|
More Politics Lost ...
 Peter Beinart has a review of Joe Klein's new book, Politics Lost, in today's Washington Post Book World. First of all, I must tip my hat to whoever is behind Joe Klein's PR campaign. In the last week or so, I've read countless reviews -- and seen Mr. Klein give countless interviews about the book. In fact, this is the second time I've written about it (and I just picked up my copy yesterday.) (You can read my first article, here.) As far as I can tell, the books' message isn't that political consultants are all bad (it would be a shame if candidates extracted that message from the book). Candidates like Reagan and Clinton benefit greatly by surrounding themselves with smart political operatives who can share their experience and political acumen. The danger is when weak candidates allow hired guns to seize control of their vision and water-down their message. Not all consultants are good. And even if they are good, that doesn't mean they should be making policy decisions. Recently, I authored an article for Campaigns & Elections Magazine on the topic of "Things you must know before hiring a consultant." If you are planning on running for office someday, I recommend you check it out (PDF). And I'll keep you posted on what I learn from actually reading the book ...
|
Independent Thinking ...
Today's Hotline predicts an Independent Presidential run in '08: "The '08 presidential is going to be our generation's 1960 as far as level of interest, amount of money, transition in technology and importance of debate. Don't think someone's ego isn't going to get the best of them when it comes to running as an indie. And if they know they can't pass certain GOP or Dem litmus tests, a third way will be appealing. The internet makes launching a third party bid a million times easier. This isn't going away. "
|
Atlas Shrugged Movie?
 According to Variety, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged "may finally be brought to the bigscreen after years of false starts." As was evidenced by previous failed attempts, it won't be easy to adapt this book into a movie. The primary difficulty is that any adaptation requires leaving some things on the cutting room floor. However, true devotee's of the book will likely object to any edits. On a positive note, this is a chance for mainstream Americans to be exposed to a film that reinforces the message that individualism should be rewarded by society, and that socialism and dictatorship should be eschewed.
|
Too Much Voter Contact???
Recently, at campaign training seminars, I've been fielding lots of questions on the danger of "overwhelming" voters with too much info -- or too many contacts. As such, I thought I would put my thoughts in writing. First of all, I find it ironic that candidates and activists are concerned about the dangers of too much voter contact. The vast majority of the time, the real problem campaigns face is that they don't have enough resources to reach voters. Nevertheless, students are perpetually worried about the dangers of "turning voters off" or annoying people. The first thing to know about voter contact is that everything effective political campaigns do could be considered "annoying."If you don't like being annoying, then politics is probably not the best business for you to be in. As Morton Blackwell says, "Nothing moves in politics unless it's pushed." Being in politics means being a bit pushy. Door-to-Door, voter mail, email spam, telemarketing calls ... etc. The list goes on and on. Of course, you and I know that the candidates who do these things tend to win. Nobody is going to reward you with a vote for not bothering them. According to Phillip Stutts, who ran the RNC's 72-Hour Task Force for the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign, the RNC did a test with this in Michigan in 2002. The test clearly showed that at nine contacts it starts to level off-- but up to nine, voter turnout increases after every contact.
Nine times is a lot of contact. And it is important to note that these nine contacts are defined as personal contacts. This doesn't count the number of times voters see you on TV or hear your radio ad, etc. I would venture to say that there is little danger your campaign will have to worry about having more than 9 personal contacts with a voter. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. There is always the outside possibility that too much voter contact could backfire. In a small population state with a big race (like South Dakota a few years ago), there is the danger of over-saturation. Still, I think the real culprit isn't too much contact, but rather ineffective or inappropriate contact. If your voter contact is targeted toward the right audience -- and is well produced -- you have little to worry about. Again, for most candidates, worrying about too much voter contact is a happy dilemma. It's like having "too much money." Most candidates ought to worry about not having enough money to contact voters a minimum number of times. But I wanted to address it. The next time someone asks, I'll just direct them to this little rant...
|
What? Our Training isn't Good Enough?
According to the Fix, expense reports show Bill Frist has been getting schooled on communications ... I see how it is.
|
The Hill has an article about how Members of Congress with presidential aspirations are using podcasts as a way to build their political base: "Presidential contenders 'are really at this point looking at ways to reach out to new people, grow the size of their list,' said Brent Blackaby, co-founder of Blackrock Associates, a California-based online political consulting firm that lists Clark among its clients. 'When the time comes to do something with it, they already have a huge pool of people."
|
Nice Backdrop
 The Dems have found a good backdrop for their photo-op. Too bad most of them wasted gas to do it...
|
Ari: It's a TV Show!
Ari Fleischer has an opinion piece in The Post today. He makes the case that the press briefings have become a "TV show." According to Fleischer: "Gone are the days when this daily session was a serious affair, with mostly serious questions asked and mostly serious answers given. Instead, the public is now treated to a spectacle in which the media do their best to pressure the White House, regardless of which party is in power, into admitting that much of what the president is doing is wrong, and the White House pushes back. The two sides talk past each other, and the viewing public gets to watch a good fight."...And who's to blame for this state of affairs?
"One of President Bill Clinton's press secretaries, Mike McCurry, in an effort to accommodate the new 24-hour-a-day cable news programs, allowed his briefings to be open to TV coverage. Poor Mike. The first briefing the press covered live was on the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke. Since then the briefing room has never been the same."
|
Door-to-Door?
Getting ready to design your palm cards or door-hangers? Here's a sample Dem door-hanger ...
|
Bush Could Score Points with Energy Debate
Dick Morris' new column suggests the current energy problems are an opportunity for President Bush to change the subject from Iraq and to boldly "seize the day."
According to Morris, Bush "should address the nation on television and call on Congress to act quickly on massive new investments to increase the production of alcohol-based fuels and cars that can accommodate them. He should plunge ahead in the development of hydrogen-fueled cars and the conversion of gas stations to provide hydrogen. He should call for major new facilities to produce hydrogen and the rapid production of vehicles that can run on it."
Whether or not you agree with Morris' specific solution to the energy debate, the point to note is that he is calling on the president to declare war on the energy problem. Morris believes this would be a wise political move.
This dovetails a theory I've long held: That a president would actually score points by requiring Americans to actually become involved in solving a crisis.
These flies in the face of what common sense would seem to dictate (that Americans would reject the call for them to make sacrifices).
But let's consider history: When was the last time Americans were asked to become involved in helping the country? It was probably during World War II, when Americans were called on to conserve materials such as metal and paper to be used by factories to produce ships and weapons. Granted, World War II was a unique time in our history, yet the lesson learned is that calling on Americans to sacrifice (for a good cause) is actually welcome.
Unfortunately, for the last forty years, there has been a liberal viewpoint that government is supposed to always be giving things away. And politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have come to believe they must buy votes. This ultimately has made them wary of asking Americans to sacrifice, and ironically has meant that Americans are less happy -- and more isolated -- from government.
I know it's counter--intuitive to think that asking more of people will make them like you more -- but the truth is people like to serve. This phenomenon is called the Ben Franklin effect: "When we do a person a favor, we tend to like them more as a result."
Today our men and women in uniform are asked to make the ultimate sacrifice while simultaneously, average civilians are not asked to contribute anything. I believe this is one of the reasons many Americans feel disconnected. How could we identify with sacrifice when it is business as usual on the home front?
With the exception of the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, Americans have not recently been asked to sacrifice anything. And these aforementioned sacrifices don't really count because they were seen as a chance to be charitable to others -- rather than a vital act necessary for our collective survival.
Anyone who has ever managed employees or volunteers knows people are generally happier when they are busy and being asked to contribute. We derive a feeling of importance and self-esteem from being needed. There is no greater way to create a disgruntled employee than to pay him to sit at the office without ever fulfilling a goal. Sure, the first week is good. But in the long run, this breeds contempt.
Morris is really arguing that we can enlist Americans in a new war ... a war for energy independence. This will serve to inspire and enlist Americans, without spilling a drop of blood. And, as he puts it, it could take the focus off of Iraq if is used to "distract Americans with a stellar performance in a new crisis."
Of course, as is always the case, style is as important as substance. For Bush to sell this idea, he would have to go on national TV and really "sell" it. The question Morris fails to address is that, even if Bush were persuaded to take his advice, could the president actually execute the strategy?
|
The Post has a good piece on Tony Snow this morning. My take: This is a good move for Bush. ... Amanda Carpenter reports that Sen. John McCain is being very generous to the MI GOP.... April 26 ( Bloomberg) -- "Republican leaders, plagued by internal divisions over spending and immigration, plan to change the subject in Congress to issues that provide a sharper contrast with Democrats." ... Laura Bush stays on message: "Asked by a reporter about high gas prices, Bush smiled. ''No,' she said. 'I'm going to talk about national parks.'
|
Snow Getting the Gig?
Word on the street is that they will name Tony Snow the press secretary, tomorrow. Stay tuned...
|
Democrat Pollster Mark Mellman recently wrote an article for The Hill on the topic of voter registration.
As he puts it, "Most campaigns relegate voter-registration efforts to second-class status." What he fails to mention is that there is often good cause for this status: Campaigns exist in a world of limited resources. Choices must be made regarding the best use of a campaign's time, talent, and treasure. And common sense dictates focusing these resources toward persuading likely voters to vote for their candidate. Is it wise for campaigns to invest precious resources on a segment of the voter universe with a proven track record of not voting, when they could spend those same resources on proven likely voters? In most cases, this is not a wise investment. (The exception to this rule is when your district is so skewed against you that the only conceivable way you can win is to change the numbers). Note: While voter registration may be a wise and prudent strategy for an organization or political party with a long-term goal of changing America, it may not be wise for a campaign looking to use limited resources to quickly win votes. While political parties and activist organizations exist after Election Day, a political campaign ends on Election Day. As such, their priorities are different. When it comes to a political campaign, think of the level of difficulty involved in registering new voters, versus merely persuading proven voters: Convincing a likely voter requires just one step: 1. Get them to vote for you. Conversely, convincing an unregistered voter requires 3-steps: 1. Register them to vote.
2. Get them to show up on Election Day (or vote absentee)
3. Make sure they vote for you. ...You tell me where you get the most "bang" for your buck. In any event, according to Mellman, voter registration may be more important for Democrats because their "core constituency is much less likely to be registered." So it may be a mute point for us...
|
Progressive Conservatives?
Convinced the liberal label had become an albatross around their neck -- liberals have begun labeling themselves: "progressive." In truth, this is not a new term, but a recycled term used by liberals in the past. For example, in 1948, the Progressive Party nominated former FDR vice president Henry A. Wallace to run against Harry Truman from the Left. At a reception I attended last night, Jack Kemp made the argument that being progressive (which means advancing) is not an ideological term. Thus, there are many progressive conservatives. Will this term ever come into vogue? Who knows? Some find it offensive to add a qualifier before the word conservative. For this reason, the term "compassionate conservative" was heavily criticized (even before Iraq and Bush's government spending became issues). However, I've never heard anyone criticize someone for being a "Reagan Republican," so I have to assume that qualifiers, in and of themselves, are not the problem. Additionally, many conservatives (who have already conceded the word progressive to the liberals) would object to our using the term, for fear that it implies we are becoming more liberal. Of course, this implies a lack of understanding regarding the entire intellectual exercise. As stated earlier, if progressive means "advancing," then it has no inherent ideological connotation. My contention is that it was wise for liberals to re-label themselves "progressive." Conservatives have done a good job over the last twenty-five years of telling America the truth about liberalism, and thus, damaging the brand name. As such, the liberals have had to make a choice: Change policies or change names (and changing names is easier). Likewise, it would be lunacy for conservatives to ever use the term "progressive" to describe a liberal. Using their language means playing into their hands and allowing them escape their past record of flawed programs. While I have written in the past about not using the term "progressive," until last night, it didn't honestly occur to me that we could accurately use the word, ourselves. Now that is an interesting idea.
|
Kudos to HEO for Newt
Kudos to Human Events Online for their new Newt Gingrich feature, Winning the Future.. It looks great!
|
How Dems Woo Values Voters
The Fix has a good post about VA Governor Tim Kaine's pollster. Of course, Kaine, a Democrat, was able to win in conservative Virginia... Kaine's pollster would like to replicate his success in other states. According to the blog, this requires Democrat candidates to follow a two-step approach: 1. Demonstrate from day 1 that you are religious enough (thus taking the issue off the table). 2. Then, make the election about the issues that Democrats traditionally win on (like education, health care, etc.). Or, as the Fix puts it, the lesson learned is: "Democrats can win support from religious voters by working early on to show that their candidates are people of faith and then moving on to other issues important to this key voting bloc. In January and February 2005, the Kaine campaign ran radio ads in rural parts of the state focused on his work as a missionary and emphasizing his personal faith. Kaine also spoke at the Family Foundation, a socially conservative advocacy organization based in Richmond."
|
Joe Klein's Politics Lost is one book I'm looking forward to reading... According to Chuck Todd: "If you're a political junkie who's obsessed with ideology, this book might not be for you. On the other hand, if you're a political junkie who's obsessed with how presidential campaigns are won and lost, then Politics Lost, the latest book from Time columnist Joe Klein, is a must-read. Klein gives us behind-the-scenes glimpses of every consequential presidential campaign since 1968, and no self-respecting expert will want to miss it. It's also a lot of fun." It seems the main premise is that politics is supposed to be daring and inspiring (think of Churchill and Reagan). Yet, all too often, political handlers want to play it safe. Granted, there are times to "run out the clock" and there are times to throw a "Hail-Mary." But politics can't always be paint by the numbers. Another idea that this brings to mind is something I've always known: Smart political operatives can make a big difference, but at the end of the day, the candidates are the ones with their names on the ballot. They must have the vision and passion. Sure, candidates must surround themselves with good political operatives. But the best operatives in the world can't make a bad candidate a bold or inspiring leader. My opinion: Being a savvy politico -- and having panache -- should not be mutually exclusive. Whether this is substantive or stylistic, greatness is rarely derived from playing it safe. A quick review of history confirms this fact. Regardless of the author's political ideology, this book sounds terrific. I look forward to picking it up. If you have already read this book, please email me your thoughts on it...
|
The Post has an interesting book review of Matthew Continetti's: THE K STREET GANG, The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine ... "When Matthew Continetti took a job at the Weekly Standard a few years ago, he was a young conservative committed to denouncing big government. But Continetti was surprised by what he found in the nation's capital: Republican operatives were 'getting rich off conservative power,' leaving Washington a city "on the brink of major scandal" ...
|
Craig Shirley has a provocative opinion piece in The Post today, titled: How the GOP Lost Its Way. The main thesis is that the Country Club Republicans are still dominating the GOP: "The elites in the GOP have never understood conservatives or Reagan; they've found both to be a bit tacky. They have always found the populists' commitment to values unsettling. To them, adherence to conservative principles was always less important than wealth and power."(Premium members of our site can listen to our past interview with him here.)
|
This Weekend in Richmond
Tomorrow, I am giving a little talk in Richmond on the subject of "how to build a grassroots organization." I will be joined by our good friend Phillip Stutts. As you may know, Phillip ran the 72 Hour Task Force for the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign (which explains why he's lecturing on GOTV.) Phillip is one of the good guys in this business. Check out his new website. And don't forget about our recent interview with him (which I highly recommend to you) ...
|
The Shake-Up Spin ...
In my opinion, The Washington Post is being a bit hard on Scott McClellan, today: ... Howard Kurtz writes: "He was painful to watch at times, gamely repeating the same stock phrases under a barrage of hostile media fire, grasping for new ways to deliver the same non-answers." (By the way, last time I checked, that's called "staying on message.") ... Dana Milbank writes: "Bush bestowed the dreaded 'heckuva job' laurel on McClellan ('job well done' was today's version) and said: 'I don't know whether or not the press corps realizes this, but his is a challenging assignment dealing with you all on a regular basis." Others have been more kind to Scott, but are attributing the shake-up's to Bush's dilemma: Dan Balz opines, "... yesterday's senior staff changes represent a frank acknowledgment of the trouble in which President Bush now finds himself. " My take hasn't changed. McClellan had a tough job. Was he perfect? No. But it's a tough gig ...
|
Sign Wars
 The Fix reports on the Shad Planking, an annual Southern VA political event (which I have attended numerous times, but not this year...). Aside from the personal politicking, the Shad Planking (in recent years) also involves a battle to see which camp can put up the most yard signs. I'm a proponent of trying to win every facet of a political campaign -- from the air wars to the ground wars -- I don't like to concede anything. But some people get lazy and try to "justify" the fact that they were outmaneuvered... According to the Fix: "Asked why he had such a small presence at Shad Planking (he apparently chose not to compete in the sign war, outnumbered even by Republican Rep. Randy Forbes who is a shoe-in for reelection this fall), ( Harris) Miller pointed to his background as a businessman, arguing that investing thousands of dollars on signs, a beer truck and other paraphernalia didn't seem a sound investment to him. 'If George Allen wants to waste tens of thousands of dollars on signs, good for him,' Miller said. 'I wonder if his donors in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina know that." Let's be frank, Harris. You got whooped. That's okay. At least be honest about it. Others take the sign wars more seriously. Allen advisor Chris LaCivita once swam across some chilly April waters in order to place a George Allen sign on a small island (which was on the way to Wakefield). He also was famous for using a truck-ladder to staple signs on phone polls. This was done so that they would be visible (and hard for anti-Allen folks to tear down). How's that for commitment?
|
Political Wisdom over Lunch...
So I was lunching at Clyde's in Alexandria last weekend, and ended up talking with one of the managers about politics. (As Dick Morris has said, "the hardest thing in politics is to be an insider and think like an outsider" -- so I always like to talk politics with people who don't work in politics.) The restaurant manager (whom I know pretty well) described himself to me as "not a Republican, but a conservative." When the subject turned to the current state of affairs he said, "Reagan, now he made people feel good. This guy now, he makes people feel like (fill in the blank)." Which made me think: Is this revisionism, or is it legit? Here's why I ask: Sociologists have found that people tend to have selective memories. For example, I've heard that in the 1940s, more people said they voted for FDR than actually cast ballots for him. I'm willing to bet that more people today claim they voted for Reagan in 1980 than actually did. I'm a huge Ronald Reagan fan, so I am probably as guilty of this as anybody. But it is important to actually base our opinions and commentary on true history... The truth is: There was a time when Reagan was on the ropes. I remember Iran-Contra ... and Robert Bork ... and the liberal's protests over nuclear proliferation. I remember when he made a joke about bombing the Soviet Union -- and when he fired the air traffic controllers. And I remember the jokes about his "Star Wars" plan (which actually may have won the Cold War). The liberals used to heap animadversion on the Gipper every chance they got. They hated him as much as they hate George W. Bush -- maybe more! ... They called him old. They called him stupid. They said he created homelessness and Aids. None of it was true, of course. But it didn't stop them from saying it. Luckily time has vindicated him, as he knew it would. But let's be frank: Just as there will never be another George Washington or Abe Lincoln -- no modern Republican (including Bush) will be able to compare to Reagan -- and it's not even fair to use him as the standard. To paraphrase Jack Bentsen, it's as if every Republican president must be told: "I knew Ronald Reagan -- and you're no Ronald Reagan." But let's not kid ourselves. In 1987, they wanted to impeach Reagan. And last night, I flew into Reagan National Airport. Bush can still turn this around.
|
My Campaign Tips Email...
Those of you who are on my campaign tips email list (you can sign up to the left of the screen), received a blast email from me, last night. I've learned that some folks couldn't open the links. As such, I've copied them below. - If you are interested in the Texas GOP Convention Training (this is a PDF and opens slow) - If you are interested in the Campaigns & Elections Magazine Discount (your password is 7PENN).
|
It's being reported that Bush spokesman Scott McClellan has resigned. Amanda Carpenter has posted his resignation statement... I don't blame him for moving on. It's a tough gig. Now, the speculation begins as to who will take his place. ... Daily Kos sardonically asks: "Who can master the art of 'we don't comment on ongoing investigations?' Who has the stamina to repeat day after day, week after week, that Saddam 'was a grave threat'? Who has the skill to weave the words 'terrorists flew planes into buildings' into at least one question per briefing? The nomination floor is open.
|
The Post has a pretty thorough bio piece on Brit Hume, today. No doubt, this will be controversial. I notice that some liberal blogs have already chimed in. And I'm sure there are some slights at Hume's conservatism, within the pages. But putting political ideology aside, I always encourage people to read biographies and columns like this. The reason is that it helps to understand that Brit Hume didn't just become "famous" one day. He has had a long career full of ups and downs and victories and triumphs (which are detailed in the article). Like all of us, he faced both personal hurdles (such as his son's suicide), and professional hurdles. I always find that bio pieces provide the reader a greater persective on how careers are really built (versus the myth that someone got "lucky"). Even the people who make it to the top have had to endure numerous struggles. This is good for us to remember...
|
Matt Training at Texas GOP Convention!
I'm doing the grassroots training at the Texas Republican Convention on June 1st. This convention is actually bigger than the GOP National Convention! Here is some info about the training (note, this is a PDF).
|
Conservative Blog News!
According to Hotline's On Call blog, there are some good shake-up's taking place in the conservative blogosphere, today. The first involved our good friends at Human Events. They've already got Ann Coulter and Bob Novak as regular contributers. Now, they have added Newt Gingrich to their stable! He will be reportedly writing a weekly column. As you may know, as the first conservative weekly, Human Events was Ronald Reagan's favorite magazine. In the last year or so, the HumanEventsOnline website has taken off like a meteor. (I'm baised, of course, because I am a contributer). Still, there is no doubt HEO is reclaiming it's perch as the source for conservative news and views. The second big blog story is that Salem Communications (home of our good friend, Chuck DeFeo) has just purchased Townhall. This is huge news... (BTW, premium members can read my recent interview with Chuck by clicking here.) Good stuff is happening!
|
The Fix asks: Is Bill Frist the new Howard Dean? "On Frist's Volunteer PAC site, he offers visitors several ways to interact semi-directly with him. First, Frist has a blog that is updated regularly through which he seeks to take the temperature of visitors on controversial issues like immigration and judges. To date, the blog has received more than 20,000 posts from readers, and Frist aides insist the senator regularly participates in the online debate.Frist also recently announced a podcast, a feature that has become de rigeur for the Web sites of aspiring 2008ers. But Frist is planning an interesting twist: He allows visitors to submit questions on the site that he then answers in the "iFrist" podcast. Frist currently has five podcasts available for downloading -- ranging from 'Feingold's Censure Stunt' to the less excitingly titled "Immigration Debate Update.' (At press time, Frist's was the 22nd most popular political podcast on the Apple iTunes Music Store.) Aides to Frist also note that a recent interview he did with Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds (a well-known conservative blogger) has already been downloaded almost 500,000 times.Today Frist will launch a tool that allows users to participate in seven online mini campaigns. The options include taking a survey on national security, signing a petition in support of President Bush or endorsing the reelection campaigns of Sens. Jim Talent (Mo.) and Rick Santorum (Pa.). The site allows individuals to monitor the progress of the campaigns for which they volunteer online and allow them to invite friends to participate as well. How effective any one of these online approaches will be in recruiting supporters (and donors) to Frist's 2008 cause is an open question. There is a at least one crucial difference between Dean and Frist. Like him or hate him, the former Vermont governor inspired passion and loyalty among those who believed in him. At best, Frist can be described as low-key, at worst boring. Can a man with the Tennessee senator's mien inspire people to activism via the Web?"
|
Calling him, "A Republican Jimmy Carter, Dick Morris has some advice for President Bush: What can Bush do? Anything he wants to. He's still president. Here's a menu" Really focus on energy issues: Come out for massive investment in ethanol production, delivery and vehicles, and more: retrofitting all gas stations for ethanol and hydrogen; a new push for nuclear power; heavy investment in clean coal technology, burying the carbon dioxide. Truly lead the nation away from petroleum. Admit that global warming is happening, and launch major new programs to curb it: Many are the same measures as can solve our energy dependence. But add in mandatory upgrading of power plants to cut emissions and major investment in solar and bio-mass energy. Build a wall, but let guest workers in: Right-wingers want a wall on our southern border; they'd accept a guest-worker program if we could regulate our own borders. Latinos would accept a wall if there were a chance for immigrants to do legal work and a path to citizenship. Give both what they want, and lead the country into a grand compromise. Put the drug fight front and center: Demand drug testing in schools with parental consent, and tax incentives for workplace drug testing. Link cocaine to terrorism, and build a national consensus for tough measures to cut demand. Bush can restore his presidency's drive with new issues. If he doesn't, he'll wind up leading his party to the greatest shipwreck since Watergate."
|
More Huckabee
More controversy about my Huckabee posting from last week. There was also an AP story, but I can't find the link (email me if you can find it)...
|
Nice Start
It is a georgious Saturday in DC today. I've got lunch plans in Shepherdstown, WV, so blogging will be light today. I just wanted to check in and wish you a Happy Easter.
|
|
Digg This | 
Facebook | 
Technorati
