ad banner for Security Solutions International
Advertising Email FAQ Home RSS Search Speaking Townhall YouTube
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity.
« A Two Month Vacation For Iraqi Pols? Like Hell! | Main | 10 More Differences Between Conservatives And Liberals »
May 03, 2007
John Hawkins Live Blogging The Debate

-- I'm going to be "sort of" living blogging the debate. I say "sort of," because if the GOP debate is as dull as the Democrat debate, there aren't going to be that many comments made that really catch my ear. But, I will be watching and every so often, I'll chime in with something. Feel free to do the same in the comments section.

I'm liveblogging the debate which is, so far, better than I expected....

PS: I'm going to do my best to avoid commenting on what Duncan Hunter says, for obvious reasons, but forgive me if I can't help myself and say something anyway.

-- 8:05: McCain smacks Reid in his first question. Nice!

-- 8:09: Mitt sounded very good, very professional. He had an outstanding answer to the question about Iraq.

-- 8:12: Ok, so, Huckabee, if we need hundreds of thousands of troops -- well, we don't have them. So, what now, Huckabee? Not a great answer.

-- 8:13: I can tell already that there are going to be a lot of questions put out that invite the candidates to criticize Bush.

-- 8:16: Boy, Tom Tancredo really had trouble with that question about Israel and Iran. Understandable, but still...

-- 8:20 Mitt: "Osama Bin Laden will pay and he will die!" I like it!

-- 8:21: Honestly, this is a lot more interesting than the Democratic debates. People are actually talking about ideas instead of dodging everything.

-- 8:22: McCain will follow Bin Laden to the "Gates of Hell." That's a good line.

-- 8:23: McCain and Huckabee had funny lines at least on Arnold.

-- 8:26: Tanc seems a little nervous and off his game.

-- 8:29: Ooooh....Rudy just came across as being indifferent to whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. Not helpful for him.

-- 8:31: Mitt went from polished to waffling like John Kerry when he was asked about abortion.

-- 8:33: Boy, Rudy stinks on abortion, too. Ooof...

-- 8:36: Ron Paul would have been a better fit foreign policy wise in the Democratic debate.

-- 8:38: Mitt gave a great answer on the church question. Again, very polished.

-- 8:40: I am not the biggest Mike Huckabee fan, but I have to give him credit for being more charismatic than I thought he was.

-- 8:42: I wasn't involved in debate prep, but I think Duncan has an interesting strategy. He side-steps these little foo-foo questions they've been asking the 2nd tier guys and tells people about the more important parts of his platform. It's a little bit of a different strategy, but so far, in my biased opinion, I think it has worked for him.

-- 8:44: Did Tanc ever prep for this debate? Yeesh, I love Tanc, but, man, he has really had a tough time...

-- 8:45: Tommy Thompson just made a nice pitch for himself.

-- 8:47: Sam Brownback is....he just doesn't quite have the knack.

-- 8:49: Now everybody is going way off track. I think that's because the questions are a little fluffy.

-- 8:51: Man, Huckabee is really helping himself, I think. He is showing that unlike our currrent President, he can express himself.

-- 8:53: I can hardly believe I am saying this, but MSNBC actually asked tougher questions to the Democrats than they have to the Republicans so far.

-- 8:54: Ok, come on, give Duncan a chance to bury McCain on illegal immigration! Awww...I was hoping that Duncan would sidestep global warming and bury McCain. Didn't happen.

-- 9:00: McCain and Rudy are the only candidates for embryonic stem cell research.

-- 9:02: I really think they should get into immigration a little heavier in the last 30 minutes. It's a huge issue and they really haven't touched it.

-- 9:10: Again, I am biased but Duncan's answer about killing Zarqawi and improving the border rocked hard! Nice job, Dunc!

-- 9:12: Believe it or not, Drudge is running a debate poll. Go vote! -- By, the way, first place is currently Tommy Thompson at 28% (Think there are people who haven't seen the debate and are confusing him with Fred?).

-- 9:17: Tommy Thompson said "several thousand" troops were injured in Iraq. He was very low. They'll be ragging on him tomorrow for that. Rudy nailed his "gotcha" question on the difference between Shia and Sunny Muslims.

-- 9:21: A national ID card only for aliens....uh, doesn't that defeat the point, Mitt and Rudy? So, if they DON'T HAVE THE CARD, they're Americans? Uh...

-- 9:23: Ron Paul is really determined to capture the anti-war vote.

-- 9:25: Matthews is inviting everyone to beat up on the Clintons. Very interesting...

-- 9:26: I was very strongly in favor of what Congress did in the Schiavo case and still am, so I was very pleased to hear Duncan say that he supported trying to save Schiavo.

-- 9:32: Debate Summary: (I am going to leave Duncan out of this since I am working for him.)

Winners: 1) Mike Huckabee 1) Mitt Romney -- Both were very charismatic

Losers: 1) Tom Tancredo (Seemed unprepared) 2) (Late addition) Rudy, because he came across as being to the left of everyone but Ron Paul and for a guy who is supposed to be exceptionally personable, he didn't seem all that charming.

Not Sure: Ron Paul isn't going to appeal to 95% of the base, but he stands alone as an anti-war Republican and he will appeal to the relatively small contingent of Republicans who support that position. So, he may be sort of like Ralph Nader: no, he can't win, but he may have gained the support of a certain niche group that will stick with him long-term.

Overall, I thought it was a much more substance filled and interesting debate than the one the Democrats had last week. Also, I have to give MSNBC credit -- they did a good job overall and if anything, they may have been too soft on the candidates.

I consult for the Duncan Hunter campaign through TCV Media.

Facebook MySpace Twitter del.icio.us Digg Newsvine Propeller Reddit Stumbleupon Technorati
    Share this article!
I like! I don't like. Score: John Hawkins | 07:46 PM | Permalink   Trackbacks (4)

Note: Comments and Trackbacks for this entry closed on May 8, 2007 07:46 PM
Comments (117)
Alright, who's the security guard who let Ron Paul onto the stage?
Whoa. Did McCain come out swinging there. Pointing at the camera and everything.
Will Matthews ask a question not pertaining to the polls? I will love it if one of them says, I will do what is necessary, regardless of what the polls say.
Alright, who's the security guard who let Ron Paul onto the stage?


I dunno... anyone see Sic_Semper_Tyrannis lately?
Everyone except Romney and Huckabee looks nervous. Too fast and too much chattering.

Thank you, Ron Paul, for playing the Mike Gravel of this debate.
I think that McCain won round 1 and as come out swinging in round 2...though I'd never vote for him.
"Preemptive or preventive?" That's actually an excellent question.
Tanc's not doing himself any favors with his delivery. So far Giuliani sounds the most sure and polished, and McCain sounds the most forceful.
Tancredo looked horrendous answering that Iran question. Giuliani looks that much better swooping in and answering it flawlessly.
So far every one of these republican candidates sound way better than any of the democrats in their debate. They are just more articulate, seem to grasp the issues. Any else agree?
So we're not on the "moral high ground" fighting Islamofascist terrorism?
"They looked in Ronald's Reagan's eyes, and in about two minutes released the hostages."

Nice.
Thank you, Mitt Romney, for mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood. Shock the Libs by informing them that there's more than one Islamofascist terrorist group in the world.
Is anybody else hearing some strange background noise on their TV? I can't quite make it out, but it wasn't there for the Democratic debate. What is that... oh wait - it's "ideas."
What do you hate most about America?

Now why didn't they ask that at the Dem. debate?
After 20 minutes, I was much more satisfied with the quality of the questions given to the democrats.

These questions are lame.
Tanc speaks up for limited government! Can MSNBC handle the overload?
What do you hate most about America?

Now why didn't they ask that at the Dem. debate?


Cause the candidates only had limited time to answer.
Posted by xtremewing
May 3, 2007 8:26 PM |

They only give them 60 seconds to answer. 60 hours would not be enough time.
Rudy apparently hasn't figured out his stance on Roe v. Wade yet. Which is a shame, because everyone else was magnanimous.
Good to see Romney finally answer the abortion question. Not a bad answer, either.
"Coalition party? That's its biggest problem, Sam.
Romney sounded good on that question.
Seriously, is this this Romney, McCain, Gulianni show? Christ.
Go Hunter. Everyone but him seems to think China is our new bestest buddy.
Seriously, WTF was that? "It'd be okay?" What the hell does that mean? The most significant case of the last 50 years, forcibly legalizing an act which you just said you "hate," and you're indifferent to whether or not it's overruled? What's next - would it be "okay" to win the War on Terror?

Surprised by Hunter so far. He's done well. Problem is no one is looking at him.
Ron Paul ought to boil down his message to "Screw you, world -- we got ours!"
I knew Matthews couldn't go very long facing Republicans without getting confrontational.
Romney is looking pretty impressive.
Mitt says that we have a seperation of church and sate. Maybe someone should send him a copy of the Constitution.
Romney's easily the best public speaker among the group. He's the only one who really looks comfortable (downright cheerful, actually) up on stage.

And Chris Matthews is getting tough on the Republicans. What a surprise.
Romney is looking good and so is Hunter when he gets the chance to speak. He really is impressive.
Ahh, you can tell Hunter's incredibly comfortable with the fence topic. Finally looks relaxed.
The govonator's postion on the environment is moderate? That's news to me . . . Oh wait, if a Republican has an extreme left wing view on any matter, it is "moderate."
Is it me or did Matthews just sideswipe Huckabee and misquote him with that Sthenaplouos quote?
Well looks lie Kos got their wish. Rudy can't answer a straight question . What a shame
Wow nice Bullshit question slanting the corruption debate.
Matthews is abandoning the rules, what a surprise.
So the guy asks Brownback about GOP corruption. He missed a golden opportunity here. Should have looked around and said, "Well... I don't know!"
"Drunken sailor" line was funny.
Man, they are just dying to hear Republicans bashing Bush, aren't they??
Loved Huckabees answer on grading
Rudy "hate[s]" abortions. Has worked to end them in New York. Supports Hyde Amendment and Partial-Birth ban. Indifferent to Roe.
Mitt attacked McCain Feingold, and was immediately cut off by Matthews. Convenient time to follow the rules I guess.
Yeah, we know McCain's as soft on illegal immigration as Bush. He just wiped out most of the gains he made with his strong stance on Iran.
I'm sick and tired of this comprehensive immigration shit...seal the border already.
Who 's the little gray haired goof-ball? Ross Perots brother?
Well, that's a stupid question, if I may say so. Why is it the President's job to "deal" with the issue of women behind bars? Maybe they ought not commit crimes. That would have been an excellent answer.
That whistling soudn is McCain's chances dropping down a deep hole...
Posted by CavalierX
May 3, 2007 9:01 PM |

I think I just heard the THUD!
Good answer by Romney on the tax issue. Brownback in favor of a flat tax?
Hunter's really hit his stride now... comes off as serious and determined.
Too many candidates. Not enough time for each. Causes confusion and overly brief answers; result is they're trying to talk too fast. Kick out Paul and Tancredo for the next debate.
Oh yeah, Hunter is such a commanding presence. Very impressive.
FAIR TAX BABY!!
Good answer Hunter. A narrower field would help next time. Dump McCain and Rudy.
Hunter forgot that there are problems along Canada border because it is very open and there are huge illegal crossings going on there too. Many of those people are worse than the cheap labor coming in from the South.
Well, good for Ron Paul. Gets his news from the internet.
Can't that person just google what the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites? Why (other than just trying to put a candidate in a no win situation) ask such a question?
Where are they getting thse questions from, or do I really have to ask?
You really can spot the questions off the net that come from the left. They are loaded beyond loaded.
Again, haven't these people heard of google?
Posted by xtremewing
May 3, 2007 9:18 PM |

Jinx.
Pace is getting better. Questions are getting worse.
Three comments at 9:18 p.m. I think that's a goocher.
HAHA, Matthews just seriously screwed up with the schiavo question. he had to back-track. "the family...er the husband" what a fucknut.
Asking the Republican hopefuls whether it would be a good thing for Clinton to go back "home?" Can we get a serious question in here, please?
Giuliani's answer to the Clinton question was good. Not one Democrat mentioned Islamic fundamentalism - good point. This is his strong suit, so stick with it.
10th AMENDMENT BABY!!
Romney looked best,followed by Hunter.
Duncan Hunter is the man!
Voted in the Drudge poll. So does Fred Thompson finally declare if he wins a debate he didn't even attend? (Since there's no way Tom Thom Go actually got those votes...)
Posted by FairMindedLefty
May 3, 2007 9:29 PM |

No. It does not mean a lot more than there will be no Church of the United States. That is exactly what it means.
Romney looked best,followed by Hunter.


Agreed.
Matthews and Olbermann analyzing the debate, what a crock.
EEWWW.. Kieth Obies coming up...CLICK.
Voted in the Drudge poll. So does Fred Thompson finally declare if he wins a debate he didn't even attend? (Since there's no way Tom Thom Go actually got those votes...)

Posted by Mike_M
May 3, 2007 9:32 PM |

Apparently the voters don't even know what the poll is about. I'm not sure I'd want the support of such stupid people
Posted by Mike_M
May 3, 2007 9:32 PM |

Agreed, Tommy Thom came across almost as wooden as Gore.
Winners:

Romney - hit the question about communion out of the park. Looked very smooth and comfortable.

Huckabee - wow, where did this come from? A campaign that was dead is suddenly breathing again, albeit still far in the rear.

Hunter - seemed like he didn't have much time. Did come across very well, surprised me quite a bit.


Losers:

Giuliani - I still haven't removed the steak knife from my ear after the "It'd be okay" answer to the Roe question.

Tancredo - suppose he had nothing to lose, but if there was something there, he lost it.

Thompson - Who's this old man who wandered onto the stage?

That whistling soudn is McCain's chances dropping down a deep hole...

Posted by CavalierX
May 3, 2007 9:01 PM


Yeah, he's borderline too old now, nevermind years from now when the next President is in office.

Plus he was blinking at light-speed which isn't a good sign.
Posted by maledicta
May 3, 2007 9:37 PM |

I agree, although I think Brownback didn't do too bad for a second tier guy, although hes still too stiff.
I could have seen myself voting for a guy like Ron Paul in 2000. But could you imagine what he would have said with a bull horn in his hand on top of a pile of rubble in the fall of 2001?
Romney looked best,followed by Hunter.

Posted by xtremewing
May 3, 2007 9:30 PM |

Agreed.

Posted by CavalierX
May 3, 2007 9:32 PM |


Definitely
Tomorrow will be fascinating watching the media telling us what we saw tonight, how the Democrats were sooo much better and otherwise just trying to tell US about what is wrong with OUR party.
Posted by ohler1
May 3, 2007 9:40 PM |

Agreed, I give him credit for sticking to his beliefs but they are not relative to the situation we now live with.
Matthews and Olbermann analyzing the debate, what a crock.

Posted by The_Doyle
May 3, 2007 9:33 PM


Yeah, frig that, South Park is on, the one where people have asses for a face....oh wait, that's Olbermann....no, wait, both channels have people with asses for a face.
Posted by ohler1
May 3, 2007 9:40 PM |

After listening to Dr. Paul tonight, I'm hoping that Pres. Freidman and SicSemperTerantis never bring his name up again.
Posted by Glibertarian
May 3, 2007 9:43 PM |

LOL. Maybe those parents had a couple of missing children.
Posted by xtremewing
May 3, 2007 9:44 PM |

I had my voter registration changed from Libertarian to Republican shortly after 9/11, and Paul displays my 9/10 mindset perfectly.
Posted by ohler1
May 3, 2007 9:47 PM |


See that's why I am a Libertarian for social but Republican for Foreign. But I have been registered Repub for 16 years since old enough to vote.
Posted by ohler1
May 3, 2007 9:47 PM |


I'm not saying I disagreed with all his positions, he just seemed a little how should I say..wild-eyed and high strung.

And welcome to the party.
"Agreed, I give him credit for sticking to his beliefs but they are not relative to the situation we now live with."

I don't. Isolationism wouldn't have worked in 1776, 1918, 1941, or 2001. Sure as hell is the wrong idea for 2008. Just more proof why Libertarians are a bad joke played upon our political system.

You're off the island, Ron.

LOL. Maybe those parents had a couple of missing children.

Posted by ohler1
May 3, 2007 9:46 PM



Actually, they are looking for a missing child.


Hmmmmm.....
My cable box is screwed up and the sound is off it looks like I am watching a Godzilla movie.
Posted by Mike_M
May 3, 2007 9:51 PM |

I disagree with you a little, in 1776 and up until the Atlantic and Pacific could be easily traversed, I think the Isolationism idea was workable but not since 1918 for sure you are right. A lot of the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with Europe and the troubles they caused and they had a point..up to a point and that point ended when our ability to get around quicker began.
My cable box is screwed up and the sound is off it looks like I am watching a Godzilla movie.


Ahh, you must be watching the Left-wing post-debate Republican-bashing session. Roaring, stomping, breathing fire... sure, I could see why you think it's Godzilla.
Posted by xtremewing
May 3, 2007 9:51 PM |

I'm not really that new to the party. . . I come from a very Republican family. My Grandfather owned a drug store, and he once lost a very loyal, democratic customer, who also claimed to be a Navy buff. When the FDR dime came out, my grandfather asked this guy, "Have you seen the new dime with a picture of an American Destroyer on it?" The man responded with exitement, "No, do you have one?" My grandfather showed him, and he never returned to the store again.
Isolationism was a fine idea when it might take months for anyone to get from here to there. When you can hops a flight and be halfway around the globe in the same amount of time it takes to drive across the state of Pennsylvania, isolationism is as dead as the dinosaurs. Maybe more so.
Posted by CavalierX
May 3, 2007 9:58 PM |

Exactly and that was my point once we could cross the oceans in less than 6 weeks the world became a different place but that was a long time ago.
Exactly and that was my point once we could cross the oceans in less than 6 weeks the world became a different place but that was a long time ago.


Damn steam engines!
Posted by Mike_M
May 3, 2007 9:51 PM |

I think that my hypothetical 2000 support for Paul would have been more for his domestic policy (He did say that the first tax cut would be to eliminate the income tax completely) than with foriegn policy. I think that 9/11 just showed me that I can not ignore foriegn policy.
My grandfather showed him, and he never returned to the store again.

Posted by ohler1



That's funny ,I'll have to remember that one.

Anyway,I'm glad you're on our side.
"A lot of the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with Europe and the troubles they caused and they had a point..up to a point and that point ended when our ability to get around quicker began."

Well, the Founders didn't seem to mind too much when the French showed up to help them out.

Avoiding entangling alliances is one thing, shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA" is another. Refusing to intervene in anything is a one way ticket to irrelevance and/or destruction.
Posted by Mike_M
May 3, 2007 10:12 PM |

I agree with that.
I did'nt like alot of the questions asked. And Chris Matthews cut off some of them(even Duncan Hunter a couple of times), when he disagreed with what they were saying. Then he allowed other people to speak longer. Very poor questions.
Chris Matthews was a clueless dolt who failed to understand the whole concept of a "debate". That wasn't a "debate! That was a freeforall as the candidates were pelted with inane questions then cut off if they paused too long before completing a thought/answer.

Romney seemed the winner, and actually I was pretty impressed with his performance, even though I wouldn't vote for him unless he were the one to make it to the generals.

I'd have preferred Hunter to get more questions of substance. While he may not be as polished and is lacking in the charisma department, I think I'd prefer someone not quite as polished anyway, who is solid in his principles and not wishywashy on selective issues. Hunter seems pretty solid to me.

Romney, McCain, Hunter, Guiliani....all the others can pretty much drop out after this performance. Add Fred Thompson to the next debate, with those four....then we'll have a -real- debate, provided Matthews isn't grilling again. Hopefully next time the moderator will guide a real debate with intelligent and well thought out questions.
"Thomy Thompson beleives u can fire a worker because he is gay because homosexuality is immoral. So I guess that means I have the right to refure employments to blacks because black people are evil lazy slobs who need to turn off their rap music."


No, it doesn't mean that. Thompson's position is that homosexuality is immoral as a life decision, and that having a gay employee could be a distraction in the workplace. It's simply a non sequitur to try and cross-apply this principle to race, which is never immoral and not a life decision - you may as well try and make the analogy to firing someone with bad hair. The only candidates who support racial discrimination of any kind are the ones who favor affirmative action.
On Tancredo:
Watching Tancredo was painful. I had to laugh when Matthews piled on about the plane no longer being AF One...

On Romney:
Mitt...I did not know ye. Outstanding performance.

On Gulianni (my current choice if the elections were held today because of electability):
Poor answers to abortion. He neither supported my position nor gave his own position...too grey on such a black, white (and red all over) issue.

On Hunter:
He seemed mean. Does he smile ever? Not likeable...though more likeable than T. Thompson (ugh) though Thompson was very organized.

On Huckabee: Wow!.....Wow!.....Wow! Fantastic job! I haven't moved my voting position yet, but will if he develops a chance to win.

On McCain: Good effort and energy, but also a has-been and untrustworthy when dealing with the Democrats.
black people..... need to turn off their rap music."

Well at least you got that part right. It would better for both them and the rest of us in the long run! Sorry. I could not resist. ;-)

But Maledicta nailed the rest of it.

Off to work now....

"Trench Raider"
Ron Paul ought to boil down his message to "Screw you, world -- we got ours!"

Posted by CavalierX
May 3, 2007 8:37 PM |

I see the globalist has made an appearance.
I got in late and only got to watch the first half the debate last night. I have the rest TIVO'd and might watch it today, but my general thought is, what's the point?
None of the 1st tier candidates place reducing the size and scope of the federal government as a top priority, and I'm simply not going to get excited about somebody who doesn't.

At this point, I'm mostly just hoping Fred Thompson sounds as good on the campaign trail as he does in writing.

Huckabee was probably my favorite, but only because he was funny and quick on his feet. Certainly not because of any ideological advantage he seemed to possess over anybody else on the state.

Romney struck me as the Republican version of Obama. Good looking, polished, well spoken, but at the end of the day he's more image than substance.

Ditto Rudy, except his image isn't nearly as strong.

McCain is just annoying.

Hunter comes off as somebody who would try to find a war to get into with somebody whether we needed it or not.

Ron Paul was dissapointing. Nobody expects him to win, but I was banking on him steering the debate towards more discussion of why a burning desire for smaller less intrusive federal government is so important. Instead, he tried to leverage himself all night from his weakest position.

Tancredo was the only person on that stage I'd get excited about voting for, but he is utterly unelectable.

Ron Paul ought to boil down his message to "Screw you, world -- we got ours!"
Posted by CavalierX
May 3, 2007 8:37 PM |

I see the globalist has made an appearance.
Posted by Sic_Semper_Tyrannis



Ron Paul was dissapointing. Nobody expects him to win, but I was banking on him steering the debate towards more discussion of why a burning desire for smaller less intrusive federal government is so important. Instead, he tried to leverage himself all night from his weakest position.


After listening to Dr. Paul tonight, I'm hoping that Pres. Freidman and SicSemperTerantis never bring his name up again.
Posted by xtremewing
May 3, 2007 9:44 PM |


Well, I was hoping.





One can always hope.

I'm hoping this horrible crop of candidates don't screw around and hand this country over to the Dems.
Overall, what a depressing night for the true hardcore right wingers. The most electable candidate - Guiliani - is solidly middle of the road. He makes no bones about it; he doesn't even attempt to appeal to the far right.

Tancredo looked like a boob. McCain seemed off...like he was worried or nervous or something.

Huckabee and Romney both looked good, no doubt about it. But can either be elected in a general election...doubtful.
Huckabee impressed me the most.

Giuliani was same-o, same-o, likes to say September 11th in every other sentence. Pretty much said I'm against abortion if that gets me votes, but it's a fundamental right of a woman.

Romney was okay and safe, but he benefitted from being first in line from the left of the debaters.

McCain seemed like he was tense, like he had a script and was having trouble following it. He benefitted from Chris Matthews going to him right after Romney. Chris likes McCain.

Brownback, Gilmore & Hunter seemed refreshing, since I have seen little of them on the national stage up to this point.

Ron Paul is interesting to have in the mix. A Ralph Nader of the Republicans.

Tommy Thompson. Was he there?
Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a shit?

But seriously, I agree that Romney looked really sharp, and Huckabee performed very well too. Rudy really threw it in the crapper with his Roe V. Wade response. I liked Hunter, but he didn't come across as very friendly. That doesn't matter to me, but casual voters (unfortunately, there are many of them) will place a lot of stock in things like that. The rest had their ups and downs, but nothing that is going to be relevant down the road, since they themselves won't be very relevant. Man, Tancredo got two tough ones right off the bat. He never even got out the gate.
You must register, be approved and log in to post comments.

ad banner for Justice Sotomayor
© Copyright 2001-2009 John Hawkins
eXTReMe Tracker