The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Erick Erickson, Santorum Consultant?

Posted on | February 23, 2012 | 34 Comments

JOHNSTOWN, Ohio
In the preceding post, I described Erick Erickson as hating Rick Santorum “with the heat of ten thousand suns,” which evidently prompted commenters to call my attention to Erickson’s post-debate analysis at Red State:

It was the last debate. Newt Gingrich won it.
He was the only candidate who repeatedly steered the questions toward Barack Obama. He was the only candidate who dared point out that the media barely touched Obama’s infanticide support as an Illinois State Senator. He returned to the role of elder statesman.
The crowd leaned to Mitt Romney. It was probably inevitable. Mesa, AZ is the second largest concentration of Mormons in America and the State Republican Party handled getting the seats filled. It threw Rick Santorum off his game. The crowd booed Santorum taking on Romneycare’s individual mandate.
Santorum did not shine. He came in, it seemed, prepared to be beaten up. He was off his game. In the second half of the debate he did better. But the beginning was stumbling, bumbling, angry, and in the weeds. One thing he did very, very well is steer the contraception issue to families.
If Santorum can consistently steer this issue back to stable families, he has an issue that will win over independent voters. Note to the Santorum campaign: you will actually win the debate even in the general election if you focus your social values critique on the integrity of the American nuclear family.

To quote P.J. O’Rourke: “What the f–k? What the f–king f–k, huh?”

Certainly I cannot be the only conservative who recalls how Erickson spent the final week before the Iowa caucuses furiously attacking Santorum in what was, so far as I could figure, a final desperate attempt to salvage hope for a Rick Perry comeback. And yet now Erickson deems it his prerogative to offer strategic “messaging” advice to the Santorum campaign?

This is not to say that Erickson’s advice is wrong, of course. But this kind of sadistic “frenemies” stuff — Erickson relentlessly pounding on Santorum for months and then expecting Santorum to heed his advice — just boggles my mind. Why does Erickson, who has made it abundantly clear that he would rather have Romney than Santorum as the GOP nominee, make this show of pretending to want to help Santorum?

Alternate explanatory theories come to mind, but I need to get on the road to Michigan, and don’t have time to delve into it now. Let the commenters attempt to explain this weirdness.

UPDATE: Bill Quick offers his own assessment of the debate, acknowledging his pro-Gingrich bias and, hey, NTTAWWT. It was a good night for Newt, but the problem is that Newt is now down so low that a comeback appears impossible for him. (Was I the only one who noticed that Gingrich refrained from attacking Mitt last night? Is anyone else even slightly curious about that oddity?)

Santorum supporter Ed Morrissey summarizes his reaction:

Unfortunately Santorum seemed almost overprepared for the fight. Instead of providing a brief response and refocusing attention on current issues like the economy, Santorum kept explaining, and explaining, and explaining, and added an apology or two along the way. There is an axiom in politics: Explaining is not winning. Save the explanations for your web page, not for debates. Santorum came across as measured, honest, and open, but ended up sounding defensive almost all night long. . . .
Does this debate move the needle for anyone? I doubt it. Gingrich had a very good debate but not a real gamechanger, and his position in the polling has dropped so low nearly everywhere that he’d practically need the other three men on stage to declare themselves Kennedy Democrats in order to get out of that hole. Santorum may have rattled the confidence of some new supporters and give undecideds less reason to join his column, but it wasn’t a terrible performance such as Rick Perry’s debates in September and October, and Santorum did have some good moments as well.

That generally comports with my own view. My problem in judging a debate performance is that I know I’m not neutral. Why the hell would I even watch a debate if I didn’t care who won?

Because I know I’m not neutral, I don’t trust my own subjective impressions of the event, but neither am I willing to outsource my thinking to the media. Neither the New York Times nor Fox News nor Erick Erickson is going to tell me what to think and, while I acknowledge the ability or major media institutions to influence political outcomes — i.e., by telling other people what to think — I try to keep in mind the distinction between (a) what actually happened and (b) what the major media say happened.

Perceptions have a way of becoming realities in politics, and there are times when the stimuli and and the reactions become conflated: We begin judging events by the reactions of others, rather than judging events as independent phenomena in their own right.

Nobody is paying me to tell people What It Really Means, nor am I being paid to tell politicians how to run their campaigns. In fact, I’m being paid precious little to tell anybody anything at all.

There are times when I feel like I’m just unloading my twisted brain onto the blogosphere for the amusement of the readership — maybe I should write a book, Monetize Your Insanity: Psychosis for Fun & Profit — and as long as y’all keep hitting the tip jar to keep the show on the road, that’s OK with me: “A Road Man for the Lords of Karma.”

UPDATE II: Linked at Memeorandum in connection with Byron York’s Washington Examiner column, “In Arizona, GOP debates end on low point.” Byron’s good people. I expect to see him in Michigan between now and Tuesday.

 




 

PREVIOUSLY:

 

Category: Arizona, Debates, Michigan, Ohio, Red State, Rick Santorum

Have the Deciders Decided? Examining the Post-Debate Examinations

Posted on | February 23, 2012 | 38 Comments

JOHNSTOWN, Ohio
This morning, I woke up and switched on Fox & Friends and watched them bring on Mitt Romney’s proxy Chris Christie to lead the 8 a.m. hour. Steve Doocy’s first question to Christie — this is from memory, but close enough to an exact quote that I’ll put it inside quotation marks — was: “All the conservative blogs say Mitt Romney won and Rick Santorum had a bad night.”

Really? Of course I’m prejudiced by my pro-Santorum sentiments, but this seemed an odd way to start the morning’s schedule at Fox News, as if they were delivering the Official Message.

My general impression of last night’s debate was that Newt Gingrich had the best performance, and that Santorum escaped without any major harm. That was important, because this was the debate where Santorum could expect to be required to answer for everything “controversial” he has ever said, and he never really got cornered.

But if you watched CNN before the debate, you noticed that some of their commentators — particularly Ari Fleischer — were trying to raise expectations: Santorum needed to clearly win the debate, or else he would be judged the loser. And when it was over, Fleischer and others on CNN (including Erick Erickson, who hates Rick Santorum with the heat of ten thousand suns) were declaring Romney the winner on the basis of such calculations. (For some reason, CNN didn’t book Dana Loesch as a commentator on the Arizona debate.)

In general, it seemed to me that coverage of last night’s debate was over-hyped, that political junkies were underestimating the degree to which regular people have become jaded after 20 debates.  Here’s the lead of the New York Times article:

Mitt Romney challenged Rick Santorum’s credentials as a fiscal conservative in a fiercely combative debate on Wednesday, trying to redefine Mr. Santorum as part of the problem in Washington and regain his footing in the fight for the Republican presidential nomination.
With the Arizona and Michigan primaries only six days away, followed quickly by a dozen more contests, Mr. Romney arrived here at a critical moment of his candidacy armed with a detailed indictment of Mr. Santorum’s record in Congress. Mr. Romney sought to dismantle his rival’s claim to be the authentic conservative in the race. . . .

“Fiercely combative“? Were they watching the same debate I saw? And does this description of Romney’s political goal in the lead suggest that the reporters were in Romney’s corner?

Trying to avoid such spin can be difficult, and sometimes the spin becomes a story unto itself. At any rate, here’s my own take on it:

The debate was into the second hour, and Mitt Romney had just played the Arlen Specter card against Rick Santorum, blaming Santorum’s 2004 endorsement of his fellow Pennsylvanian for the passage of Obamacare in 2010. Santorum responded by playing the Dukakis card against Romney.
“Yes governor, you balanced the budget for four years,” Santorum told Romney during the Arizona debate televised by CNN. “You have a constitutional requirement to balance the budget for four years. No great shakes. I’m all for — I’d like to see it federally. But don’t go around bragging about something you have to do. Michael Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years. Does that make him qualified to be president of the United States? I don’t think so.”
As highlights go, it wasn’t spectacular, but Wednesday’s debate — the 20th nationally televised meeting of Republican candidates during this long campaign — was generally lacking in highlights. There were no dramatic gaffes or stumbles, and few memorable zingers. While the commentators on CNN afterwards offered their own “what did it mean” analyses, it is unlikely that the debate changed many minds. . . .

Please read the whole thing at The American Spectator.

UPDATE: Just now watched Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard being interviewed on Fox News, discussing among other things another media-generated meme, the “brokered convention” scenario. Ironically, it was a Weekly Standard article in defense of Santorum’s record on fiscal issues that got a big shout-out from Santorum last night. Yet Hayes goes on Fox peddling the “Santorum under fire” meme?

Meanwhile, here is pro-Gingrich blogger William Jacobson’s takeaway from the Arizona debate:

No question Newt won, but no single huge moment that is likely to shift the polls dramatically (or fundamentally). Just a consistent strong performance, that’s the pretty uniform assessment from relatively neutral people I’m following on Twitter. Really bad night for Santorum, off message, harsh, just strange performance, a missed opportunity. Good night for Romney, no gaffes, mostly strong. Ron Paul was Ron Paul.

Permit me to suggest that Jacobson’s pro-Newt sentiments color his perceptions in much the way that my pro-Santorum sentiments color my own. Was Santorum “harsh”? I didn’t see that. What I saw (and anyone may check the video on this) was that Santorum smiled a lot.

It was Santorum’s wife Karen who gave him that bit of “debate coaching,” by the way. Rick’s got a nice smile and, a few months ago, his wife told him he needs to smile more often. So the idea that the smiling Santorum came off as “harsh” in last night’s debate is something I doubt the average voter perceived. But we’ll only have to wait until next Tuesday — or Super Tuesday, a week after that — to find out what average voters think.

UPDATE II: Beyond the question of who actually “won” the debate, or who wins next Tuesday’s primaries, or even who ultimately wins the GOP nomination, I am intrigued by the way such perceptions are shaped. Look at this headline:

Romney and Paul successfully call
Santorum’s conservatism into question

Is that some right-wing blogger? No, it’s Aaron Blake of the Washington Post. Who deputized Blake to determine whether the attacks on Santorum’s conservatism were successful? By what standard does a liberal journalist judge these things?

The way in which Blake speaks with the journalistic authority of a powerful media institution makes the difference between, “Let me tell you what I think,” and “Let me tell you what to think.”

Perhaps you don’t care. Perhaps you say, “Well, I hate Santorum anyway, so I don’t care if MSM reporters are promoting prejudicial opinions against him.” But as a phenomenon unto itself — the media exercising influence as “deciders” in a Republican primary — this is fascinating to watch, from the “meta” point of view.


Category: Arizona, Debates, Election 2012, Michigan, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum

$5 Fuel By Mid-March?

Posted on | February 23, 2012 | 4 Comments

by Smitty

My per-gallon prices for diesel:

Date $/Gal
2/14/12 3.899
2/23/12 4.294

A dumb linear regression shows that I’ll break $5/gallon by mid-March. The good news for #OccupyResoluteDesk is that high energy costs are only the President’s fault in a Republican administration. And why is that evil raaaaacist zombie George Bush doing this to our President? Some dynastic ploy to get Jeb Bush elected? Bush is clearly Obama’s kryptonite.

Prompted by Instapundit. More at Ed Driscoll’s.

Category: Economics

LIVE AT FIVE – 02.23.12

Posted on | February 23, 2012 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Romney Claws Back Into The Race

Senator Santorum and Governor Romney shake hands after last night's debate

Mitt doing better in polls, performs well in debate – can he hang on in Arizona?

GOP Candidates Agree On Arming Syrian Opposition
Romney, Gingrich support bringing down Assad; Santorum evasive on the topic

Ministers Announce Support for Former FM Rudd
Leadership battle erupts within ruling Australian Labor Party; can PM Gillard hang on?



POLITICS
Virginia House Passes Amended Ultrasound Bill

Virginia governor Bob McDonnell

Invasive procedure requirement deleted

Palin Slams Press Agitation Over Santorum’s Satan Speech

Disagreement On Foreign Profits Tax Threatens Corporate Tax Reduction

Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Second Federal Judge

Union Files Federal Lawsuit Over Indiana’s Right To Work Law

Animal Rights Wackos Busted In Murder Fur Hire Plot

Palin Associates Angrily Denounce HBO’s “Game Change”

Obama Taps Longoria, Other Celebrities To Co-Chair Campaign

Buddy Roemer Ends GOP Bid, Seeks Reform Party Nomination

Poll: Wisconsin Voters Evenly Split On Walker; Leaning Toward Obama And Thompson



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Oil Slips From Nine-Month High As U.S. Crude Stockpiles Increase
Brimelow: A Great Day For Gold
HP’s Whitman Pleads For Patience As Earnings Fall
Yen Hits Seven-Month Low Against Dollar
AT&T Chief Pays For Failure Of T-Mobile Deal
S&P 500 Gets 9% Cheaper As Record Profit Restores $3.2 To Stocks
Home Sales Rise Again, But Prices Fall To New Low
Fuller Brush Man Calling On Bankruptcy Court
Gannett Plans Paywalls At Local Papers; Stock Surges In Response
OnLive Brings Windows, Flash To iPad
Google Files Application To Offer TV In Kansas City
Symantec’s pcAnywhere Woes May Be Worse Than Originally Thought
Living With The Samsung Galaxy Note
T-Mobile, Public Interest Groups Ask FCC To Block Verizon’s Cable Deal



SPORTS
Knicks Rout Hawks 99-82 Before Visiting Heat

Lakers Hit Halfway Point With 96-91 Win Over Dallas

Marchand Scores Two To Lead Bruins Over Blues

Earnhardt Jr. Gaining Confidence At Daytona

#2 Syracuse Beats South Florida 56-48

Temple In Talks To Join Big East

Red-Hot Senators Hand Caps Third Straight Loss

Ryan Zimmerman Sets Saturday Deadline For Contract Extension Talks



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Sacha Baron Cohen Banned From Oscars – Or Is He?

Sacha Baron Cohen as "The Dictator"

Tickets okayed so long as actor doesn’t show up in character

“Seinfeld” Actor Critical After Shooting Himself In The Head

Jennifer Aniston Gets Her Star On The Walk Of Fame

Lindsay Lohan Gets Another Rave Review From Judge

Britney Spears To Become “X Factor” Judge?



Rachel Crow Lands Nickelodeon TV Deal, Columbia Records Contract

This Casket Photo Of Whitney Houston Now On Newsstands Everywhere

Kanye West’s Charity Spent $500K Last Year – $0 On Actual Donations

Elizabeth Smart’s Dream Wedding



FOREIGNERS
Assad’s Forces Pound Homs For 20th Straight Day
Attacks Across Baghdad Kill 35
Afghans Protest Peacefully Over Koran Burning; Six People Killed
Cameron Hosts Talks On Bringing Security To Somalia, Ending Piracy
Iran Whines To UN: “Israel Killing Our Scientists”
ROK Ruling Party Proposes Citizenship For Nork Defectors
Buenos Aires Train Crash Kills 49, Over 600 Injured



BLOGS & STUFF
Zilla Of The Resistance: Bloggers Beware – A Cautionary Tale
The Looking Spoon: Compared To What?
Michelle Malkin: Framing Rick Santorum
NRO Corner: Santorum Advisor Asks “Why Is Mormonism Off Limits?”
Weasel Zippers: Obama Attends Groundbreaking For African-American History Museum; Only One Without Shovel
Atlas Shrugs: It’s Oscar Time In Naziwood
Watts Up With That: Crowdsourcing The Gleick Memo
Megan McArdle: The Most Surprising Heartland Fact
NewsBusters: Former DNC Chairman Looks To Buy Philadelphia’s Two Major Newspapers
The Lonely Conservative: Where Did The Light Go At Lightsquared?
Clayton Cramer: Lightsquared Scandal Gets Worse
Protein Wisdom: Leftist Caller Wishes Rape On Radio Host Dana Loesch
Verum Serum: What Meghan McCain Doesn’t Know, Part 57
Nick Gillespie: Three Ways To Take Birth Control Out Of The Presidential Race

Category: Live at Five

CNN ARIZONA DEBATE

Posted on | February 22, 2012 | 47 Comments

10:05 p.m. ET: It’s over. I actually nodded off for a few minutes there. The important thing, I think, is that Santorum was in the cross-hairs all night, and didn’t really sustain any serious damage.

9:27 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich talks Iran and Ahmadinejad.

9:25 p.m. ET: Santorum reminds us that we have civilian control of the military for a reason. He escapes damage on a question that was specifically aimed at him.

9:23 p.m. ET: Remember when “Your mother wears combat boots” was a put-down? I’m just sayin’ …

9:18 p.m. ET: Another commerical break.

9:12 p.m. ET: Newt talks about border control.

9:10 p.m. ET: Mitt is an E-Verify evangelical.

9:08 p.m. ET: Newt talks fences and illegal immigration.

9:04 p.m. ET: Santorum: “RomneyCare!” Romnney: “Arlen Specter!” That was good, wasn’t it?

8:58 p.m. ET: When Ron Paul accuses Santorum of voting for Planned Parenthood funding. Santorum explains that this was actually a vote for the appropriations bill for the entire Department of Health and Human Services.

8:56 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich sounds an awful lot like Ron Paul on this “government coercion” stuff. So how come when Ron Paul says it, he’s treated like a radical extremist?

8:54 p.m. ET: Mitt Romney sounds an awful lot like Rick Santorum on this “family values” stuff. So how come when Santorum says it, he’s treated like a radical extremist?

8:50 p.m. ET: Rick Santorum name-checks Charles Murray and talks about out-of-wedlock births.

8:48 p.m. ET: Mitt defends the right of conscience against Barack Obama.

8:46 p.m. ET: CNN asks about contraception and gets booed. Newt takes on the elite media and gets cheered.

8:45 p.m. ET: We’re back from commercial, during which here in Ohio we saw another Rick Santorum commercial.

8:40 p.m. ET: Santorum defends himself, and then Newt slams UAW. So if you’re UAW . . . vote Santorum!

8:38 p.m. ET: Mitt slams the UAW.

8:36 p.m. ET: Rick rips Mitt on bailouts. Mitt begins his response, “First, let’s look at the facts.” Which means he’s about to lie.

8:32 p.m. ET: Newt just made Mitt look like an idiot.

8:28 p.m. ET: Mitt admits that he sought earmarks for the Salt Lake City Olympics, which he compares to the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

8:27 p.m. ET: Rick Santorum defends earmarking.

8:24 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich takes a question and turns it into a lecture.

8:22 p.m. ET: Mitt Romney defends his claim to be a “severe conservative.”

8:20 p.m. ET: Santorum mentions this Weekly Standard article that defends his record as a fiscal conservative.

8:17 p.m. ET: John King lobs a softball to Ron Paul, inviting him to repeat his attack-ad arguments against Santorum.

8:16 p.m. ET: We’re a quarter-hour into the debate before Newt gets a chance to speak. He wants to balance the budget by opening federal lands to oil exploration.

8:14 p.m. ET: Santorum comes right back at Romney, which means Romney gets a chance to rebut.

8:12 p.m. ET: On his first question, Santorum draws cheers for saying he wants to end ObamaCare. Then it’s Mitt Romney’s turn, and he opens with attack-ad chatter against Santorum.

8:06 p.m. ET: National anthem sang by Arizona State University symphonic chorale. Classical, not all Whitney Houston-like.

8:04 p.m. ET: Moderator John King introduces the candidates. I heard a rumor today that the Romney campaign was trying to pack the audience with their supporters.

** PREVIOUSLY (7:31 p.m. ET) **

JOHNSTOWN, Ohio
My brother-in-law just brought me a Blue Moon Summer Honey Wheat, and I’m ready to live-blog tonight’s CNN Arizona debate, which Howard Kurtz previews:

When Santorum takes the stage Wednesday night, the glare of the spotlight will be unusually harsh.

CNN: Satan’s Cable News Network!

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin’s in Rick’s corner:

Look for the liberal CNN debate “moderators” tonight to force their frame around Santorum.
And look for Santorum to cheerfully cast off their narrow-minded narrative and do the same thing he’s done successfully to challenge Mitt Romney’s front-runner status:
Offer no apology for his social conservatism, while sticking to his core fiscal conservative attacks on the Obama White House . . .

Read the rest. I should perhaps explain why I’m in Ohio instead of Arizona. I got credentialed for the debate, and had hoped to fly out, but transportation plans fell through. So I decided instead to drive to Michigan, and stopped here at my wife’s sister’s house for the night, where the debate blogging will begin at 8 p.m.

UPDATE II: Steve Eggleston has details of today’s Wisconsin poll showing Santorum ahead of Mitt Romney by 16 points.

BTW, in the past 15 minutes here in Ohio, I’ve seen two Rick Santorum ads on CNN.

UPDATE III: Barbara Espinosa is at the debate in Mesa. This is the 20th nationally televised Republican debate and may very well be the last this year.

Category: Arizona, CNN, Debates, Election 2012

Is The World’s Youngest Blogger Shooting Gang Signs In His Sleep?

Posted on | February 22, 2012 | 6 Comments

by Smitty

Almost seven months old, still literally sleeping in dad’s arms, yet already signs of possible trouble ahead:

Category: World's Youngest Blogger

Satan Angered by New Poll Showing Santorum Ahead 34%-18% in Wisconsin

Posted on | February 22, 2012 | 22 Comments

MORGANTOWN, W.Va.
Stopped in here at McDonald’s and got online to discover that Satan’s plan to destroy America is now the top story in the country. This is why neutral objective journalist George Stephanopoulos interviewed neutral objective Mitt Romney supporter Chris Christie about the urgently relevant Satan issue today.

Stephanopoulos and Christie: What a team, huh?

Meanwhile, a new poll conducted by Marquette University shows Republican voters in Wisconsin are clearly anti-Satan:

Rick Santorum ………… 34%
Mitt Romney …………… 18%
Ron Paul ………………… 17%
Newt Gingrich …………. 12%

The poll of 424 likely Republican primary voters was conducted Feb. 16-19. Wisconsin’s GOP primary is April 3.

How did I learn about this poll? From a Rick Santorum campaign press release, which is not how neutral objective journalists like George Stephanopoulos get their news tips. Instead, they call up their friends at the Romney campaign, arrange an interview with one of Romney’s prominent supporters, and call that “news.”

Also, neutral objective journalists like George Stephanopoulos never drive to Ohio or stop at a McDonald’s in West Virginia to get lunch off the Dollar Menu and use the free WiFi.

Satan’s minions do it their way. I do it mine.
 





 
PREVIOUSLY:

 

Category: ABC, Chris Christie, Election 2012, Media Bias, Mitt Romney, Ohio, Polls, Rick Santorum, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Romney’s Money Problems — and Mine

Posted on | February 22, 2012 | 13 Comments

Yesterday, I put up a post with this headline:

Campaign Cash Shows Unsustainable
‘Burn Rate’ for Romney and Gingrich

 What I didn’t realize at the time was that Nate Silver of the New York Times had made the same point yesterday morning:

Mitt Romney raised slightly more than his Republican rivals in January. His campaign committee, Romney for President, brought in $6.5 million in January, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission. By contrast, Newt Gingrich raised $5.6 million, and Rick Santorum and Ron Paul each raised $4.5 million.
But his fund-raising pace was fairly weak despite wins in New Hampshire and Florida. And Mr. Romney spent far more than his rivals in January — $18.8 million, compared with $5.9 million for his next-closest competitor, Mr. Gingrich.
More worrisome, Mr. Romney spent more than he took in; his cash flow was negative $12.2 million for the month. He exited January with just $7.7 million in cash on hand.
That sort of pace is not sustainable. Were Mr. Romney’s campaign to continue to raise and spend money at the same rate as in January, it would have only about 20 days of expenditures before money ran out.

Silver has much more, so I wanted to acknowledge that he had beat me to that angle and covered the same terrain in greater detail than I had. I just hadn’t seen his post before I wrote mine, or I would have cited it. And speaking of “cash flow” . . .

Today, I’m planning to hit the road about noon, driving about 350 miles to Columbus, Ohio, where I expect to meet up with some Santorum supporters (including my brother-in-law) to watch tonight’s CNN debate on TV. From there, my plan is to travel another 200 miles Thursday to the vicinity of Detroit, Michigan. Read more

Category: Election 2012, Michigan, Mitt Romney, Ohio, Shoe Leather Fund
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin