The Guardian 2010 election Endorsement Interviews

|
(13)

The Guardian is interviewing candidates for the fall elections, and to give everyone the broadest possible understanding of the issues and our endorsement process, we're posting the sound files of all the interviews on the Politics blog. Our endorsements will be coming out Oct. 6th. Click here to listen -- page will be updated as we publish more interviews.

Comments

In Harvey Milk's district (D8), Wiener has been endorsed by Feinstein and Pelosi, not something to be proud of. Both are establishment politicians responsible along with others for taking this country down the destructive path where we find ourselves today. Both are Democrats in name only and worked extensively for Bush and Cheney when they were in the White House. The Feinstein and Pelosi endorsement should give the aware and concerned voters an even clearer picture of who and what Scott Wiener is. He is not someone I want to represent Harvey Milk's district on the Board of Supervisors. Some in our community can’t stand the mention of Harvey Milk or his voting district and they oppose people who are vigilant in remembering Milk's legacy and relating it to today’s politics. Interestingly, there are those in our community who don’t have any problem with someone asking, “what would Dr King do if he were alive today,” and as most know Dr King came before Harvey Milk in the time line. There are those who would have no problem removing the words “Harvey Milk Plaza” at the entrance to the Castro street muni metro station. Some would also remove the plaque in the cement in honor of Milk near his camera shop. Some who oppose remembering Milk’s legacy say that they are gay while they speak hatred towards queer folks and (queer) people sitting on the sidewalks. I think it’s important to continue to remember Milk’s legacy and urge the voters of Harvey Milk’s district to remember his legacy in November and vote No on Prop L also known as sit-lie. I and others don’t want a return to the days of the “Castro 14” roundups. There’s a least one candidate whom Harvey would not be voting for and that is Scott Wiener and Milk definitely would not be supporting sit-lie since he opposed a version of it in his day. Dr King would not support sit-lie either. In conclusion, here is a "letter to the editor" from a local publication someone wrote about Wiener:

Immigration and D8 supervisor race

Should undocumented immigrant youth who have been charged but not convicted of a crime be turned over to immigration authorities, guaranteeing their deportation? Supervisor candidate Scott Wiener says they should be, as he stated at the candidates' forum at Magnet last October. Because the mayor has chosen to ignore the Board of Supervisors' overriding of his veto of legislation requiring holding off turning over these innocent-until-proven-guilty youth, at last count earlier this year, nearly 200 families have been devastated by this policy, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. These are young people, who by and large are here through actions outside their control, and are being sent to countries where in many cases they have no family ties nor have even minimal familiarity. Wiener has no compassion when it comes to their situations.

The LGBT community learned a serious lesson in the Prop. 8 vote that we had not done our homework in reaching out to other communities for mutual support and understanding. Electing Wiener would exacerbate that division by declaring our community is unsympathetic to the plight of families with immigrant youth.

Further, should Wiener be elected and a similar issue were to arise at the Board of Supervisors involving undocumented partners of LGBT couples, who as we know cannot now marry here, how would Wiener vote? In order to be consistent wouldn't he need to vote against the LGBT community? Or would he have a double standard, one for the LGBT community and a different one for another?

Alan Collins
San Francisco

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 5:08 pm

@Bárbara Chelsai: Straight out of the Republican play book

Posted by Chris Pratt on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 2:19 pm

The Guardsman, which is the newspaper of City College of San Francisco, has two articles about sit-lie. Very good for them. Thank you. Hopefully they won't mind me posting them here so that they will get lots of exposure between now and November. Here's the first one.

Editorial: Who owns San Francisco’s sidewalks?
Posted on 08 September 2010 by onlineadmin1

To hear the proponents of the so-called “sit-lie” ordinance tell it, San Francisco is teeming with crack-addled, homeless degenerates who would spit on your baby in a heartbeat.

The outrageous actions of these out-of-control vagrants are portrayed as a city-wide epidemic by the pro-sit-lie crowd, and cited as justification for the revival of a misguided law, which criminalizes use of public space.

Although Mayor Gavin Newsom was originally opposed to a sit-lie law, his concerns were almost certainly rooted in political calculation, not principle. After Newsom and his daughter observed an individual smoking crack-cocaine on the sidewalk, he began actively supporting the ordinance.

Another famous horror story concerns an anonymous mother who, while pushing a stroller down Haight Street, attracted the ire of a particularly aggressive panhandler who proceeded to spit on her baby.

Both of these incidents, and others like them, are being used by sit-lie proponents to create the illusion that law enforcement is not properly equipped to address public safety concerns under current laws.

It is against the law to smoke crack—anywhere. It is against the law to panhandle, aggressively or otherwise, in many parts of the city, and we seriously hope there is a law that makes it illegal to spit on a baby.

The Guardsman is in full support of any proposition that will create new laws—or strengthen existing ones—which criminalize the act of expectorating on, or at, any baby, for any reason. Whether the person spitting is sitting, lying or standing, it should be totally illegal to spit on babies at any time, in any setting.

While we aren’t prepared to take an official stance on the ongoing prohibition of controlled substances at this time, we are aware of several laws currently on the books that prohibit the consumption of crack-cocaine. We cannot see how a sit-lie ordinance would mitigate the devastating impact of the illicit drug trade or otherwise aid in the prevention of public crack consumption.

The ill-fated 1968 Municipal Police Code section 20 was a nearly identical law, crafted specifically to deal with the presence of “hippies,” who were viewed as a detriment to business. That law was struck down, and now there is hardly a business on Upper Haight Street that doesn’t cash in on the fascination tourists have with all things Haight-Ashbury hippie related.

We are unconvinced that a recycled anti-hippie ordinance that met it’s rightful demise in 1979—one that unnecessarily criminalizes children at play and working people at rest—is needed to address the illegal behavior being milked for shock value by those in favor of sit-lie.

This isn’t about the homeless. We think that any city with as many struggling, desperate people forced to sleep on the street as San Francisco, has a serious problem, but it isn’t one that can be addressed by this law.

This is about freedom of expression.

In the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision, Lloyd Corp. LTD v. Tanner, First Amendment protections for privately owned shopping malls were eliminated.

This decision, and the continuing privatization of formerly public spaces in the United States, has created two competing visions of freedom: one unfettered by anything apart from the constraints of the Constitution, and one limited by the whims of corporate custodians.

In a nation that fails to provide it’s citizens full Constitutional protection within the boundaries of corporate property, the distinction between public and private space is a matter of liberty. Freedom-loving citizens must embrace and defend their public spaces, and sidewalks are included in that.

The people trying to claim sidewalks as an extension of corporate property are attempting to elevate the rights of consumers over those of citizens. If we let them take away the sidewalks, we’re letting them take away one more community space for political expression.

In a city built on progressive values of free expression and community, we cannot afford to let irrational fear cloud our vision.

It makes sense for people to want a feeling of security in their own neighborhood. It isn’t wrong for them to expect law enforcement to live up to it’s name and enforce existing laws that protect the security and sanity of our city.

But it is wrong for us, as a city, to allow a few scared people to push ill-conceived, destructive laws—laws that have already failed in practice—on an issue that affects the lives and freedom of us all.

Any law that makes it illegal for a child to shoot marbles, draw with chalk or otherwise play on the sidewalk is a bad law. The fact that sit-lie will do just that unless it is selectively enforced, points to the lack of thoughtful planning on the part of those who have revived this simplistic and overreaching law.

This isn’t about public safety, this is about setting a precedent and taking a stand.

The business and property owners who value their own prosperity over the freedom of the general public are digging in their heels, and claiming the sidewalks for themselves and their commercial endeavors. We as citizens, renters and average San Franciscans must also take a stand and defend our claim to the sidewalks and all other public spaces.

The future of our freedom depends on it.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 12:28 am

Here's the second article from The Guardsman.

Sit-lie ordinance left to voters
Posted on 10 September 2010 by Greg Zeman, The Guardsman

*Editor’s Note: This story was reprinted from El Tecolote

By Greg Zeman
The Guardsman

San Francisco voters will decide the future of the controversial Civil Sidewalks, or “sit-lie,” ordinance, which failed to pass the Board of Supervisors; Mayor Gavin Newsom is using his executive privilege to place the item on the November ballot.

Some people, including District 9 Supervisor David Campos, feel the ordinance, which would criminalize sitting or lying on public sidewalks anywhere in the city between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., could be used to unfairly target day laborers.

“The fact is, that at some point, as a day laborer, you will have to sit down during the day. It is humanly impossible to be standing all day as you’re waiting and looking for a job,” Campos said at the June 8 board meeting where the ordinance was voted down 8-3. “Are you telling me that you’re not going to enforce the law against day laborers?”

Sit-lie and S-Comm

The recent absorption of San Francisco into the Department of Justice’s “Secure Communities” program – a federal program that will cross-check fingerprints of those arrested in SF against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement database – has raised concerns about police using the proposed law to target undocumented workers for deportation. Although the Mayor’s office and supporters of the ordinance have consistently claimed that the measure is not aimed at day laborers or undocumented workers, there is no language in the proposed law making this distinction.

A group of men standing on César Chávez Street, who identified themselves as day laborers, who asked their names not be published, said they fear that the law could be used to sweep them off the street and out of the country just for trying to work.

“I maybe can stand without sitting for four or five hours if I have to, but how can I stand all day?” asked Carlos, one of the men on César Chávez whose name was changed for fear of reprisal. “What if I want to sit down to eat?”

District 8 Supervisor Bevan Dufty said he couldn’t vote for a the ordinance on just a verbal promise that day laborers would not be targeted.

“I’m not willing to support something that on its face is going to have to be selectively enforced,” he said. “To stand and listen to officers go, ‘oh no, we’re not going to focus on individuals who are day laborers, that’s not what our focus is,’ that’s not the way the law works.”

Sidewalk Civility

Proponents of the measure, including District 2 Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, say that the ordinance is a vital police tool. They insist it is not directed at any disadvantaged group.

“The legislation is not intended to target homeless people or people with mental health issues. It’s intended to address concerns related to public safety and came about form the voices of residents and merchants throughout the city,” she said. “The police do not have a tool for dealing with people who are not breaking the law, but who act provocatively to passers-by or merchants.”

The proposed ordinance is heavily endorsed by Police Chief Goerge Gascón who argues that it is a necessary tool in neighborhoods like the Haight, which is receiving an increasing number of complaints about groups of “thugs” blocking sidewalks and bullying merchants, pedestrians and local residents.

However, Campos doesn’t buy the civility angle on sit-lie.

“By it’s very definition, it doesn’t actually address the issue of civility, because it allows for incivility so long as the person is standing,” he said, adding that he viewed a new law as unnecessary. “On the record, the assistant Chief of Police acknowledged that the police department already has the legal tools they need to be proactive around these issues. The Office of Criminal Justice did not provide any information to actually dispute that specific assertion.”

Pier still maintains that police currently lack the ability to “proactively engage” the individuals that advocates of the ordinance are concerned with.

Wedge issue for November

At the first of two Public Safety Committee hearings where the Mayor’s Department of Justice and the SFPD were given the opportunity to explain the need for the new ordinance, District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly voiced his critical view of the law. He sees the ordinance as a politically motivated distraction from “draconian cuts” to homeless services.

“It would be great to see those who have gotten whipped up about supporting this come out and speak about basic services which have been cut,” Daly said. “You can move the problem around, chief, but you can’t solve the problem with this. You say it’s not a fix all? It’s not a fix anything.”

At that same meeting, Campos persistently questioned SFPD Deputy Chief Kevin Cashman about what criminal behaviors the new ordinance was attempting to address that could not be addressed under current law. He and others on the board were unsatisfied with the response they got.

“The case for this legislation simply has not been made. We had a hearing where very specific and clear questions were asked of the Mayor’s office, of Criminal Justice and the department of police and no answers were provided,” Campos said. “If they cannot provide that justification to this body, then what is the justification that’s going to be provided to the public?”

District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, whose district encompasses the Haight-Ashbury where the ordinance first started building steam, agreed that the law would not effectively address the concerns being voiced by its advocates.

“To say that if somebody is acting in a harassing manner, if somebody is being uncivil towards somebody else and they’re doing so simply standing up, and they’re not sitting and they’re not lying, that all of a sudden you’re to tell me that the police do not have the tools in order to remedy the situation? That’s untrue,” Mirkarimi said. “When somebody spits on a baby, when somebody threatens somebody else with physical harm, when someone, like the mayor, sees someone smoking crack, that is not necessarily a new application that is covered by the sit-or-lie law. That is already a violation of law.”

New life for an old idea

This is not the first time that San Francisco business owners and residents have tried to deal with individuals “encamping” on their neighborhood’s sidewalks with a sit-lie ordinance. In 1968, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted Section 20 of the Municipal Police Code, which criminalized sitting or lying on the sidewalk. One of the law’s biggest proponents was the Haight-Ashbury Merchants and Improvement Association, which felt the presence of “hippies” on the sidewalk in the Upper Haight was hurting their businesses.

In 1979, the ACLU challenged MPC 20 by filing a suit against the Chief of Police and the Sheriff, alleging that the law was being used to target Gay men in Eureka Valley which would eventually become The Castro. The case was resolved through a partial settlement, which resulted in the repeal of MPC 20 by the Board of Supervisors. The defunct law was replaced by the set of laws against sidewalk obstruction that are still on the books.

The proposed ordinance is modeled after a similar law in Seattle that was passed in 1994 and later upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Now cities like Berkeley, Palo Alto and Portland, Ore., are considering following suit.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 12:49 am

Thanks

Posted by orhun on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 6:18 am

Orhun; You're welcome.

Concerning opposition to sit-lie....Maybe they have lots planned for October, but I'm wondering what happened to the "Sidewalks are for people" group who oppose sit-lie? I don't see anything going on with them. There are no "No on L" campaign signs anywhere. No "No on sit-lie" signs anywhere. No campaign buttons being distributed. Nothing. Dead. I realize these things take money and staff. Maybe they have neither. I know they have been well, well outspent by the yes on sit-lie group which consists of the real estate and banking industry. (I'm already working 2 jobs and I don't have the time to start a campaign or to help the no on sit-lie group). The "no on sit-lie" group have a website but how many people know about that? I'm seeing a few more "We support Civil Sidewalks" signs in businesses. That's the pro sit-lie group. I'm seeing those signs in places where I would not have expected the people to put one up. I won't patronize those businesses in the future. I also read on the yes on sit-lie website that Cole Hardware and the Red Victorian Bed and Breakfast are 2 businesses supporting sit-lie. I used to shop at Cole Hardware. I won't anymore. I suspect most people don't even know what Prop L is. I won't be surprised to see it pass because I don't have much confidence in the voters these days.

I think it should be mentioned again who is financially behind sit-lie. Here is a very informative article about that from the Bay Citizen.

Pacific Heights Moguls Fund Sit/Lie
High-tech financiers, not Haight Street merchants, are bankrolling Prop. L
By Zoe Corneli on August 11, 2010

The passionate debate about San Francisco’s controversial sit/lie ballot measure may be hottest in Haight-Ashbury, where residents and small business owners are boiling mad about transients on the streets. But many of the bucks behind Proposition L are coming from a different neighborhood — Pacific Heights — and a more elite group of residents.

Campaign finance reports filed Aug. 2 reveal that the measure’s backers include some of the Bay Area’s wealthiest and most influential players. Among those who have donated a total of $50,800 to date are two major Silicon Valley financiers, a former Wells Fargo CEO, a local high-society philanthropist who runs a real-estate company and the principal of a Michigan-based development firm. (Scroll down to see an interactive chart of the donations.)

Ronald C. Conway, a managing partner of Angel Investors LP, was the first to donate to the campaign. In total, he has given $35,000 — the largest contribution from any donor — to the Coalition for Civil Sidewalks, which is pushing for passage of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s ordinance to ban sitting or lying down on city sidewalks. Conway, known as the “Godfather of Silicon Valley,” was an early investor in Google and PayPal and serves on advisory boards for Twitter, Facebook and Digg, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

Gary Rivlin, the author of a 2001 book about Conway, was surprised to learn that the investor had thrown his weight behind a local political effort. “Conway was the kind of guy who put almost all of his time and energy and money into helping his startups and hardly struck me as the kind to devote himself to side political causes,” Rivlin wrote in an e-mail.

But that's just what he did. "I donated to get the campaign off the ground," Conway wrote in an e-mail. "This movement began by merchants and neighbors coming together and I wanted to help them build their organization as I believe in their cause."

Conway said he was "very active in numerous other causes that help the City at large."

"I am confident that there will be many more donations following mine as a cross section of San Franciscans have embraced this issue," he wrote.

More donations did indeed follow Conway's gift. They came largely from a cadre of business-affiliated power brokers, many of whom list addresses on the Peninsula, in Pacific Heights or in downtown San Francisco.

Tied for second place, with $5,000 each in contributions, are Michael Moritz and Diane B. Wilsey. Moritz, a partner at the Menlo Park venture firm Sequoia Capital, said he was too “swamped” to comment for this article. Moritz has given $150,000 to another San Francisco political cause — Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s pension-reform measure, Proposition B. Union members planned to protest Moritz’s involvement in that effort outside his Pac Heights home Wednesday evening.

Wilsey, who goes by Dede, is best known for having headed up the $200-million renovation of the de Young museum. A 2005 Chronicle article credited her with single-handedly raising more than $190 million for the project through her “charming, savvy and willful” manner. She “knows how much people can afford to give and makes a pithy case for why they should,” reporter Jesse Hamlin wrote. The campaign finance filing identifies Wilsey as president of A. Wilsey Properties Co. (Editor's note: Wilsey has also made a substantial donation to The Bay Citizen and was recently elected to the board.)

In fourth place, at $2,500, is Richard M. Kovacevich, a former CEO and board chairman of Wells Fargo. Fifth place goes to Stephen Grand, president of Grand Sakwa Properties LLC. While Grand is based in San Francisco, his company is headquartered in Farmington Hills, Mich., and is a major developer of residential and retail properties in Southeast Michigan, including, according to a Detroit business newspaper, the former Kmart headquarters in Troy, Mich.

Of the $50,800 in funding, the campaign has spent or plans to spend $31,613.99 — much of it on political consultants. Payments of $5,000 each went to Hsieh and Associates, the firm of San Francisco consultant Tom Hsieh; and Ground Floor Public Affairs, the company founded by Alex Tourk, Newsom’s former campaign manager and deputy chief of staff. Another $5,000 is owed to Hsieh, and $6,792.15 is owed to Tourk’s firm.

Bob Offer-Westort, an organizer with the opposing campaign, Sidewalks Are for People, said the funding told a story different from the public image of the Civil Sidewalks campaign, which has highlighted the plight of neighborhood merchants and residents. “The idea that this is a grassroots campaign I think is belied by where the money is coming from,” he said. “It’s coming from the finance sector and the real-estate sector.”

But Kent Uyehara, merchant chair of the Haight Ashbury Improvement Association and head of the Civil Sidewalks campaign, said the people who donated are the ones who can afford to do so, and who have the political savvy to get a proposition passed. Small business owners "don't have the money" and historically have not been politically organized, he said.

On Monday, the anti-Prop. L campaign received its first $5,000 donation, from Scott Handleman, an independent attorney in San Francisco. Prior to that, Sidewalks Are for People's total bankroll had been $50 — the minimum needed to open a bank account — donated by Paul Boden, an advocate for the homeless. Both campaigns will file finance reports again in early October.

That's the end of the article. One of the comments on Bay Citizen about this article was this: Glad to see that the truth is finally coming out. If you google the names of these people, every one has been a major donor to republican presidential candidates or causes. CEOs of huge banks and Real Estate Investors who got us into the current financial crisis, should not be trusted to do what is best for us. Vote No on this ridiculous law!

If one has trouble on the sidewalks, call the police, which one would have to do anyway.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 4:09 pm

Tonight I noticed one of the deceptions on the signs from the "We support civil sidewalks" group (that's the pro sit-lie group). On their sign it reads "Sidewalks are for Everyone." They don't believe that. That's a lie. It's more deceit. If they believed that sidewalks are for everyone they wouldn't have their campaign to remove the homeless (and all that includes) from the sidewalks. Another thing I've noticed goes back to what I've said about people supporting candidates but not knowing what the candidate stands for. I've seen Prozan signs in people's windows and right next to the Prozan sign is a "We support civil sidewalks" sign. Prozan OPPOSES sit-lie. Sit-lie (Prop L) must be a very important issue to those who have those signs in their windows. Then why are they supporting Prozan when she doesn't support their very important issue? Or do they not know that Prozan opposes sit-lie? That would be my guess. I wrote in another post that I suspect that many people who are supporting candidates do not really know what their candidates stand for, specifics especially. The Prozan signs in the same windows with the sit-lie signs are an example of that.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 8:47 pm

Bárbara Chelsai speaks so well, you should have her speak for all the progressive candidates.

Make an effort to make it happen.

People, let the BG know that you support this idea!!!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 11:25 am

Other than myself, this thread doesn't have much commenting activity for some reason. Speaking of renters' issues which should concern many people here in San Francisco....I see Wiener signs in people's windows whom I suspect are renters, such as on Castro Street (those apartments above the stores between Market and 18th for example). According to a flyer I received from the Mandelman campaign, Mandelman is a renter. Wiener and Prozan are homeowners. Mandelman is the only candidate of the 3 that supports rent control for all units. The other two oppose that. Mandelman is the only candidate of the 3 who supports stopping the demolition of rent controlled units and he's the only one of the 3 who is for slowing the loss of rent-controlled housing by maintaining existing restrictions on condo conversions. Considering all that, why would renters who are going to vote be supporting Wiener or Prozan? They are both against the interest of renters. Both Prozan and Wiener flunked their Tenants Union Questionnaires according to the Tenant Times August 2010. This information I have provided comes from the Tenants Union Questionnaire that the candidates answered. Again, I suspect it's a case of people supporting candidates when they have little if any knowledge of what the candidate really stands for.

Last night I read an article about a recent debate of D8 candidates. Prozan said some strange things at the debate. Here are blurbs from the article....
Prozan singled out Mandelman. "Rafael I love you. I adore you, but the district is not a leftist district," said Prozan, who came to the debate adorned with a rainbow-colored boa. "I do not think that you would be a good choice for this district." The response drew applause from the more than 200 people in the audience at the LGBT Community Center....Prozan, in her closing remarks, continued to hammer home her argument that she is in the mold of the past two moderate District 8 supervisors and would continue that form of leadership on the board. She noted that the district represented by Milk, the city's first openly gay supervisor, in the late 1970s consisted of mainly the Castro and the Haight, while the District 8 of today covers the Castro as well as the bedroom communities of Noe Valley, Diamond Heights, and Glen Park."Those neighborhoods want someone like Mark Leno or Bevan Dufty. You know what? Mark Leno and Bevan Dufty weren't progressive; Mark Leno and Bevan Dufty weren't moderate; they were right up the middle," said Prozan, a former co-chair of the moderate Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club whose campaign office is located in Noe Valley.

D8 is not a leftist district? There is no more leftist district than the Castro. It certainly is not moderate. Who were these 200 people who applauded that statement in the audience? Were they from the Wiener, Prozan and Hemenger campaigns and conservative NIMBY homeowners? Unless there is a mistake in the article, according to Prozan, Leno and Dufty weren't moderates, they were right up the middle. I was completely confused by that statement from her. Isn't right up the middle a moderate? How on Earth does Prozan define a moderate? When I read that, I had no idea (and still don't) what she's talking about and I'm not sure she even knows what's she talking about. All of these candidates speak in overused vague political clichés. You can read the whole article by putting this title in your search engine...Online extra: Gloves come off at D8 supe debate

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 30, 2010 @ 11:39 pm

Perhaps that nobody will waste their time trying to talk to an extremist, (that is U)!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2010 @ 9:19 am

Thanks Barbara for the info. I wasn't aware of some it before reading your comments. My neighbor is a renter and she has a Wiener sign too. I think I'll ask her if she knows Wiener's position on rent control. At least you're talking about the election unlike this extreme taunting child who keeps commenting on here and adding nothing to the subject matter regardless of what it is.

Thanks again.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

What you talking bout Willis?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2010 @ 11:10 pm

I'm lovin it!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

Also from this author