Romney: ‘It is time for the truth to trump hope’

Mitt Romney spoke last night to a packed house at Emory University, promoting his new book and no doubt testing out some lines for the 2012 campaign, which may begin as soon as the mid-terms are over.

After sharing his thoughts about what makes nations great — namely, its values, such as hard work, good education and an emphasis on the family in America — he made the case that the U.S. is the only nation that can lead in the 21st century if liberty and prosperity are to grow. And he spoke of his concern that “these elements of our culture are weakening and are under attack today” from an increasing dependence on government.

“Washington,” he said, “is smothering [our] great spirit…of pioneering and innovation.”

He spoke at length about entitlements — which, combined with the interest on the public debt, he said, account for 60 percent of the federal budget. He said the brand-new middle-class health entitlement will only make things worse. From a businessman’s perspective, he said, “I can’t imagine wanting to invest in anything in the medical field right now, because you don’t know what the government will do.”

But the line of the night, the line you can imagine at the center of a Romney 2012 campaign, was this one: “It is time for the truth to trump hope.”

The line is an unmistakable reference to President Obama, and to the promises that he (and pretty much every other politician) makes but cannot keep. It didn’t sound as if it had been focus-grouped to death, and it may well be refined in the months and years to come; do you really want to say “trump hope”?

But I thought it worked because Romney’s broader message was a hopeful one, not a negative one. He spoke of building America’s greatness and of issuing “no apology” — the title of his new book — for the nation that “has done more to help people enjoy liberty and prosperity” than any other in history. At the same time, he spoke of the need to face facts, such as the unsustainability of those budget-consuming entitlements and a public debt that is projected to reach crippling proportions over the coming decade.

He kept true to this emphasis on truth when asked by an audience member about his health reforms as governor of Massachusetts, and whether RomneyCare was too similar to ObamaCare. (You may recall that I wrote recently that such comparisons would ultimately doom his presidential ambitions.)

To his credit, Romney didn’t dodge. He acknowledged some similarities and stuck up for the programs he had introduced. He argued that it was more appropriate for an individual state, as opposed to the federal government, to implement such a plan, which is fair enough as long as he can convince voters that he would act differently as president than he did as governor. He also said that ObamaCare’s price controls, which he didn’t establish in Massachusetts, were wrong-headed. And he admitted that his plan had flaws which require solutions, while at the same time getting off a good line about the president. Given that so many comparisons between the plans have been made, “Why didn’t he call and ask for my advice? I would have given him some good advice.”

“It’s time for the truth in this country,” he reiterated, perhaps landing on a better formulation of the earlier line, and definitely hitting on a necessary theme for our politics.

77 comments Add your comment

joan1

March 31st, 2010
8:57 am

I will vote for this man. Those things: hard work, good education and an emphasis on the family in America resonate with me. And how about Obama!! ha! a good one on his conservationist liberals!! Let’s drill. I love it. I think he has finally realized we are in a deep and bottomless pit when it comes to the economy, and it isn’t likely to get any better by his next election campaign. Love it! Go Mitt. Decency may yet have a chance in this country.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
9:17 am

I cannot fully make up my mind about Mr. Romney. He says the right things. He has a tremendous resume, especially outside politics. But I think Romney-care is at least as great a disaster as was the nearby Tenn-care, even if the former was a popular product in Massachusetts (that’s Massachusettes for you democrats.) I respect him for not dodging the question, but I would admire him more if he acknowledged the error.

I suppose it is at least possible that I charge his wishy-washy middle-of-the-roader father against Mitt, thus my reluctance to embrace what should be an attractive candidate. I would still prefer a Petraeus, or even a Ryan at the top of the 2012 ticket.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
9:22 am

Dear Joan1 @ 8:57, I would never oppose Mr. Romney, clearly a decent man as you suggest. Just hard for me to work up enthusiasm for him; he is not Reaganesque, rather reminds me more of Bush 41. Decent, undoubtedly. Just keep thinking I can read his lips.

jt

March 31st, 2010
9:26 am

Real statesmen can outline and implement policies that stand on their own merit.

Romney uses coercion.

Tap dance away Mitt. It is entertaining.

paulf

March 31st, 2010
9:29 am

“It’s time for the truth in this country.” that’s pretty astounding coming from the party of death panels, WMD, though I guess it is what happened when they spoke the truth to the world about the CIA status of Valerie Plame – they must have said “It’s time for the truth to be known about Valerie Plame!” Oh but then they lied about outing her. I’m confused!

No More Progressives!

March 31st, 2010
9:35 am

I agree, Ragnar. I’m impressed with his accomplishments in the business world, but I wonder how effectivley he governed in MASS, a state filled with drunks, reprobates and Kennedy’s (that’s redundant, isn’t it?) From the little I know about Romney care, it’s an unmitigated disaster.

I suppose he spoke at Emory, lnog known as the South Eastern manufacturing headquarters for Socialists. Perhaps that was a test.

No More Progressives!

March 31st, 2010
9:40 am

Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame, paulf. And she wasn’t outed, as you say. She was well beyond the 5 year limit when her CIA involvement was made public. Another Salem witch hunt.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_L._Armitage

For your reading pleasure.

Intown

March 31st, 2010
9:42 am

Umm, a Republican running on a platform of “truth.” THAT is funny. Hope wins. I wonder who the Repubs will run in 2016. 2012 is over if this is the best they’ve got.

retiredds

March 31st, 2010
9:56 am

Kyle, I am very glad that there is a Republican running for office who wants to tackle the deficit since they are responsible for more than half of the current $12+ trillion that’s on the books. Let’s hope that if the Republicans manage to capture a majority in the House or Senate and/or the presidency that they will do more than just what they have done since Reagan, talk a good game but deliver a fiscal disaster.

Will

March 31st, 2010
9:58 am

Mitt Romney is the kind of common sense, pragmatic republican that can attract some democrats and many independents. He cares little about social “wedge” issues and is a proven successful businessman.

I think he will win the republican nomination because of these factors AND because the radical right wing of the republican/tea party will split their majority among Pwalenty, Huckabee, Paln, Jindall, etc who share their extremist views.

This looks like a repeat of 2008 when John McCain did the same thing.

PinkoNeoConLibertarian

March 31st, 2010
10:01 am

He definitely needs to work on the phrase a bit. While not quite a tongue twister, it’s not exactly a smooth flowing phrase either.

JF McNamara

March 31st, 2010
10:03 am

He’s an ok guy, but I think he is haunted by his Dad and will do or say anything to become President.

I always thought he was pretty much a slightly righter Obama clone (as evidenced by his governorship) which wasn’t a bad thing. His rhetoric got to be too extreme in catering to the base, and it put me off of him.

Speaking of truth, I never felt like I knew who he was. I never really felt like he would do what he said.

retiredds

March 31st, 2010
10:07 am

And Kyle, you write about the “good line about the president” where Romney, states that if the president wanted his advice why didn’t he just call. I have a different slant on that. If Mitt was so sure that his plan was better “for country” why didn’t he call the president. At this stage in the game I think the president has a little bit more on his plate than good old Mitt. I am sure the president would have accepted his call and had a meeting with him. Let’s not forget, this president made many overtures to the Republicans to join in on the conversation and they bailed out. I don’t buy the Republican, let’s join hands now approach, after they strategically blew it over the last 13 months.

No More Progressives!

March 31st, 2010
10:23 am

retiredds

March 31st, 2010
10:07 am
“If Mitt was so sure that his plan was better “for country” why didn’t he call the president.”

Because while Little Barry Soetoro was a community organizer, he learned everything there is to know. He, therefore, does not need the help of a mere commoner like Romney. Or anybody else with experience. Look who he’s surrounded himself with.

The Austrian Brotherhood

March 31st, 2010
10:32 am

Mitt Romney is a certified A-Hole. Just another power-mongering politician. Washington needs to be reduced. Get over the worthless platitudes like “hard work, good education and an emphasis on the family in America”. That aint the president’s function and it’s why were in this over-bearing mess right now.

Also, if you’re scared to death of Muslims like Ragnar is, then buy yourself a damm gun, but don’t continue to pizz away the decreasing wealth of this country on your militaristic wet dreams. Your mouth is writing checks your country’s azz can’t cash.

Torsten

March 31st, 2010
10:39 am

I worry about tunnel vision, but certainly of all the known talent in the Republican party Mitt Romney stands heads and shoulders above all others. He did in 2008 only the circumstances of his relatively low name recognition proved too big of an obstacle to overcome given the dynamic of the broader field where Rudy, McCain and Fred Thompson (3 names with international recognition) worked pretty much united against Romney in aid of McCain. Rudy sandbagged and forfeited his efforts which kept McCain alive (as they both appealed to the same brand of voters). Fred entered late, but alongside Huckabee it was a 3-way split among social conservatives between they and Mitt. But no matter, despite the alignment against Romney, he finished second and remains the only relevant name from 2008 today. Plus, even had he won, he wouldn’t have beaten Obama; the country was simply hungry to elect Obama no matter what. Maybe had Romney been able to name Petraeus as VP victory could’ve been possible, but that was before the public widely was aware of how bad a territory our economy was heading into.

Anyway, I too like Paul Ryan, but he’s not going to be a national figure capable of winning in 2012; plus, his merits notwithstanding, he’s really only ever been employed by the government. That doesn’t mean he cannot be a good President, but I don’t see him at that level of stature anytime soon. Palin and Huckabee are just happy to be famous and making money from the fringes of politics and I don’t think either will run unless Palin can use it to further catapult herself or Huckabee loses his TV show and has to hound for some more pub again. Yawnplenty, er, Pawlenty might as well not bother; he’s terribly ineffective — neuter comes to mind. Of course, General Petraeus would be a dream candidate for the nation, but all accounts consider him to be a longer shot for even running than Gen. Powell was back at the height of his popularity. I consider a Petraeus/Romney or Romney/Petraues ticket to be the highest potential Administration we’ve had since Reagan/Bush, with greater potential actually. The dynamic McCain should’ve employed in 2008 would be a thousand times truer if our present ills persist in 2012: two people whose skillsets are tailor-made to fix the economy and war. Then it would’ve been McCain selecting Romney as VP and delegating domestic and economic policy navigation which would free McCain to focus on foreign policy, which was supposedly his strong suit according to his campaign. Instead McCain gave us a gimmick stunt in picking Palin, which indicated he was desperate and thought of her as a hail mary or he was too petty to pick Romney, whom most Republicans favored as VP. Either way, top of the ticket decides 99% of the votes so it really wouldn’t have mattered, which is why I think it’s important to not be pining for some new and unknown candidate to spring up and defeat Obama because it isn’t going to happen. Republicans simply don’t whimsically rally around unknown quantities in elections or, really, in life.

It’s only my opinion, of course, but I don’t think anyone other than Romney could beat Obama, and that’s IF the economy is still bad in 2012. The economy is the trump card. One year of Obama spending eclipsed all the red ink from Bush’s 8 years. The gamble is that all the massive government spending will improve the economy and the 8 or 9 Trillion in new debt will have to be dealt with later. And don’t forget that stimulus they needed so direly and quickly in the first year was staggered to only spend about 10% in year one. The rest in year 2, now, and that should make matters better by election time (coincidence I’m sure), but if not, hey, the annual record budgets provide for even more ample artifice to improve the numbers the nightly news will report. So all in all, if Obe’s not cutting and running in the War on Terror (and he’s not) and if the economy is improving heading into the election cycle of ‘12 and if enough of the liberals in congress get fired in 2010 (which will help Obama moderate and move to the center a la Bill Clinton in 1994) and he’s doing things like decreasing our dependence on foreign oil (which looks to be the case in increasing our offshore drilling), well he’ll probably be hard to beat by anyone. Especially because healthcare will not be unpopular. Republcians need to be careful on this one because while the way it was passed was ugly, they can be made out to be the ugly ones since they, stupidly, were openly out there saying it could be Obama’s Waterloo (ultimate undoing, political demise, etc.). There’s no question healthcare needed and needs to be addressed. If more people are going to get insured that way, that’s all that will matter in the short term. Fixing all that is wrong with the law and thus the system will be for, likely, later presidents and congresses — just like what we’re facing now with the looming insolvency of Social Security. No matter the headlines of they day and when all this hits the fan, this voter was and is convinced that Mitt Romney is the ideal guy for the job and I hope that truth occurs to our primary voters and then plus aware, concerned and enough independents in the general to right the ship before it hits the iceberg.

retiredds

March 31st, 2010
10:44 am

I thought the following from the Boston Globe might make interesting reading. And the “truth” of the matter can be found in the last sentence of paragraph 2.

“In the last week, many health care policy specialists, Democrats celebrating the bill’s passage, and Republicans condemning it have come to another conclusion. The difference between the two systems, they say, is slim.”

“Basically, it’s the same thing,’’ said Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney and Obama administrations on their health insurance programs. A national health overhaul would not have happened if Mitt Romney had not made “the decision in 2005 to go for it. He is in many ways the intellectual father of national health reform.’’

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
10:49 am

Dear Torsten, although you are even more verbose than I, that’s a pretty good analysis you wrote. And surely Chauncey has borrowed a page from Bill Clinton’s book in his sudden embrace of “drill here, drill now.” I doubt that will be sufficient to overcome the handicaps he has thrown into the economy, I foresee double digit unemployment on average through the end of 2011, unless (1) republicans obtain a large election victory in 2010 and (2) the new republican majorities have the will to shut down the non-military portion of the government. Highly unlikely.

retiredds

March 31st, 2010
10:59 am

Torsten @ 10:39 “One year of Obama spending eclipsed all the red ink from Bush’s 8 years. The gamble is that all the massive government spending will improve the economy and the 8 or 9 Trillion in new debt will have to be dealt with later.”

I am not sure where you are getting your debt numbers from but here are the actucal numbers from the Beaureau of Debt.

On Jan 30 2001 the debt was $5.7 trillion (George Bush’s first month in office)
On Jan 30, 2009 the debt was $10.6 trillion an increase of $4.9 trillion (Barak Obama’ first month in office).

as of Mar 30, 2010 the debt was $12.7 trillion and increase of $2.1 trillion

In my book $4.9 trillion is larger than $2.1 trillion

LibraryJim

March 31st, 2010
11:02 am

Romney may be a viable candidate. But the problem is: who will win the Republican Primary? No one I know was for McCain (until he put Sara Palin on the ticket), yet he won the primary handily, over the better qualified candidates. Same with the Democrat Primaries — there were much better candidates on the ticket of 8 than Obama and Hillary, yet somehow they were ‘anointed’ as the TWO to run against.

The system is terribly flawed. I don’t have any advice as to how to fix it.

Progresso, the Progressive

March 31st, 2010
11:03 am

I for one am looking forward to Mitt’s campaign. He’s already got one foot in the Progressive agenda. Next, we’ll break out his plan to increase “fees”

The Udder side!!!

March 31st, 2010
11:03 am

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
10:49 am

I ask this question daily, and I have yet to get an answer bigger than the Right side talking points …… I those on teh right are so concerned about the national debt, then please tell me why is the defense budget off limits???? Our Navy’s budget is 30 times larger than the next 13 largest Naval Budgets in the world ( 11 of those are considered allies.) If we as a country are serious regarding this debt, then why not???

joan1

March 31st, 2010
11:17 am

You have to be careful in the primaries. The media sunk Romney because it wanted McCain to run against Obama. McCain was a known wishy washy. My hope is that Romney has learned from the colossal mistake in Massachusetts. He has a good fiscal head, and heaven knows that is what is needed in this country.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
11:17 am

Dear Udder @ 11:02, fair question. National defense is the only Constitutionally-required expenditure of the central government. Everything else is elective. Until all of the wasteful elective spending is abolished, there is no rationale for decreasing our safety.

joan1

March 31st, 2010
11:18 am

And Udder Side! The defense budget? In his term in office, your buddy Obama has done nothing to decrease it–just ramped it up a notch. Go figure. Did you libs get messed with on that one! Ha.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
11:19 am

Dear Udder @ 11:02, perhaps flipping my analysis will help it make sense for you – it would not be rational to weaken safety merely to subsidize elective and unnecessary domestic spending.

Torsten

March 31st, 2010
11:20 am

Ragnar, I hope you’re right about the unlikelihood of artificially improved affairs come 2012.

Udder side, I can answer that. First of all, our defense spending is the highest, yes. But it is only about 3% our GDP. A figure that’s scant as Obama is approaching a debt that is 90% our GDP. Moreover, according to the article we just read our entitlements plus debt interest comprise over 60% our federal budget.

But America needs to spend more on our defense than others. We maintain a global reach with our military, at a moment’s notice. We conduct far more search and rescue operations, even for nations like Russia. Our military scope also enables us to conduct the fastest, most and best humanitarian relief efforts after disasters. Furthermore, China’s spending is at least double of what they officially report it is, which means it is just over half of what we spend. Plus, what we spend to innovate in that sector is sometimes victimized by espionage and copied, so those nations with lower budgets can attain similiar technology as we have only they don’t have to spend to create or develop it apart from simply manufacturing it.

Torsten

March 31st, 2010
11:30 am

^Oh, I meant to add that we also provide the defense (assistance) for many of our allies, too, which of course demands higher spending. All in all, 3% of GDP and someone wants the defense budget to get cut while entitlements make up over 60%….please. Better results would follow if the government reduced personal and corporate income taxes, granted the same tax deductibility for people buying health insurance that companies enjoy, and provided tax credits for some sort of retirement accounts that could be devised to takeover social security.

The Udder side!!!

March 31st, 2010
11:34 am

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
11:17 am

While I understand the concern ( I have them too) As a country, if we are going to seriously addressing our debt and the fiscal health of this nation, then we need to be serious about all of our expenditures. The same way that we can not afford to carry SSI and Medicare / Medicaid as they currently are, we cannot afford to spend 20 or 30 Billions on F-22 Raptors that have ( and may never) seen the battlefield….

Torsten

March 31st, 2010
11:34 am

And while I’m at it, the biggest waste is in the administration of public education. I’m not against public schooling at all; it’s noble, they have a duty to educate everyone. But I am for getting the government out of manufacturing education. Let’s let them facilitate it, finance it and provide it, but not to be crafting it. Private schools and charter schools and homeschooling have all flourished for a reason — better results and more opportunity. This is not only due to class size, but because there is the absence the hand of the bureaucracy and all its hoops and PC. Some in government know this and they don’t want to slash the education budget because it props up so much waste for them to exploit. This is why it’ll never happen…this is why vouchers are demonized. This is why Obama discontinued the program in D.C. that was working so well, enabling poor minorities to attend the very school his daughters attend, Sidwell Friends, in fact. Entitlements and Education have by far the most fat to cut, and if we do, we will improve nationally and personally.

Torsten

March 31st, 2010
11:37 am

Whereas if you cut defense, you aren’t cutting much and we all get weaker. Not only in terms of security and relief, but we lose yet more manufacturing jobs.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
11:38 am

Dear Torsten, one reason for my “optimism” that Chauncey will not prove capable of leaving the economy alone to recover – a tiny note today in the WSJ, not even in the online version, mentioned that the EPA is reversing a late Bush-rescission of a rule, which rescission gave some time-leeway to electricity generating companies. Just as they earlier regulated the automobile companies to death, they will now attempt to do so with the utilities, diverting those funds that would be used for nuclear into retrofits for the current methods.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
11:40 am

Dear Torsten @ 11:34, if you are running for Congress to straighten out the republican priorities, I’m sending you a check.

The Udder side!!!

March 31st, 2010
11:40 am

joan1

March 31st, 2010
11:18 am

This is what the Problem is…I have never said that I was an Obama supporter. I happen to be fiercly Independant and can speak to issues regarding both of major parties without having to play nice to the side I favor. You assumed that because I questioned spending that I leaned left and in this case you were wrong…..

Chris Salzmann

March 31st, 2010
11:42 am

Romney??? Hahahaha. More flip flops than you’d find around a pool in the summer. And during the next Republican Primaries, with all the anger and bitterness going around in republican circles, the Republican Party is going to (again) shoot itself in the foot by going for a far Right candidate which will not sit well with moderates. Without moderates and and the ability to peel away Democrats , no Republican candidate is going to win any presidential election in 2012. Lets not even begin to consider how they’re going to win without getting a sizable share of the minority and hispanic vote. The Republican Party is a train wreck and just as fascinating…………………..

Chris Salzmann

March 31st, 2010
11:47 am

joan1 March 31st, 2010 11:18 am SAID: And Udder Side! The defense budget? In his term in office, your buddy Obama has done nothing to decrease it–just ramped it up a notch. Go figure. Did you libs get messed with on that one! Ha.

CHRIS SAYS: Someone has to clean up that mess your last President left in Afghanistan. Now how many years of neglect were involved in Afghanistan? I believe that began when we went into Iraq and occupied it looking for all those WMDs, right? Is it 7 or is it 8 years of neglect involved?

Torsten

March 31st, 2010
11:48 am

Ragnar at 11:40,

I’m not but I’d like a check just the same so I can pay my Progress Energy bill that seems to go up every month!

Torsten

March 31st, 2010
11:48 am

Udder Side, have you read my responses to the question you ask daily?

Peter

March 31st, 2010
11:49 am

Kyle hard to believe in the Republican party that just brought us the worse president in the History of the US, and almost a depression……and the guy (McCain) who lost the presidency last year, whom is capable of acting like a child by saying stuff like……We the Republican’s will not work with the Democrat’s on anything anymore.

The problem seems the Republican’s only care about a few, the rich minority, and their agenda to get more wealth, and screw the common person.

Good luck with all that.

The Udder side!!!

March 31st, 2010
12:16 pm

Torsten

March 31st, 2010
11:48 am

I have read your response and while I agree with most of the premise, i again have to say that any serious efforts to regain our fiscal footing will have have to include reviewing how we approach ALL spending including military budgets. As a nation we are only playing to a political base if we take that off the table. We should not in good faith, rail against excesses and waste in social programs and stand by and allow defense contractors to rape the federal coffers. If we are sincere about supporting our service members, then making sure that money that is ment for them is not pissed away should be a mandate. But my friends on the right would rather crap on the POTUS than be honest about those kinds of issues, and my let leaning friends would rather defend Obama and all that he does than be honest about our spending. either way, we won’t balance or books because neither party has the balls to do so…

get out much?

March 31st, 2010
1:04 pm

Why not Romney. I think a corporate raider will fit right in. Of course, when he gets there, he might find out that someone else has already raided the treasury.

Jess

March 31st, 2010
1:15 pm

Just a note from the other side of the aisle. Cynthia is asking people to quit working so hard so employers will have to hire more people thus reversing our unemployment trend……..

Now back to Romney.

No More Progressives!

March 31st, 2010
1:32 pm

Peter

March 31st, 2010
11:49 am
“The problem seems the Republican’s only care about a few, the rich minority, and their agenda to get more wealth, and screw the common person.”

This is such a tired, worn out mantra. Do you Liberals actually think anyone believes this junk anymore? When was the last time a derelict peacenik gave you a job? You decry Wall Street, then sneak home to open your 401(k) statement to see how well it performed. It’s bad for anyone to acquire wealth except Limousine Liberals like Al Gore, who ain’t doin’ too bad on his scam.

Churchill's MOM

March 31st, 2010
1:46 pm

He is a good looking man but just too slick for me.Slick Mitt shades of Slick Willie.I don’t see a good Republican Candidate around except Sara and it looks like she is slipping away also.

The Udder side!!!

March 31st, 2010
2:01 pm

No More Progressives!

March 31st, 2010
1:32 pm

Yeah, instead of bashing Al Gore, Try expaining why RNC execs are dropping a couple grand and the lesbian Dominatrix bar…..
Stop being so angry and try to contribute someting without the foolishness!

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
2:04 pm

Dear Udder @ 2:01, perhaps we can agree that a Dominatrix provides a marketable service, whereas AlGore only milks the public treasury?

Jason T

March 31st, 2010
2:13 pm

Just checking in here….C Tucker blocks my posts. Guess “free speech” is a problem for her.

The Udder side!!!

March 31st, 2010
2:13 pm

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
2:04 pm

From the party of family Values????? A lesbian Dominatrix is ok but a couple of commited gay guys are going to send this country to hell…..

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
2:16 pm

Dear Udder @ 2:13, sounds like you know something about AlGore that I have never heard.

The Udder side!!!

March 31st, 2010
2:19 pm

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 31st, 2010
2:16 pm

What we know about Gores’ personal life is just speculation, But we know FOR SURE what the top dogs at the RNC are up to!!!!