Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | March 5, 2012

A Republican Party like it’s 1996?

Super Tuesday on 6 March will reset the stage for the next act in the GOP nomination process.  It may be early days to draw comparisons, but it is worth noting one thing before Super Tuesday: the 2012 Republican primary season has, to date, looked more like that of 1996 than like any other from 1980 to the present.

A key feature 1996 and 2012 have in common is that, as of today’s date (4 March), the primary elections have delivered one outright win (50% or more of the vote) to any candidate.  In 1996, Bob Dole won Puerto Rico with 98% of the vote before Super Tuesday.  In 2012, Mitt Romney has won Nevada with 50% of the vote.

Otherwise, the assumed frontrunners in both elections remained in the 30-40% region throughout the early primaries.  Bob Dole faced Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, and Lamar Alexander, whose combined “not-Dole” popular-vote total up through 4 March 1996 was 593,472 to Dole’s 443,381.

Assumed frontrunners are, of course, commonly beaten by the combined “not-frontrunner” vote total in the early primaries of a competitive year (i.e., when a party’s sitting president is not running).  That is the case this year, with Romney at a vote total of 1,812,418 so far, and the combined total of Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul at 2,049,303.

In 1980, Reagan’s early vote total through 4 March – there was no “Super Tuesday” then – was at least 1,240,068, while his competitors combined had racked up 1,528,937.  (The 1980 vote total for Alabama is unavailable at this writing, due to a server problem at the state government website.)  In 1988 – a slower-starting primary year – Bush Sr.’s 4 March vote total was 224,871 to his opponents’ combined 401,377.  In 2000, George W. Bush was sitting on 1,614,355 votes by 4 March, while John McCain had gotten 1,712,991.

But by 4 March, in each of those years, there had been more outright primary victories (by any candidate) than in 1996 or 2012.  The following table covers Republican primaries in competitive, non-incumbent years back to 1980:

Elec. Yr          No. Voting Primaries/             No. Primaries won by 50%

                        Binding Caucuses                    or more (any candidate)

                        Through 4 March                   

1980                       5                                             2

1988                     12                                             5

1996                     11                                             1

2000                     11                                             8

2008*                   40                                           20

2012                     12                                             1

* Super Tuesday was 5 February in 2008; entire primary schedule was heavily front-loaded

(All primary/caucus totals include District of Columbia and trust territories; totals do not include non-binding primary/caucus votes)

Obviously, there are multiple dimensions for comparison between years, and on other scores we may distinguish 2012 from 1996.  The sitting president in each year is a Democrat who is popular with the media and gets good press, but in 1996 the US economy was in better shape and President Clinton was getting comparatively high marks for his handling of it.

In 2012, the economy is in unusually bad shape, with one key indicator – labor force participation – at its worst reading since the recession of 1982, and another – the price of gas at the pump – at its highest level ever.  Meanwhile, President Obama’s handling of national security gets lower marks from poll respondents as the months go by.  Bill Clinton famously tacked toward the center for the 1996 election; Barack Obama has tacked leftward, with socially divisive rhetoric and socialist talking points, and thus has major negatives that Clinton did not have.

So it is entirely possible that Obama will beat himself in November; we should not despair over the parallels between 2012 and previous years.  That said, the quality of the assumed GOP frontrunner and the relative lack of enthusiasm for any of the candidates may give us pause.  On reviewing this table of popular vote tallies for the presidential elections of the last 40 years, we must hope that the fear of Obama is greater than anything else, for GOP voters and GOP-leaning independents:

Elec. Yr              Democrat                  Republican                         Independent

1972                29,173,222                  47,168,710

1976                40,831,881                  39,148,634

1980                35,480,115                  43,903,230                    5,719,850 (J. And.)

1984                37,577,352                  54,455,472

1988                41,809,074                  48,886,097

1992                44,909,806                  39,104,550                  19,743,821 (Perot)

1996                47,401,185                  39,197,469                     8,085,294 (Perot)

2000                50,999,897                  50,456,002

2004                59,028,444                  62,040,610

2008                69,456,897                  59,934,814

Naturally, one of the key factors in 2012 is likely to be whether there is a third-party candidate with significant vote-getting power.  At the moment, there doesn’t seem to be one on the horizon, which is good news for Mitt Romney and the fortunes of the GOP in the general election.

But the decline in enthusiasm for the GOP candidate from 2004 to 2008 was marked, if not as precipitous as the decline between 1988 and 1992, or 1972 and 1976.  There is reason for concern as to whether a candidate with Romney’s record of comfort with big government is the man to lead a GOP resurgence.  The drawbacks of his limited appeal suggest that a Republican victory in November is likely to be a narrow one, perhaps on the order of Jimmy Carter’s victory in 1976 or even Bush 43’s in 2000.

One additional factor has to be considered.  Pundits speak with absolute certainly today about the economy being the main – possibly even the sole – driver of the voters’ decision in November 2012.  And it may be, but there are 8 months to the general election, and a big world out there.  Whatever drives the election will almost certainly be related to the economy in some way – but it won’t necessarily be what we can see or imagine on 4 March.

Note:  Primary election/caucus information from Wikipedia, Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, and selected state government websites.  General election vote totals from Wikipedia and Dave Leip’s site.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.


  1. The problem still remains, unless the GOP nominates either Gingrich or Santorum nothing will change, the trajectory into the abyss will be maintained. Romney is not one ounce different than Obummer.

    The One is a sock puppet, empty suit tool of a very powerful inner circle of Elites, who have little care exactly what Marxist pap that he believes in or preaches. They arrange to get what they want, and the rhetoric is just Leftist (or Rightist for that matter) populist propaganda.

    Willard Milton Romney is a trained member of the Elite North Eastern Establishment. He is owned and run by the exact same people who own and run the Obama-bot, it’s just that Romney’s Operating System is different. Kind of like Google Android versions… all are just memory compiled Linux kernels with slightly different interfaces.

    If the Romneybot wins, there is no use in voting “against” Obummer… since regardless of the outcome of the election the same policies will be pursued. Romney will just have a little window dressing to keep the interest of the suckers on the right. If the Obamabot manages to pull out a win it will proceed as planned.

    In either case consolidation of current gains will occur, and the Marxism will proceed. Of course if Romney loses, the GOP as we know it will disintegrate. If he wins, that disintegration will occur 3 years down the road, but will still occur.

    So… the Pledge:

    Willard Milton Romney is a Limousine Liberal Democrat; therefore I WILL NOT vote for him, EVER!

    Newt, Santorum, or Bust.


    • 10-1 it’s bust

  2. I will accept and vote for whichever Republican candidate first eats a live frog on national television.

    • will you join them to show your support and, not ask someone to do what you won’t do? 😉

      • I’ve already done it but without extensive television coverage. Could do it again, though, if a candidate wants to accompany me.

  3. Barring another 9/11 attack, the sole factor determining the 2012 Presidential election will be the unemployment rate and general perception of the economy.

    The Obama administration has to know this, so its certain that they will do all they can to artificially pump the economy from now till November.

    Should Romney be elected, he’ll be far more receptive to conservative ideas than Obama. Romney understands econ 101, has no desire to implement a card check, energy tax, etc. He’s open to developing our oil resources and promoting nuclear power. He believes we must achieve energy independence as a matter of national security. He’s open to drilling in ANWR.

    The democrats will however block as much of his and the republicans efforts as possible. The MSM will blame Romney and the republicans for everything and deride whatever they do as misguided and/or as efforts at helping the rich.

    Romney is a RINO, he is NOT however another Obama. He isn’t controlled by any elite (sorry TMF) but he is a member of that social class, though as he is Mormon, he may not be entirely welcome in those circles. Just as Joe Kennedy Sr.’s Catholicism made him unwelcome during his time, despite his wealth.

    Romney won’t nominate a Scalia but he won’t nominate a Ginsberg either.

    • I don’t know that Romney won’t nominate a Scalia. There is a much much stronger high end Conservative bench than there has been previously and any attempt to nominate an Edith Clement sort will be met with intense skepticism if not definitive hostility. The composition of the Senate will of course matter as will the identity of the retiree. I have no doubt that Romney will nominate a constitutionalist to replace Nino. The prospective fight to replace Kennedy would obviously be much different as would to an even greater extent the one for Ginsburg’s seat. In any event it is crucial that Barry be denied the opportunity to nominate and if he does that his nominee not be confirmed.

      FWIW, I think Edith Jones should get a look for the 2nd of the above spots and perhaps even for the 3rd. It is hard to imagine a more doctrinally sound nominee and her age will make her more palatable than someone 15 or 20 years her junior. Paul Clement would, of course be a fine replacement for Nino, as would Brett Kavanaugh.

      Certainly Jeffrey Sutton would have been at or close to the top of any short list but his ObamaCare ruling last June obviously would require a very searching examination of his record to make a determination.

      • I would love to see Romney nominate a constitutionalist, but given his RINO leanings, I think it somewhat unlikely.

        If he did, it would be in reaction to a major realignment in the next Senate elections. I judge that to be improbable as well.

        If Romney is elected however, he’ll have an opportunity to use virtually certain democrat obstructionism as leverage in a media campaign to arouse greater voter anger at democrats… which could possibly give him the super majority needed to effect real legislative change. Whether he’s savvy enough to recognize and seize such an opportunity by implementing such a media campaign is problematic as well, given the poor record of republican reaction to democrat’s machinations.

        I’d love to see Romney adopt some of Gingrich’s combativeness with liberal assumptions and premises. How about a Romney/Gingrich ticket?

        • BTW:

          I am a total cynic (used to be only a mild one, but then in 2000 I got politically active again. I learned.) Romney’s pick for VP will reflect what Romney’s handlers will think that he needs to get elected…

          A bland, vanilla, unchallenging, left of right of center competent milquetoast with just enough “conservative” cred to try to mollify the Right….

          Bob McDonnell is the current inside pick. Romney won’t get near a strong personality like Gingrich or Santorum, who would immediately overshadow him. The Establishment doesn’t want to repeat the “mistake” of Sarah Palin on this go round. No spice… no flavor… no heat… Please…


          • You may well be right in your rationale. Then again, you may be completely off base. Most pundits discounted Cheney as a likely pick by Bush for a VP, prior to the announcement of that choice.

            Romney needs a running mate that will shore up support among conservatives. While Gingrich only partially achieves that, he’s by far the best at intellectually challenging the left’s assertions, an important consideration when considering independents and moderate, old-school democrats. The greatest generation has one vote left in them and only ignorance explains their support for the current democratic party’s radical leadership.

            Santorum won’t expose the fallacies in the left’s premises, Gingrich will do so and convincingly. Gingrich can compellingly challenge the credibility of the left’s assertions that the only thing preventing Obama’s success is the intransigence and obstructionism of republicans.

            Santorum can be easily painted as an intolerant, religious nut. The accuracy of that characterization isn’t the issue, whether it will be considered plausible by the MSM’s brainwashed millions is the issue and, it will.

            If the ‘strong personality’ of Gingrich and Santorum so ‘overshadows’ Romney, then how to explain Romney’s likely nomination? It can’t be ascribed to the party’s ‘elite’; money does influence perception but it doesn’t directly buy votes in primaries, nor does it even gain the nomination, as Steve Forbes can twice, so testify.

            For all his faults, overall republicans perceive Romney to be the most acceptable, if by a small margin, of this field of candidates.

            Palin wasn’t the mistake, how she was advised and promoted was the mistake. McCain and his advisers hadn’t a clue as to how primal the fear of the left would be with Palin. An attractive, self-confident, conservative woman is anathema to them, as it exposes their whole meme. McCain failed miserably to prepare Palin for the national scene’s dangers and pitfalls. As a governor of distant Alaska, she couldn’t be expected to know and she was basically thrown out there to the media wolves. By the time her unpreparedness for that level of animosity and machination was obvious, it was far too late.

            • “If the ‘strong personality’ of Gingrich and Santorum so ‘overshadows’ Romney, then how to explain Romney’s likely nomination?”

              Except that it is the combination of MONEY – huge lots of it… AND POWER – Who you are connected to, and do you fit into the strategy.

              The Bourgeoisie must be eliminated they are a threat.

              Forbes was an odd duck – he BELIEVED the middle class was the salvation of the nation and the economy. He is a true free marketeer, so incurred the wrath of the Elites. I supported him in 96. Boy can I pick ’em.

              But I do know Beltway politics… and I can assure you that Sarah will not be repeated this time.

              And the warm bucket of spit job that the Vice Presidency is (unless you are Bush II and had a Cheney, which was not to the liking of the Elites) will be offered to a warm bucket of spit SOP to the suckers on the Right, just like they always fall for.

              Pardon my cynicism…. but the hairs are currently standing up on the back of my neck…. I was young, but still remember Nixon and Ford. The goal is Consolidation.


      • If you want to know what Romney will nominate, look at his picks in the PRM…

        My guess is that Souter might be a tad too conservative for Romney.


    • GB…

      1. Romney will roll like a kayak in a class 3 rapid. He won’t listen to any Conservatives at all… He didn’t in Massachusetts and he certainly won’t in the White House.

      2. Romney says a bunch.. promises a whole lot, and won’t do a damn thing, and he’ll blame it all on the Senate, which will stop him at every turn, from drilling anywhere… to doing much of anything. Romney’s a practiced and proven “sayer of convenient things”. Some flip-flops are changes of heart. Most are just lies.

      3. He’ll nominate who the Elites tell him to. He’s Harvard Law and Business School… His religion is superfluous, the Elites are functional atheists (regardless of which pews in what churches they occasionally occupy) and don’t factor in someone’s religion unless that affiliation brings something “tangible” with it. Romney’s association brings lots of “tangible” things.

      4. Joe Kennedy was one of the founding members of the current Establishment. It’s all about money and power in critical situations. JoeyK had enough to get his sex fiend clueless son elected President. The “outsider” image, was just that… an image.

      A Romney presidency will look very similar to a Nixon Presidency. Consolidation of what is on the table… go along to get along… placation where necessary.

      With the greatest respect, but I fundamentally disagree on this one…

      Regards, John

      • John, I’m NOT saying you’re completely wrong, I’m saying your take may not be as certain as you claim. It also appears that your perception of ‘how things work’ are somewhat distorted. These are not the days of the robber barons or of the Rockefellers and JP Morgans. Yes, the elite have much influence but there is no ruling, unified cabal in smoke filled rooms, secretly dictating the rules by which society shall operate. The elite certainly influence a few, select number of Congressmen but in the main, ideology and reelection concerns, dictate Congressional behavior far more than any other factors.

        1. Romney’s Mass. history isn’t fully applicable. No conservative policies would be acceptable, much less implemented in liberal land. As well suggest a city resolution in San Francisco to formally support the limitation of marriage solely to that of a man & woman.
        2. The Senate as currently composed will not allow any conservative legislation to be passed, by any Republican President. Democrats will adopt a “scorched earth” defense if Obama loses.
        3. Romney is no atheist. His religion is far more important to him than you credit, nor is he a member of an atheist elite. As President, he doesn’t have to listen to, much less obey any elite’s wishes.
        4. Really? Tell that to the Rockefeller’s, et al. Kennedy Sr. was not part of that ruling elite. Jack Kennedy’s election to the Senate marked a milestone in the emergence and acceptance of Catholics into society’s upper strata. JFK’s election to the Presidency ended and confirmed the end of discrimination of Catholics by the upper strata of American society.

        Yes, in some ways, a Romney presidency will look very similar to a Nixon Presidency. Unfortunately, that may be the best we can achieve at this time.

    • “. Romney understands econ 101….”

      That’s part of the problem. Understanding econ 101, the gibberish of Keynes, Galbraith, Samuelson, et al that has poisoned the minds of the last two generations of college students, is what has led to a Federal Reserve attempting to centrally control the largest and most diverse economy in the world, together with a Treasury Dept. that enables a Santa Claus congress to borrow and spend money that can never be repaid.

  4. THANK YOU for posting this! I’m glad I found your blog!!

    Common Cents

  5. I find this very interesting.

    My mother used to talk her self into accepting a poor decision that she had just made. Once she bought a pair of shoes. They were hideous… I mean they looked like white truck tires with straps and buckles. She was so excited about them. She bragged to everyone. She showed everybody how much money she had saved getting them on special. She even went so far as to repeatedly model them in front of every person who stopped by the house.

    At the end of the two or so days of escalating braggadocio regarding her new fabulous shoes, they disappeared. No one ever saw them again. They just vanished. She never wore them, and I figured that she had finally realized how ugly they were, so she had taken them back.

    We were cleaning out her closet, after she passed. It was four years ago in June. We used to call Ma, “Imelda”. The woman had shoes in three closets stacked neatly in boxes four deep in each closet. Some of the shoes were barely worn affairs from the 1970’s. Well, my niece opens a box up (the girls were writing down stuff for the donation list) and flashes around “The Shoes”… (my niece would have never seen them because Imelda had collected them in the early ’80’s.)

    “EIUWWWW, LOOK at THEEESSSSEEE they are so UGLY!!! Yuck, Nana must have been drinking or something!” – basically words to that effect, because I was laughing and crying at the same time.

    My mother had been so embarrassed by her performance regarding those shoes, she couldn’t even return them, she had just stashed them deep in a closet for nearly 25 years.

    Somehow I get the same feeling about how conservatives are going at it with Romney, as my mother with those shoes.

    Only there is no closet in which to bury the mistake, and our embarrassment at having made it.

    -Just a thought


    • We aren’t your mother. No less a conservative than William Buckley strongly advised conservatives to always vote for the republican, strictly as a pragmatic measure. His reasoning being that sometimes the ground was not currently fertile but could be prepared for when it was, ala Goldwater’s defeat prepared the ground for Reagan’s ascendancy. As he presciently predicted… prior to Goldwater’s defeat.

      • GB.

        Just so you know. My mother was one of the smartest people I ever knew. She had her flaws, yes, but she was a shrewd political analyst with primo contacts, and solid instincts.

        She was, until we finally declared residency in Virginia in 1974, a registered New York Conservative. Her father was a self-made small businessman who broke the religion and ethnicity barrier to be a Republican in New York State, when Italian Catholics were still hanging out at the Union Halls and Democrat Party Headquarters.

        She predicted Dole, voted for him, but did not like him. She loved the Bushes, both of them and thought that W got a raw deal. She loved Ronald Reagan but knew he had flaws, too.

        Her last big prediction was in March 2008, when she swore to me that McCain would win the nomination, Romney was a snake in the grass, and Obama would win both the Democrat nomination and the White House. She passed away before the election, so she didn’t see her fears realized.

        Just wanted you to know…

        And man were those shoes hideous…. 😉

        I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, BTW. But I still ain’t votin’ for the snake in the grass… t’ain’t happenin.


  6. Fahvaag nailed it. Obama being re-elected would be a bad turn for this country. The only worse case would be a RINO elected in sheep’s clothing. Republicans in congress would lose any ability to resist administration initiatives if their own party name is at the top. I made up my mind last August to vote ABR in November, and that acknowledges in advance all the ways the cookies are going to crumble. Since it’s now clearly inevitable, much better for this country to hit bottom sooner rather than later.

  7. It is not so easy to assess the relative risks of a second Obama term and having a RINO in office. As Geoffrey mentioned, we won’t get another Kagamayor on the Court with Romney as President. But we do risk another Souter. And it will be harder to resist new big government programs initiated by Romney than ones coming from the other party. Every time I flip the coin it keeps showing our “tails” are in trouble.

  8. The real difference between this and every other year is what has happened to the soul of the Republican Party.

    The Republicans and the right-wing media have since the election of Obama descended into an ever deepening spiral of invective and wild hyperbole. Increasingly hysterical, exotic, and fantastical allegations have replaced measured and credible criticism. Hijacked by a fundamentalist and irredentist minority, incandescent hatred has become the currency of choice of the Republicans.

    Did the Republicans think they could insulate themselves from the toxic monologue it has unleashed? Did they really believe that once they had poisoned the political discourse it wouldn’t consume them also?

    Inevitably, as night follows day, the Republican primary candidates are now employing the same sort of wild, overheated invective they have thrown at the Obama administration to destroy each other as credible general election candidates.

    They have turned the biblical injunction of “do unto others….. on its metaphorical head and into its perverted modern offspring of “What goes around comes around”.

    The are entitled to the fruits of their lurch into the outer reaches of incivility and we should not feel sorry for them.

    • I give you an A on the name calling, but an F on providing facts.

      • The “facts” are the smear campaigns by the various PACs, and the poll figures.

        • The invective of the left (or whoever those mental defectives were) during the two GWB administrations was unmatched in our lifetime. There’s been no camping along side the road near the Obama family’s vacation spots all over the world with wall-to-wall TV coverage.. The media hasn’t hired a pathetic Cindy Sheehan to castigate the current president over deaths in Dar es Salaam. In fact, American troops are still in Iraq, still in Afghanistan, and now also operating in various African countries and have dropped bombs on Libya and flown drones over Syria. Guantanamo Bay remains an offshore POW camp but one would never know it if they had slept through the Bush years. That’s because the detested Bushitler has been replaced by the darling of the confused left and even though he’s produced none of what they dreamed when they cast their ballot, he’s still their guy. BHO, supposedly a constitutional scholar, flings down and dances upon that document daily, yet the media outrage is non-existent.

    • Ah, the old ‘accuse-the-other-guy-of-one’s-own-sins’ ploy.

      So when your party descended into the “ever deepening spiral of invective and wild hyperbole” with “Hitler Bush” ads and accusations ad infinitum, and “had poisoned the political discourse” it didn’t apply?

      If the “Increasingly hysterical, exotic, and fantastical allegations have replaced measured and credible criticism” within the republican party is true, then how do you explain the dissatisfaction of conservatives with Romney and Gingrich being RINO’s and the common perception among conservatives that Santorum is too religiously dogmatic?

      As for the “wild hyperbole” and “fantastical allegations”…

      Bush never wanted to “fundamentally transform” America. He happens to think America, for all its faults is a pretty great place.

      Doesn’t the need for ‘fundamental transformation’ implicitly imply the state of fundamental dysfunction?

      As a condition of office, shouldn’t every President love his country? But how can one love his country but refuse to place his hand over his heart when standing on stage while the national anthem is played? How do you love something fundamentally screwed up?

      Bush never signed into law clearly unconstitutional legislation. No, the Patriot Act isn’t unconstitutional, even Obama doesn’t think so now that he’s Pres.

      Bush didn’t try to unilaterally reduce our nuclear weapons capacity by 80% reducing it to less than China’s…

      Bush didn’t try to nationalize 1/6 of the US economy. (Obamacare)

      Obama has, in 3 years, raised the national debt by 5 trillion and wants to raise it even more vs Bush’s 3.7 trillion in 8 years…

      How is it that under Bush, Guantanamo was a clearly unconstitutional policy but under Obama its not?

      The facts clearly support the contention that it’s your party that has “poisoned the political discourse” and who give substance to “fantastical allegations” but then, you’ve never let facts stand in the way of wild accusations, so why should they stop you now?

  9. Now now, Geoff, take your meds like a good fellow.

    Feel better now?

    Ok. Read your buddy Chuck’s little rant above and you will see that Chuck believes Obama hasn’t “fundamentally changed” the country at all, but has actually continued GWB policies!

    • Still avoiding the facts with an ad hominem attack I see. No surprise there. Obama’s inability to fundamentally transform the country in no way lessens his desire to do so, which calls into question both his love of the country and his fitness to lead it.

      Denial of logic without a supporting factual rationale does not invalidate the argument with which you disagree. If your position had merit, you could respond with more than hyperbole, innuendo and personal attacks. The fact that this is all you have speaks volumes to the discerning.

      “Facts are stubborn things.” —Smollett

      “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” — Socrates

      “I always cheer up immensely when they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” Margaret Thatcher

      “Once in a while, we stumble upon the truth, I see that you have decided to act as if nothing has happened.” Winston Churchill

      • “I would have thought that if your only recourse is to your dictionary of popular phrases that you have already lost the argument”

        Paulite, 2012 bc

        • Every one of the quotes is pertinent to the discussion. Brevity still being the soul of wit. Clearly since you can’t articulate a rebuttal, all you have left is to ignore the facts and declare yourself the winner. Which fools no one but does expose you for the fool.

          And, shouldn’t that be A.D. or CE?

          • A Republican Party like in 1796.

            Where can I get tickets for the witch-burnings?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: