ballot
July 1, 2004 - New York Times
Odd Alliances Form to Get Nader on Ballot
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
and SARAH KERSHAW
WASHINGTON, June 30 ?- In his search for access to the ballot, Ralph Nader can sometimes seem as if he has never met a third party he did not like.
After all, Mr. Nader, the left-leaning consumer advocate, and Patrick J. Buchanan, the right-leaning commentator, hardly seem like political soul mates. But four years after Mr. Buchanan won the endorsement of the Reform Party, Mr. Nader has succeeded him as the party's standard-bearer.
His alignment with the Reform Party is but one example of how Mr. Nader is facing such daunting forces to get his name on statewide ballots this year that he is seeking support from groups that do not necessarily share his long-held liberal beliefs.
Mr. Nader's efforts have only intensified given that last weekend he was spurned by the Green Party, which endorsed him for president in 1996 and 2000.
He is also getting helping from other unexpected quarters. Democrats have sued to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot in Arizona and Illinois and may be planning a similar challenge in Texas, but Republicans and some conservative groups in Oregon, Arizona and Wisconsin are feverishly, if not cynically, mobilizing to get him on ballots in those states in a drive to siphon votes from the likely Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry.
Mr. Nader said in an interview on Wednesday that "there's no quid pro quo" with the Reform Party or any other that would require him to alter his views.
But political analysts say that by turning to parties that may not be consistent with his ideology and reaping benefits from Republican operatives, Mr. Nader risks tarnishing his longtime reputation as a champion for consumer causes.
"He's grasping at straws," Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, said of Mr. Nader's alliance with the Reform Party, which drew most of its votes in the last three presidential elections from disaffected Republicans. "It suggests that this is somebody acting with a degree of desperation. He has a drive to run that propels him, irrespective of the consequences. He risks appearing to be a figure of ridicule."
So far, Mr. Nader is on the ballot in six states ?- Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Colorado, Kansas and Montana ?- because of his affiliation with the Reform Party, while David Cobb, the Green Party nominee this year, will be on at least 23.
Oregon had a nominating convention in Portland on Saturday and county officials there are still verifying the signatures gathered for Mr. Nader. State election officials said it was not at all certain whether he had enough signatures to make the ballot; the results are expected in about two weeks, they said.
Richard Winger, the publisher of the newsletter Ballot Access News, which tracks third-party fortunes, said it was common for presidential candidates outside the mainstream to seek out an alternative party for support, even one with divergent ideologies.
He cited three examples: Robert M. LaFollette, a member of the Progressive Party who in 1924 also ran under the banner of the Farmer-Labor and Socialist Parties; George Wallace, a former Democrat who ran in 1968 as the Conservative Party candidate in Kansas, where he faced a difficult petition drive; and John Anderson, an independent in 1980 who ran as a Liberal in New York.
"It's not really weird," Mr. Winger said of Mr. Nader's strategy. "LaFollette, he always said he wasn't a Socialist."
The Reform Party was only one political organization Mr. Nader approached for help. In West Virginia, for example, he sought the support of the Mountain Party, a progressive group that shares many of his views on issues like election reform and universal health care. He was told the party was not interested. In California, Judy Barath-Black, chairman of the state Natural Law Party, which supports scientific and peaceful solutions to any conflict, told him there was no groundswell of support.
Shawn O'Hara, national chairman of the Reform Party, which was founded by Ross Perot, sought to play down differences with Mr. Nader. He insisted that Mr. Nader's views were not entirely out of synch with the party as currently constructed, at least on some issues, like their mutual opposition to world trade agreements and the United States military role in Iraq.
"We've moved to the center," Mr. O'Hara said, while conceding that he once favored the execution of doctors and nurses who performed abortions but now embraced abortion rights as provided by federal law, as Mr. Nader does.
Even Mr. Buchanan said he found Mr. Nader's union with the Reform party "not unexpected" inasmuch as many of Mr. Buchanan's Reform Party followers left the party when he did after the last election.
"The Buchananites had very strong positions on social issues, but, by and large, they left," Mr. Buchanan said. "My guess is the platform has changed back."
Perhaps even more unusual is Mr. Nader's apparently unwitting alliance with Republicans in states where a small shift in voting could swing the election to President Bush or Mr. Kerry. Conservative groups have already mobilized for Mr. Nader in Oregon as well as in Arizona, where 46 percent of the registered voters who signed petitions last month to get Mr. Nader on the ballot were Republicans, almost double the percentage of Democrats or Independents, according to a state Democratic Party lawyer.
In Wisconsin, a conservative group said it was preparing to follow Oregon's example, by urging Republicans to sign petitions when Mr. Nader's signature drive begins next month.
"We'll definitely be spreading the word that we'd like to see Nader on the ballot," said Cameron Sholty, the Wisconsin state director for Citizens for a Sound Economy, a conservative antitax group. "We'll do phone trees and friends-of-friends, and those Nader events will be a great way to drive our membership to get out to sign petitions for Nader."
In the interview, Mr. Nader said he had not seen any evidence that Republicans had acted inappropriately and instead accused Democrats of "dirty tricks" to keep him off ballots. He said that while representatives of an antitax group encouraged Republicans to attend a meeting last Saturday in Portland, Ore., to help him collect 1,000 signatures, he said Democrats were "infiltrating" the same meeting merely to block other supporters from getting in.
Mr. Nader said Democrats crowded into a meeting hall, kept other people out and gave the false impression that they had signed petitions for him.
Democratic officials did not dispute Mr. Nader's account.
"I felt it as my obligation due to the dirty tricks that the far right were doing to stack the seats at that convention," said Moses Ross, communications secretary for the Multnomah County Democratic Party. "I felt obliged to encourage our Democrats to do something about that."
Responding to charges that Democrats are intentionally blocking Mr. Nader's efforts through lawsuits and other means, Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said: "We are aware that different state parties are challenging the validity of signatures Ralph Nader has gathered. While we support these efforts, we have not been asked to provide any resources or asked to participate by any state parties."
In an effort to blunt Mr. Nader's support, Howard Dean, the former Democratic presidential candidate, said Wednesday that he would debate Mr. Nader on July 9 on a program on National Public Radio.
And on Wednesday, a political watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, saying the two Oregon conservative groups ?- Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Oregon Family Council ?- were violating federal campaign laws with their actions on behalf of Mr. Nader, which amounted to illegal campaign donations.
The watchdog group, which also named the Nader and Bush campaigns in the complaint, said the cost of preparing a phone-bank script used by Citizens for a Sound Economy and the cost of the calls made to encourage members to attend the Nader convention in Portland amounted to illegal in-kind contributions by corporations prohibited by law from doing so. The complaint to the F.E.C. also said that the Bush campaign violated the law by allowing volunteers to make those telephone calls from their offices and that if the Nader campaign was aware of the effort, it, too, violated the law.
Officials with the Bush campaign said they had nothing to do with the efforts by conservatives to get Mr. Nader on state ballots, although they acknowledged that some campaign volunteers might have been lobbying voters to support the effort to get Mr. Nader on the ballot.
"No Bush-Cheney paid campaign staffers were making calls to encourage Republicans to help Ralph Nader," said Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Bush campaign. "But the campaign certainly understands that when Republican volunteers see that there are Democratic volunteers trying to restrict the choice and keep Nader off the ballot, that they should work to expand the choice."
Russ Walker, Northwest director of Citizens for a Sound Economy, denied any wrongdoing. "We think it's a frivolous complaint," he said. "It's typical of what those types of organizations do. They're set up to keep people from engaging in the process. They're trying to intimidate us and it isn't going to work."
Nader is a closet neo-con.
What other explanation can there be?
By all means, vote for The Greens!
BBB
Is there no end to how low the right wing-nuts will go........?
rodeman wrote:BBB
Is there no end to how low the right wing-nuts will go........?
This is a riot.
As is:
"Democrats have sued to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot in Arizona and Illinois and may be planning a similar challenge in Texas, but Republicans and some conservative groups in Oregon, Arizona and Wisconsin are feverishly, if not cynically, mobilizing to get him on ballots in those states in a drive to siphon votes from the likely Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry."
Nothing low or cynical about Democrats suing to keep Mr Nader of the ballots in Arizona and Illinois, is there?
If I wanted Bush elected, I'd not donate to his campaign but to Nader's.
Works like a charm with many weak-minded liberals.
I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!
dlowan wrote:I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!
Not at all dlowan.
You are assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry.
They might instead vote for any other fringe candidate to appear on their ballot, write one in, or (more likely) not vote at all.
Refusal to vote for Kerry is not voting
for Bush.
Nader only
cost Gore the election in 2000 if you believe that all of his voters would have otherwise voted for Gore.
As someone who will be voting for Bush and hoping he wins, I do encourage any and all Nader voters to vote for their man, but if there was a third party candidate to the right of Bush who might
cost him the election I would not be admonishing them that a vote for their man is a vote for Kerry.
I may see a big difference between Bush and Kerry, but perhaps they would not, just as Nader supporters don't see the huge separation that Kerry supporters perceive.
The notion of urging Nader supporters to not throw their vote away is indicative of a ideological or (more likely) partisan mindset that either believe disaster lies within the election of the oppositions candidate, or is simply ridiculously tribal by nature.
I do not want Kerry to win, but I know that if he doesn't, the United States isn't about to fall into ruin because of his election. He will likely lead the nation in a direction of which I will not entirely approve, but it won't be all that far from the direction in which Bush will lead. Despite what so many would seem to have us believe, the President of the US is not and cannot become a dictatorial position...without the imposition of martial law and a complete abandonment of the constitution. No American president has done this. Bush hasn't done this and neither will Kerry. The congress and Supreme Court wield substantial power in checking the mischief of any president. Without an extreme upheaval never before experienced in this country, they will continue to exercise their ability to apply the brakes, whether they should or should not.
When one votes, one should vote for the person whom one thinks will make the best president among the candidates. One is certainly allowed to vote
against a given candidate, but one's voting
for a candidate should not be criticized by others as voting
against a different candidate or
for that different candidate's main opponent.
I will be very surprised if a goodly proportion of those who vote for nader would not otherwise have voted for kerry.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:dlowan wrote:I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!
Not at all dlowan.
You are assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry.
[etc]
Hey Finn, did you ever see
this thread?
For some reason I think you'd be really good at it ...
nimh wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:dlowan wrote:I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!
Not at all dlowan.
You are assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry.
[etc]
Hey Finn, did you ever see
this thread?
For some reason I think you'd be really good at it ...
Well, isn't dlowan assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry?
No one can know what these voters would do without Nader in the race. I agree that it is likely that many, if not most, would vote for Kerry, but the mere fact that all of the nader voters would
not otherwise vote for Kerry disproves the claim that a Vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush.
I have pursued this discussion for other than defense of logic, but also, believe it or not, in defense of Nader voters. Considering that none of them probably would have voted for Bush, even if they wouldn't have voted for Kerry, it is partisan petulance that attempts to do more than simply dismiss their choice as a "wasted" vote, but characterize it as some sort of betrayal and a vote for "the enemy."
I would rather see Kerry in the White House than Nader, but those who vote for Nader are voting
for Nader and not
for Bush.
Quote:would rather see Kerry in the White House than Nader, but those who vote for Nader are voting for Nader and not for Bush.
I agree that most people who are voting nader are voting nader. However the net result is that a vote for nader is a vote for bush because it takes votes away from kerry that otherwise more than likely, as even you conceded, would have gone to kerry.
Quote:I agree that it is likely that many, if not most, would vote for Kerry
,
Kerry does not them every single one of them, but he needs most of them in order to win. That is why a vote for nader is a vote for bush in the end.
nick picking is needful when you are defending yourself in a court of law but when you are defining reality it is not necessary if the one you are defining it to understands the point of the expression.
revel wrote:Quote:would rather see Kerry in the White House than Nader, but those who vote for Nader are voting for Nader and not for Bush.
I agree that most people who are voting nader are voting nader. However the net result is that a vote for nader is a vote for bush because it takes votes away from kerry that otherwise more than likely, as even you conceded, would have gone to kerry.
Quote:I agree that it is likely that many, if not most, would vote for Kerry
,
Kerry does not them every single one of them, but he needs most of them in order to win. That is why a vote for nader is a vote for bush in the end.
nick picking is needful when you are defending yourself in a court of law but when you are defining reality it is not necessary if the one you are defining it to understands the point of the expression.
You may call it nit picking, but I suspect that Nader and his followers don't see it as such.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:dlowan wrote:I do so hope that is the end of people claiming that a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!
Not at all dlowan.
Dlowan is essentially correct.
Quote:You are assuming that the person voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry.
She is, and rightfully so.
Quote:They might instead vote for any other fringe candidate to appear on their ballot, write one in, or (more likely) not vote at all.
Actually, that is not true.
A poll by the Voter News Service showed that if Nader was not an option, 47% of his supporters would have voted for Gore and only 21% would have voted for Bush.
Therefore, Kerry loses two votes for every vote Bush loses, and most prospective Nader voters would
still vote if Nader wasn't an option.
Considering Nader snatches hundreds of thousands of voted in key states, his decision to run could be enough to sway the election, as he did four years ago.
Quote:Refusal to vote for Kerry is not voting for Bush.
Nader only cost Gore the election in 2000 if you believe that all of his voters would have otherwise voted for Gore.
Not true.
If we accept the statistics I posted above as a rough outline (47% of Nader voters would have voted Gore in his stead) then Nader
did cost Gore the election. Over and over and over and over again, in fact.
Nader cost Gore several states, including, most infamously, New Hampshire and Florida. In Florida Bush won by around 500 votes, while Nader pulled in 100,000. Thats roughly 47,000 prospective Democratic votes - more than enough to deliver Gore the presidency.
Quote:I may see a big difference between Bush and Kerry, but perhaps they would not, just as Nader supporters don't see the huge separation that Kerry supporters perceive.
Some people don't see the difference between African Dung Beetles and helicopters. The difference exists nonetheless.
Likewise, some people don't see a difference between Bush and Kerry. There is a word for these people: morons.
Quote:The notion of urging Nader supporters to not throw their vote away is indicative of a ideological or (more likely) partisan mindset that either believe disaster lies within the election of the oppositions candidate, or is simply ridiculously tribal by nature.
I see where you're coming from. But I consider it pragmatic, not tribal.
I hate the retarded pack mentality that often goes hand in hand with partisan politics. However, I'm merely recognizing reality when I say that one of two men will be president, niether of which is Ralph Nader, and voting for him is akin to throwing your vote away.
Quote:I do not want Kerry to win, but I know that if he doesn't, the United States isn't about to fall into ruin because of his election. He will likely lead the nation in a direction of which I will not entirely approve, but it won't be all that far from the direction in which Bush will lead. Despite what so many would seem to have us believe, the President of the US is not and cannot become a dictatorial position...without the imposition of martial law and a complete abandonment of the constitution. No American president has done this. Bush hasn't done this and neither will Kerry. The congress and Supreme Court wield substantial power in checking the mischief of any president. Without an extreme upheaval never before experienced in this country, they will continue to exercise their ability to apply the brakes, whether they should or should not.
I agree.
But the differences between the candidates are numerous enough and fundamental enough that whatever similarities they have are drastically overshadowed by thier differences.
In any case, my reasons for loathing Nader and his followers are detailed in
this thread.
Finn
Are you a politician. You think and split hairs like one. Everyone who is a middle of the road writer that I have read agrees that Nader enabled the election of Bush by entering the race and will again.
Well, some Republicans apparently are gambling that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush ...
Newsweek recycles the story about Egan and notes:
Quote:In his run for the White House, Ralph Nader is getting help from an unexpected source: Republicans. Of the $1 million that Nader has raised for his campaign so far, about $50,000 is from donors who have also given to President George W. Bush's campaign. One in 10 of Nader's biggest contributors?-individuals who've written checks of $1,000 or more?-are longtime GOP donors.
Among the notable: Richard Egan, Bush's former ambassador to Ireland. [snip, see above]. Another $2,000 contributor to Nader was Houston businessman and longtime Bush-family pal Nijad Fares, the son of Lebanese Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares. In 2000 Fares gave $200,000 to the Bush Inaugural fund. [..]
Republicans and conservative groups in battleground states including Oregon, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan are also working to get Nader on the ballot this November. Democrats have sued to keep him off the ticket in Arizona, where, according to the state's Democratic Party, half of the 10,000 registered voters who signed petitions last month to get Nader on the ballot were Republicans. The state GOP committees in Michigan and Florida have announced efforts to collect signatures to get Nader on the ballot in those states. Meanwhile, in Oregon, two conservative groups?-the Oregon Family Council and Citizens for a Sound Economy?-financed phone calls to GOP voters encouraging them to attend a recent Nader nominating convention. CSE, which is headed by former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey, plans to take its campaign to other states. Nader last week rejected calls to disavow Republican efforts on his part, telling reporters that GOPers aren't doing much to help his insurgent campaign.
Interesting is the last sentence in the article: "Yet he seems to find some inspiration in his new supporters, telling the crowd at a recent rally, "I think I'll end up taking more votes away from Republicans than Democrats."' He really thinks these people give him money because they're planning to
vote for him?
rabel22 wrote:Finn
Are you a politician. You think and split hairs like one. Everyone who is a middle of the road writer that I have read agrees that Nader enabled the election of Bush by entering the race and will again.
Middle of the Road Writer -- Doesn't sound very authoritative.
Gore's ever changing debate persona enabled the election of Bush.
Gore's distancing himself from Clinton enabled the election of Bush.
Gore's inability to distance himself enough from Clinton enabled the election of Bush.
Gore's wooden demeanor enabled the election of Bush.
Gore's incredible claims of having invented the internet and being the model for Love Story enabled the election of Bush.
Floridians confused by something as simple as a ballot enabled the election of Bush.
People voting for Bush enabled the election of Bush.
Nader enabled the election of Bush.
What you and others are doing is focusing on a single factor, the impact of which it is impossible to quantify with certainty, to explain how Bush won in 2000.
There's always an excuse: Nader, hanging chads, The Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, unusual sun spot activity...
Gore couldn't carry his own state of Tennessee. Tell me everyone predicted that before the race. Considering how close the race was, Gore's losing Tennessee cost him the race. Considering how close the race was, anything can be seen to have cost Gore the race. Maybe he spent too much time in the bathroom at a fundraiser and
that cost him the election.
Did Perot cost Bush I the race? Did Perot enable the election of Clinton. So it really wasn't that Clinton was the preferred candidate, it's just that Perot
stole more votes from Bush than Clinton?
A champion boxer enters the ring against a markedly inferior contender. Everyone is betting on the champ. However, the champ hasn't bothered to train. He's overweight and has no wind. The contender fights the best fight of his life and is ahead on all cards when there is an accidental butting and the champ's brow splits wide open; blood flows profusely. Before the 15th round, the referee puts a stop to the fight because of the cut.
The ref cost the champ the fight.
The cut cost the champ the fight.
The illegal head butt cost the champ the fight.
The contender didn't win. The champ didn't lose.
Yeah right.
All this would simply be the mark of whiny partisans if they weren't trying to make a connection between voting for Nader and allowing the Anti-Christ to reign over humanity.
I am by no means a fan of Ralph Nader, but I certainly appreciate his bitterness towards the Democratic Party. As long as keeps his place and goes after fat cat capitalists he's a darling of the Left. However, should he believe that his notion of Progressive Politics is not being served by the Democrats, he is a spoiler who is in the race only for the gratification of his enormous ego. He and his supporters are loathsome traitors who can't see that the fate of the free world is in the balance.
Win at all costs. It's that important. Good vs Evil in November.
I probably agree with less than 5% of what Nader and his supporters espouse, but I admire them. I prefer ideology to partisanship. But, hell, I'm a nitpicker.
nimh wrote:Well, some Republicans apparently are gambling that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush ...
Why wouldn't they?
Helping a lesser enemy to hurt a major one is smart. Hurting a friend to help oneself is unseemly.
Both have cynical motives, but it's hard to imagine how anyone could argue that the Republicans don't come out on top on this issue.
They support the inclusion of additional choices on ballots; the Democrats oppose them.
I could be wrong (and if I am, please correct me), but I don't recall the GOP fighting Pat Buchannan's appearance on ballots in the courts. Or Ross Perot for that matter. (Note: "You are *&!#! Wrong" will not be accepted as a correction)
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:(Note: "You are *&!#! Wrong" will not be accepted as a correction)
Well, if thats the kind of response you expect from me, I dont really see the point in even trying ... God knows I've talked enough with you, if thats all you're getting from it, why would I bother? <shrugs>
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace