Patterico's Pontifications

1/30/2008

Mitt Flip-Flop on Reagan

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 9:30 pm

Here’s a fun little video of a younger Mitt saying he’s not trying to return to the Reagan/Bush era, as he was an independent at that time:

Here’s Mitt from tonight:

[W]e’re in the house that Reagan built. It’s important that we, as Republicans, stay in the house that Reagan built. If we want to take the White House again, social, economic and foreign policy conservatives have to come together.

. . . .

I would be with Ronald Reagan. And this party, it has a choice, what the heart and soul of this party is going to be, and it’s going to have to be in the house that Ronald Reagan built.

Now watch the video again.

It’s short, and perhaps it’s ripped out of context. It’s hard to imagine how context could help much — but you never know.

UPDATE: The same YouTube poster has an effective little video showing Mitt supporting a woman’s right to choose — time and time and time again:

Great ending.

How excited are Republicans about their candidates? This excited!

36 Responses to “Mitt Flip-Flop on Reagan”

  1. Gov Reagan signed into law in CA one of the most liberal of abortion laws, pre Roe v Wade.

    He later said he very much regretted that decision.

    One can be personally/religiously pro-life yet believe the government’s province ranges from completely hands-off to varying degrees of regulation.

    Romney is far better a conservative, classier and more honest, than John McQueegCain.

    Darleen (187edc)

  2. Romney is somebody you can’t trust to do the right things. McCain is somebody you can trust to do the wrong things. For me, the choice is clear. I’m going with Romney.

    Alan (f1706f)

  3. I would have voted for Romney, but some of his vociferous supporters like Hewitt are so off the wall and/or repellant that it scared me about who he’d bring into his administration, so I’ve already sent in my California Republican absentee ballot for McCain. Lesson: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

    jack (e88f15)

  4. Right, because McCain is just entirely made out of honey, isn’t he? The guy who got into a physical altercation with a 92-year-old Strom Thurmond, shouted curses at John Cornyn for criticizing him during the 2007 amnesty dustup, accuses people of lying when they say that he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, belittled Mitt Romney’s experience in the private sector by saying he just bought and sold companies and laid people off… I could go on forever. St. John of Arizona is the King Kong of jerks. If you want honey, stock up now, because you’re not going to get any while McCain is president.

    Alan (f1706f)

  5. Jack,

    Have you looked at the people McCain is surrounding himself w/ on the campaign trail? Research Juan Hernandez. Romney has no control over his supporters being “off the wall and/ or reellant” on their website or radio show. McCain invited Juan “Open Borders” Hernandez into his inner circle. And Johnnie boy himself can be fairly repellant, his “f*ck you” to John Cornyn during the immigration debate. Or did taht help convince you to vote for him?

    chas (fb7ad4)

  6. Patterico:

    I don’t see why this is so difficult for intelligent people to understand.

    Look at all the putative “flip flops” from Romney, and answer me this one simple question: Have you, or has anyone else, seen even a single instance where Romney has moved from a more conservative to a more liberal position?

    I haven’t. Every single “flip flop” I’ve seen cast up as proof of Romney’s inconstancy… consists of a younger Mitt being more liberal; and a Mitt who has actually served as governor now being more conservative.

    That’s not a flip flop; that’s the real meaning of “growing in office.” He was more liberal until he actually had to govern a state; then he realized that the tried and true conservative positions were better after all.

    Don’t conservatives want other moderate to liberal folks to undertake a similar progression? Don’t you want to convert people to conservatism?

    If so — then why do you urinate all over people who do just that?

    Suppose you meet someone who, at age 47, is an outspoken atheist. But then you don’t see him for a dozen years, during which he goes through some trying times. And when you meet him again at age 59, he has accepted Christ as his personal savior and become a believing Christian (I’ve just more or less described C.S. Lewis, by the way).

    I conclude, from the above and other posts you have made, that you would mock him, laugh at his so-called conversion, and refuse to consider him a real Christian because he came late to the word, rather than being a staunch, believing Christian from infancy. (Was St. Paul a “real” Christian?)

    I can think of a number of things to criticize Mitt Romney for; but learning better, wising up, regretting his youthful liberalism, and becoming more conservative as he gains more experience with the world is not among them. That, it seems to me, is a good thing that should be celebrated… not despised. His newfound conserative faith should not be automatically rejected as fraudulent, just because he was not a child oblate.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd ab Hugh (db2ea4)

  7. I’d say McCain has flip-flopped on Amnesty, but we know he hasn’t.

    jpm100 (b48b29)

  8. Rudy was the only one who just told us the damn truth about his views.

    And he never stood a chance thanks to it.

    Because of radicals who are gulliable. Huck has more chance than Rudy, and we’re stuck with Mccain and Romney.

    Next time you see a politician say something that he obviously knows is not in line with your views, appreciate it. And appreciate that Mccain kinda does this.

    Jem (9e390b)

  9. What Daffyd said. It’s only a flip-flop if you change your position back. As to the Reagan bit, Mitt’s explained it pretty well in past interviews: “the older I get, the smarter Reagan was.”

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  10. Make no mistake, every change in personal policy for Mitt has been for personal gain in some manner! He went liberal to get the seat, made no massive changes, sans his health care for all, not a bad idea, but such is for another day. Mitt did what he needed to do to get elected, and not get impeached while he was in office.

    The 02 Olympics, I’m not sure who found him, but the folks that manage to get them here, did nothing out of the ordinary to attract the games, and all the fluff later on proved that.

    BUT

    The perception was that they could not pull them off, and somebody found Mitt. Mitt jumped at the opportunity as this was a global stage and oh what a feather for his asspirations of public office!

    I will still say, the SLC games are still the best that have ever been pulled off, and if you even think about 9/11 happening a few short months prior to them, WOW!

    Though much of what Mitt took over was in place, he can still take credit for making them happen and insuring they were the best they could be.

    Mitt knew he was going to use the games as a sspringboard to the gov mansion of MS when he took them on, and he would not have taken them on if they were in shambles either. He took them on because they provided him with an amazing boost for anywhere in the US. He almost could have picked the state he desired to govern. (Sans Ut as UT still does not move the rest of the nation at any level.

    Even if the JAZZ made the NBA finals twice, and the no call on Jordan was the reason the Jazz did not get the ring. BYU, UofU, no respect no matter who they beat. No problem we are actually used to it, there are only 2.5 million of us, but we each have 2 acres to ourselves.

    McCain is ancient! Sorry dude but you are, most of those you are asking to vote for you can’t imagine living as long as you already have!

    Don’t misunderstand, Mitt is a good leader and will or would be a pretty good pres as well. But his motives are not all altruistic either. The Mormons are gonna love and herald such to the high heavens about a Mormon becoming POTUS and it only took 110 years!

    TC (1cf350)

  11. I can name an instance where Romney moved left on an issue: No Child Left Behind. Or the Department of Education generally. I forget which.

    Alan (f1706f)

  12. Dafydd and Xrlq:

    It’s not like I’m particularly *worried* by the flipping and the flopping. But y’all do overlook something in your extremely charitable view of his evolution: the positions Mitt has held have been, at all times, the politically expedient ones.

    The analogy I would draw is this:

    Suppose you meet someone who, at age 47, lives in a neighborhood where everyone is an outspoken atheist. And you hear him going around mocking God and such. But then you don’t see him for a dozen years, during which he moves to a neighborhood where everyone is a churchgoer, and atheists are reviled. And when you meet him again at age 59, he has accepted Christ as his personal savior and become a believing Christian — and, it just so happens, he is popular with his neighbors, just like he was when he was an atheist.

    If you are a Christian, your dominant emotion will be happiness that the guy has found The Light. But you also might think to yourself: hmmm. Has this conversion taken place only so my pal can remain popular with his neighbors? When did he ever show me that he has the ability to stand up for his beliefs IN THE FACE OF ridicule from people who disagree with him?

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  13. When there pleantly of members in The Church, including Methodist ministers, who are supporting politicans who voted for such items as the continuation of partial-birth abortion. What difference does it make that a candidate be ‘pro-life’ when members inside The Church are voting in a different direction than the ‘pro-lifer’?

    The Church needs to address the division among the faithful before they expect their values to hold meaning.

    There are good reasons based on secular arguments as to why R v W is a terrible law, it doesn’t help to change the issue when ministers endorse politicans who continue playing this stupid reindeer game.

    syn (95c574)

  14. what Patterico said in comment #12.

    I’d only add this: On the two most important issues — foreign policy (especially winning in Iraq and preventing Iran from acquiring nukes), and on controlling spending, McCain is 100% solid. Romney, eh, not so much. He SAYS he is, but McCain was willing to risk his entire campaign on the surge succeeding and Romney hedged.

    As for everything else (global warming, immigration, etc) all I can say is this — I’ll vote for the guy enthusastically, but if he advocates something I don’t like, I’ll oppose it. As will pretty much all of the members of Congress. So unlike, say GWBush and No Child Left Behind and perscription drugs for seniors, McCain’s bad ideas will have a much tougher time making it through congress (ironically, because of his own Gang of 14 deal, which preserved the filibuster for all purposes).

    Sean P (e57269)

  15. Boy I’m being lazy today. What I meant to say was his bad ideas will be opposed by the REPUBLICAN members of Congress.

    Sean P (e57269)

  16. “It’s only a flip-flop if you change your position back.”

    – Xrlq

    Kerry changed from liberal to conservative in his view of the military…right? He was anti-war after Vietnam, “matured in office”, and became pro-military in his presidential bid.

    Now, I think Kerry is a scummy politician (and inept to boot), but this seems to be a double standard by any standard.

    Here’s some further food-for-thought: Romney was raised in the LDS Church. Do you think his upbringing endowed him with liberal tendencies, or do you think he shifted his ideology to get elected in Massachusetts?

    Mitt Romney: Conservative-Liberal-Conservative

    Like Xrlq said, it’s only a flip-flop if you change your position back. Oops.

    Leviticus (68e8c2)

  17. YouTube member “SoThisIsWashington,” which posted the “The Real Romney?” video clips from Mitt’s debates with Ted Kennedy, is actually the opposition research department of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C.

    The true identity of the “SoThisIsWashington” was revealed by ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross, who had a story on 20/20 two weeks ago about the nastiness of the campaign and opposition researchers from both parties. After a brief interview with the Bush-Cheney wonk who blew the whistle on an Al Gore fabrication regarding flying over a disaster site as VP, and the revelation that it was an RNC figure that provided Ross with the three-decades old videotape of John Kerry confirming that he threw away his medals in protest (something he denied during the 2004 campaign), Ross went to DNC HQ, where he was welcomed into the basement where the Dems do their oppo research.

    Here’s the link to the story, still online at ABCNews.com.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  18. Do tell us all you know about LDS and how everyone in it is inculcated with a political position, Leviticus. Please, also, do not forget to tell us how impossible it is for a Jew to have liberal politics in light of the Old Testament. And for the life of me, I cannot see how a Christian could ever support an army, amass wealth, or live with himself if he did not sell all his property and give the proceeds to the poor and follow Christ.

    nk (398aa2)

  19. Darleen wrote: Gov Reagan signed into law in CA one of the most liberal of abortion laws, pre Roe v Wade.

    He later said he very much regretted that decision.

    Reagan also signed into law the first no-fault divorce law, which at the time was purposed to relieve children the spectacle of seeing their parents trash each other’s reputations and/or fidelity in court. All remaining states followed suit.

    The effects were much more extensive, of course. Marriage officially became “a piece of paper,” devaluing it to the level that now there is a possibility that eventually, any two people — be they the same sex, minors, in the same family, or any combination of any of those factors — will be able to legally marry in the future.

    Romney will have as a mark on his career being the governor of the first state in which same-sex marriage was legalized. But it doesn’t mean that he, like Reagan, can’t learn from his mistakes.

    And NO, I’m not saying Romney = Reagan. I am in my fifth decade of existence and Reagan is by far the best POTUS. It may be another five before there’s another that equals him.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  20. Oooh, I’m on the defensive now, nk! You got me!

    Every Mormon I’ve known has been a staunch conservative (they’ve all been extraordinarily decent people, too, but that’s not the point). How many liberal Mormons do you know, and how many of them are in the good graces of their church?

    Even if you ignore Romney’s Mormon upbringing, you have to take into account the political leanings of his father. The man ran for president on the Republican ticket and served in Richard Nixon’s cabinet. Are you going to tell me that Romney had a liberal upbringing?

    Maybe. From what I know of George Romney, he seemed something of a moderate. But I doubt, for instance, that he was a vocal proponent of abortion. Mitt picked that one up down the road.

    Give it up.

    Leviticus (68e8c2)

  21. Romney is a kind-hearted and conscientious soul trying to do his best for his constituency — whether it’s his company, the Salt Lake City Olympics or the Commonwealth of Massachussets. And now for America. Leave his religion out of it. Stick to his politics.

    nk (398aa2)

  22. “Romney is a kind-hearted and conscientious soul trying to do his best for his constituency”

    – nk

    My first instinct was to write “barf”, but you could be right… Maybe. Maybe not. If you’re honest, you’ll admit that my guess is as good as yours.

    “Leave his religion out of it. Stick to his politics.”

    – nk

    Whether or not you’re willing to admit it, the two are rather interwoven. I won’t just “Leave his religion out of it” because it affects his politics. If he were my neighbor, it wouldn’t matter. But he wants to be my President.
    I think a little speculation about how his conservative Mormon upbringing is going to play out in years to come is not only appropriate, but prudent.

    If the man were a Muslim, I doubt you’d have these qualms, or that you’d scold me for my misgivings.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  23. If the man were a Muslim, I doubt you’d have these qualms, or that you’d scold me for my misgivings.

    Err … when was the last time a Mormon flew an aiplane into a building, cut off a woman’s lips for wearing lipstick, hanged a sixteen-year old girl for allowing herself to be raped, blinded a woman for blinding her rapist, issued a fatwa for derogatory cartoons of Joseph Smith …?

    nk (398aa2)

  24. TC wrote: Even if the JAZZ made the NBA finals twice, and the no call on Jordan was the reason the Jazz did not get the ring.

    WRONG! Michael Jordan DID surreptiously push off Bryon Russell to make that iconic final shot. But that was Game SIX, not Game Seven. Even if the Jazz had won that game, they would have still had to beat Jordan & Co. one more time in Chicago. Possible, but not bloody likely.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  25. “Err … when was the last time a Mormon flew an aiplane into a building, cut off a woman’s lips for wearing lipstick, hanged a sixteen-year old girl for allowing herself to be raped, blinded a woman for blinding her rapist, issued a fatwa for derogatory cartoons of Joseph Smith …?”

    – nk

    That’s not really the point, is it? “Leave his religion out of it.” Just because a Muslim likes to cut off womens’ lips in his private life doesn’t mean that he’ll display similar tendencies in the public sector, does it?

    Or, to put it another way, just because Warren Steed Jeffs (a radical Mormon, just like the radical Muslim’s you seem so intent on passing off as the norm) likes to preside over Rape-Marriages in his private life, as a matter of religion, doesn’t mean that you should write him off as a presidential candidate.

    Now, I know that Romney is, in all likelihood, an excessively decent man (in his private affairs). But my point is that taking a politician’s religion into account is perfectly rational… and taking Romney’s religion (or, more specifically, his religious upbringing) into account, his later conversion to liberalism and recent (re)conversion to conservatism would seem to dump him squarely in the “Ideologically Ambiguous” category.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  26. Levi,

    I’m not a Romney supporter or opponent but I think religion and politics are an interesting topic, and Mitt’s Mormonism and Huckabee’s evangelical approach have made it a bigger issue this year. It reminds me of the discussions when JFK ran for President, and I’m drawing more on those recollections to make this comment than on the current candidates.

    I think it’s reasonable to ask questions about how a politician’s religion will affect their decisions. In addition, I think it’s fair to take their religion into account in these circumstances:

    1. Where the politician claims his/her religion will govern what s/he will do as an elected official. It’s rare for a major politician to do this (although some might argue Bush did it on stem cells and IMO Huckabee has said one or two things along these lines), but it’s rare. Most politicians say religion affects their values but that their religion will not play a role in how they act as an elected official. I think we have to take these statements at face value (unless we have a reasonable basis based on the politicians’ actions to believe they aren’t true), just as we generally accept the other representations politicians make.

    2. Where the religion itself gives us a reason to be suspicious. Islam specifically requires the melding of church and state. It sounds to me like Scientology has similar principles. Some people think Mormons believe this, too, but I’m not aware of anything in the Mormon religion that provides this and (IMO) the fact that Utah has a government and leaders that resemble the other 49 states puts the lie to that belief.

    DRJ (517d26)

  27. Utah’s unique history accounts for the Mormon political dominance there, not any particular tenet of the faith, that I’m aware of. Similar to the one-time Quaker dominance in PA, which was also one of the most religious and ethnically tolerant states.

    When I ski Utah, I always find it a nuisance that I have to join a faux “social club” in order to have wine with my dinner, but other than that, things seem pretty reasonable there.

    driver (faae10)

  28. Leviticus wrote: Or, to put it another way, just because Warren Steed Jeffs (a radical Mormon, just like the radical Muslim’s you seem so intent on passing off as the norm) likes to preside over Rape-Marriages in his private life, as a matter of religion, doesn’t mean that you should write him off as a presidential candidate.

    You’re WAY out of line mentioning Romney in the same breath of a tyrant like Warren Jeffs.

    Jeffs ran the Fundamentalist LDS’ homebase of Colorado City, AZ like a gang kingpin, controlling the legislature, police, and schools according to the dictates of the sect. He and the church flouted state and federal laws for the decades. It was just a question of having the courage to send the Feds into a potential hornet’s nest a la Waco and whether or not it was even possible to get a conviction. That was not Jeffs’ “private life.”

    On the other hand, Romney has run an entire state for two terms and has shown no inkling of a tendency to attempt to use government to fulfill his personal religious obligations or goals. To their credit, neither have the Scientologists, as far as anybody can ascertain (there are some who believe the late Sonny Bono (R-CA) was of the CoS despite his self-identification as Catholic).

    In another forum, I asked an anti-Mormon poster what his fears were about what a Mormon POTUS might do to harm the nation. After blustering about irrelevant subjects, he finally responded that his problem was that in his opinion, LDS is a cult, and he would not want to lend credibility and thus more followers to it with his vote. Specifically, he said he didn’t want to assist leading others to a “Christ-free existence.”

    When I asked him if that would preclude him from supporting a candidate that he agreed with 100% but happened to be a devoted, religious Jew, he got all huffy.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  29. “You’re WAY out of line mentioning Romney in the same breath of a tyrant like Warren Jeffs.”

    – L.N. Smithee

    Ooh, L.N. Smithee toes the line! And, incidentally, misses the point completely.

    I compared Romney to Jeffs in order to show nk how ludicrous it was to compare lip-slicing, teenager-hanging, building-bombing Terrorists to the vast majority of the Muslim population. BOTH comparisons are ridiculous, but you apparently missed the point of mine.

    And, as I’ve said before, my beef with Romney has little (if anything) to do with his Mormonism. It’s got everything to do with his Conservatism, and with the double standard some of you seem to be applying to him on the question of what constitutes a “flip-flop”.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  30. In the words of the J. Geils Band:

    “Everyone’s excited,
    ‘Cause the big one’s ’bout to fall;
    Do the flip, do the flop,
    Piss on the wall”

    Missed It By THAT Much (281c10)

  31. No, Leviticus. Your point in your comment #16 was that Romney was per se conservative because he was raised in LDS and I’ve cut you all the slack you asked for and you still haven’t backed it up. But just go on and tell us all you know about the “vast majority of Muslims” in any case.

    nk (398aa2)

  32. What “slack” have I asked for? I admitted that that George Romney was a moderate, and that that could’ve played a part in Romney’s upbringing. I doubt it, but it’s possible. It’s possible that he was a liberal all through his childhood, all through college, all through his governance of Massachusetts, and it’s possible that he had an epiphony epiphany when he decided to run for president on the republican ticket. It’s certainly possible, but I doubt it. What more do you want from me?

    I don’t know. I can’t blame Romney for struggling with the question of abortion: it’s extremely difficult.

    It’s just that, like Patterico said, all of his decisions on the question seem to have made on the basis of political expediency.

    And, like I said, it seems like your cutting Romney a hell of a lot more slack for changing his position than you gave Kerry (for whom I have no respect) for doing the exact same thing FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON (i.e. political expediency). I mean, if Kerry had said, “I’ve seen the light since my medal-chucking days”, would you have believed him?

    “But just go on and tell us all you know about the “vast majority of Muslims” in any case.”

    – nk

    Oh, my bad. Please, nk, baptize me in your Vast River of Muslim Knowledge.

    I think it’s a fairly safe bet that most Muslims are normal, peace-loving, law-abiding people. They’ve got more than their fair share of crazies, sure, but that doesn’t make them a uniform menace (as you seem inclined to believe).

    Leviticus (958a9e)

  33. Patterico:

    If you are a Christian, your dominant emotion will be happiness that the guy has found The Light. But you also might think to yourself: hmmm. Has this conversion taken place only so my pal can remain popular with his neighbors? When did he ever show me that he has the ability to stand up for his beliefs IN THE FACE OF ridicule from people who disagree with him?

    Patterico, those changes towards a more conservative stance occurred while Romney was governor of Massachusetts. I think he took a lot of ridicule (and and experienced a lot of hatred) from his neighbors for doing so.

    Honestly, I think conservatives are punishing Mitt Romney for not being “right from the beginning.” As the threat of Hillary or Obama looms larger, many conservatives have responded by tightening their litmus test for the nominee to exclude more and more candidates… to the point where there is, at this point, nobody who passes general muster.

    Then, like Ann Coulter, they loudly (and petulantly) announce that if the candidate promoted by Faction 32 of the conservative coalition isn’t nominated, they will actively and aggressively campaign for Hillary for president. Or sit out the election in a huff.

    Of course, Factions 31 and 33 vehemently disagree with 32 on the correct candidate to endorse. Ergo, after a nominee is selected (and whoever it is), conservatives will ride off in all five directions, while liberals will single-mindedly pursue victory in November.

    Results: predictable.

    But by God, at least conservatives will have conserved their purity of essence!

    Dafydd

    Dafydd ab Hugh (db2ea4)

  34. On the flip-flop issue, I share some of the concerns Levi raised in his comment #16. However, even though Mitt’s father was a high-ranking Republican, my recollection of George Romney was as a GOP moderate more like Nelson Rockefeller than Barry Goldwater, and I suspect Mitt’s father would be considered a RINO by many conservatives today. So despite the LDS connection, Mitt’s early years may not have been overwhelmingly conservative.

    DRJ (517d26)

  35. Leviticus wrote: I compared Romney to Jeffs in order to show nk how ludicrous it was to compare lip-slicing, teenager-hanging, building-bombing Terrorists to the vast majority of the Muslim population. BOTH comparisons are ridiculous, but you apparently missed the point of mine.

    Here’s the difference: It isn’t a tenet of Christianity to conquer the globe by force and impose religious law. It matters not that some have justified hegemony that way — such a goal is unstated in either testament of the Bible. OTOH, there are many references in the Qu’ran to Islamic world domination, with genocide of the Jews as an added bonus.

    Whichever governments that still exist which espouse expansionism around the world out of a quasi-Christian conversion motivation, they are pariahs in the West (that is, of course, until the time arrives to form alliances). The United Kingdom, with its monarch doubling as titular head of the Anglican Church, has divested itself of most of its world empire. Similarly, next year, it will be a half-century since the USA added a state to the Union. No American candidate with a Manifest Destiny philosophy could ever get to the White House today; Ron Freaking Paul would beat James Monroe and his doctrine in a walk. The last Christian clergyman to hold the office of the President — James Earl “The Worst” Carter — actually returned a U.S. territory to its native population.

    Are all Muslim heads of state like the Taliban? No. But you can’t make a credible case that Islam — as it is practiced widely in the world today — is not more likely to be the source of of governmental faith-based persecution than other belief systems.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  36. re comment #33: “those changes towards a more conservative stance occurred while Romney was governor of Massachusetts.”

    True, but a red herring. The comments occurred AFTER he was ELECTED Governor of Massachussettes and decided that the next elected office he would seek was the President of the United States, which required him to curry favor with Republican Primary voters. So he took ridicule from Mass voters, big deal, the point was he has always catered his views to the views of the people whose votes he is currently seeking.

    Sean P (e57269)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4295 secs.