This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 3, 2012 10:51 PM. The previous post in this blog was Vestas closes offices in three cities around country. The next post in this blog is "Buy local" may not be such a good idea. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Obama loses debate

Just when it has become clear that he's the lesser of two evils, wham! He flubs the thing he's the most reliable for -- talking to the camera. The President's a sellout, but he's our sellout. Let's hope he isn't a flunkout. Stop practicing with Windsurfer Prettyboy Kerry and grow a pair, O!

Comments (65)

The right-wing media is going to fall all over themselves tomorrow spiking the football. If they can contain their glee, we might have a race. I have faith, however, that they won't be able to help themselves. Yes, Mitt won. But we'll be reminded soon enough of why we loathed him in the first place.

"Loathed?" "We," Beanie-Boy?? Who is this "we" for whom you speak??

If Obama were an airplane, he's be a B-17G in a flat spin, with three engines on fire.

Better get used to the idea of a President with magic underwear....

Remember, this is the guy who picked "The Gaffe-Master" as his running mate. It makes sense now. Obumma's problem is that he doesn't have TOTUS debating for him. => How ugly was it tonight?
It was so ugly that Chris Mathews had a tinkle running down his leg.

Did anyone notice Romney learned to emulate and sound exactly like the Republican's hero Ronald Reagan.
Must have had practice sessions with a Rich Little.

I think you overestimate how many minds are changed by TV debates: barring a major mishap, which did not occur tonight, relatively few.

Obama looked disinterested and ill prepared.
The press has handled this guy with kid gloves for 4 Years and he has never been challenged.
Sure, Right Wing Pundits have taken pot shots at Obama. It's almost a cottage industry with the likes of Rush, Hannity, Beck and others.
But Obama has never had to answer them directly.
The only time he had his a$$ truly handed to him was when he announced that Israel needed to go back to the 1967 borders, only to have Bibi Netanyahu the next day at a joint press conference dress him down like a school child.(I don't care if you were a D or a R, as an American Citizen, that was hard to watch.)
So after a first term full of softball questions from the likes of David Letterman to The View to last weeks 60 Minutes, Obama got kicked around this evening by Romney. He didn't know how to respond when he was actually confronted. It seemed like he almost had an air of arrogance about him.
I think tonight will be a turning point in the election, just like 1980. Jimmy Carter was up on Reagan 47% to 39%, going into the first debate. Well, you know the results.
Next Weeks VP Debate? Ryan versus quite possibly the dumbest man in America? Warning: Parental Advisory suggested, this could get ugly.

Keep whistling past that graveyard Jack...

"This debate is like the New York Jets. Romney is like Tebow – almost sure to disappoint if he gets in. Obama is like Sanchez. Already in there disappointing us right now."

One of the late night guys just dropped that on the nation. All I can say is whoever wrote it shouldn't be wasting his time making fun of Jefferson Smith.

There was another guy who was believed to have won all 3 of his debates, expecially the first one - President Kerry. Obama now forced to take the gloves off. Not even a mention of the 47%!

Where I Sit:
I noticed the Regan 'voice' immediately. Thanks for mentioning it as I thought I went thru a time warp. Or should I say a bad flashback...

The Obama campaign has portrayed Romney as a virtual monster. They could not run on the disastrous last 4 years so chose to demonize their opponent. The problem is that if the public decides the monster is, in fact, human, the negative becomes a positive. Another problem for the president in a debate is that a narcissist often has difficulty addressing one who challenges him or her directly. Finally, the debate shows the vast difference in their visions of the size and power of the federal government. This may well be a result of each person's Platonic caves. Romney was a very successful businessman. Obama has been a lifelong politician.

Much ado about nothing. The faithful committed are either rejoicing or regurgitating.

It's the "undecideds" that will decide in those handful of counties in those handful of "swing states." And, they don't decide tonight. They're just starting to pay attention.

And, come on -- how could you really be undecided at this point in time? Anyway, they ride out all of the "debate" shows and then either vote for someone, or not.

Most of the tv ad times in those key "battlegrounds" are already bought up, btw, but the content is yet to be finalized for the last blitz week. That's when the slugfest turns into a full-scale brawl with all of those non-candidate entities running their ads, too. Those bloody things do make an impact in the end.

And, after all, it's not how you start, or even how well you might glide in the middle part, it's how you finish. Rope-a-dope. But, do beware the Diebold Effect....

Here's some fun -- Romney had a zinger in there tonight after all, but it's trending away from him in giant loopy steps:

How Big Bird won the first presidential debate of 2012
By Phoebe Connelly, Yahoo! News | The Ticket


To the list of "unlikely subjects of political discussion, 2012," please add one beloved "Sesame Street" character. The 8'2" bird entered the conversation at Monday's first presidential debate in Denver, Colorado, when Republican candidate Mitt Romney answered a question about what he would cut from federal spending. He included the federal subsidy to PBS, which broadcasts "Sesame Street."

"I love Big Bird," Romney added as a caveat, addressing moderator Jim Lehrer....The moment immediately went viral. Twitter reported that mentions of "Big Bird" hit a peak of 17,000 tweets per minute--not bad when you consider that Mitt Romney only managed slightly more than 14,000 tweets per minute during his address at the Republican National Convention.

Big Bird spawned a faux Twitter account, @firedbigbird (Bio: Just got fired by Mitt Romney), which by the end of the debate had around 12,000 followers. Big Bird for President's newly drawn up Facebook page had more than 5,000 likes by the end of the evening. It also spawned user-generated art....

Barry had several opportunities to go for the jugular in a forceful yet respectful manner, but didn't take them. My comment to the wife was that I hope this is "rope a dope", and he's saving his good stuff for later. She had no idea what I was talking about so I had to give her a mini tutorial on boxing history. Funny that you mentioned the very same thing Mojo.

Romney also came across as a moderate in stating that he will work across the aisle with Dems, etc., and I wonder how many on in his base on the right are all ticked off right now. The whole "etch a schetch" thing is coming to fruition in a big way, and I doubt that the Tea Bag people are happy with a lot of what he had to say.

But, but, the media told me that Obama was the greatest orator since Cicero!

What happened?

I guess Kerry wasn't a good stand-in for Romney - they're both rich, but Romney earned his money, and Kerry married his money (repeatedly). Different skill sets, I guess...

"View to last weeks 60 Minutes, Obama got kicked around this evening by Romney. He didn't know how to respond when he was actually confronted. It seemed like he almost had an air of arrogance about him."

Obama? Arrogant? No way, man!

How dare someone question Him!

I guess Obama will start surreptitiously flipping off Romney when he refers to Romney in speeches - it's a real habit of Obama's when he gets rattled.

I don’t think Obama did poorly, considering what he had to work with. His policies and the direction he has been taking the country make no sense, but he is just so much more darned likeable than Romney. I was really hoping he would surprise me with something I had not considered so I could change my vote. Alas, no surprises last night.

Face it, there just isn't much to President Obama. He had no experience running anything back in 2008 and that has been pretty evident that past 4 years.

He was an empty vessel and many people had that creepy cult of personality thing about him. He was bound to disappoint.

He got health care through but it was pretty watered down.

Obama was brilliant last night!

He has Mitt right where he wants him.

Joe will help next week, and do the same thing to Ryan.

Brilliant strategy.

A few good comments from my FB feed last night:

"What really hurt Obama was the format of the debate, where he had to talk to Romney about stuff."

"It looked like the President wasn't experienced in having a conversation with someone who didn't adore him."

"Congratulations MSM, your failure to ask the president hard questions for 4 years has left him soft and unprepared"

BTW, the apoplectic bobble-heads on MSNBC were pretty entertaining last night.

I can hardly wait until the Vice President debate when Joe Biden proves what an idiot he really is to America.

"I guess Kerry wasn't a good stand-in for Romney - they're both rich, but Romney earned his money..."

For crying out loud ...

Obama tries to be too nice and too presidential. Make Romney explain how he is going to balance the budget, deliver yet another massive tax cut and not eliminate social programs that millions in a down economy rely on. And raise defense spending. Do the math. Lowering a rate and eliminating deductions and calling it a tax cut is smoke and mirrors.

Just when it has become clear that he's the lesser of two evils...

False premise.

Boycat is right. It's always been clear Obama is less evil than Romney.

Make Romney explain how he is going to balance the budget, deliver yet another massive tax cut and not eliminate social programs that millions in a down economy rely on.

Perhaps President Obama can tell us his plan to balance the budget. A good start would be to have a budget.

Some comments -

one of Jack's initial premises is wrong. Obama is not good at talking to cameras; never has been and last night proved it. Obama is good at reading a teleprompter and giving a set speech without any distractions. Obama has never been any good in extemporaneous settings.

- Obama looked both bored and arrogant, and oozed both "qualities". That's the real Obama coming out. Its not pretty and its not helpful. Its the "I'm-the smartest-guy in-the-room, why-do-I-have-to-put-up-with both-this sh*t and-all-of-you."

OBama hurt himself. Whether its badly enough to cost him the election, only time will tell. Romney came across as Presidential. Obama did not.

Romney and the people around him scare me still. Obama is a failure who had promise but no performance.

I think I'm still leaning to writing in LaVonne Griffin-Valade.

Oh, he's got a budget. It's just that it received exactly zero "yea" votes in the Senate from either party when brought to the floor.

His own party couldn't even stomach voting for it, knowing that the Republicans were going to make sure it never got out of the House, which they could then make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows about. Knowing they would have cover, and be able to point fingers, still not a single Senator voted for it.

Yeah, that's leadership, right there.

Seems to me the "debates" are mostly about expectations. Obama's supposedly a great orator and Romney is a stiff (and nobody can argue that - nobody - like don't even try) so Obama should easily win the "debates." So Romney appears to exceed the low expectations and Obama doesn't meet the high expectations and Romney "wins." Now, though, expectations are higher for Mitt so he'll probably "lose" the next debate. The third debate will, of course, be a tie.

Everybody expects the boy genius Paul Ryan to crush the old idiot Joe Biden. That's a guaranteed "win" for Biden.

I think the debate was unfair. Yes, both men had to remember their talking points, but President Obama had to remember it was his anniversary too. No man can keep all that in his head.

It seems he was no more able to defend his socialist policies than that chair Eastwood argued with. We should have had a clue when he showed on Letterman he had no idea how big the debt is.

It wasn't Obama's fault. He has no experience defending a position when someone disagrees with him. He's never had to do it since he surrounds himself only with the gullible and naive.

Luckily for him, many of the far left never even saw it, nor would they care.

OK, I think I get some of it. Obama will try to cajole Iran until such time they build the bomb and does who knows what? Romney will stop Iran by attacking them, leading to who knows what? Obama seeks to redistribute our hard earned monies to all those who deserve a hand up, and by unintended consequence to all those who don’t deserve a hand up. Romney seeks to keep the very rich very wealthy, so they can provide more jobs to the masses. Obama says the rich will hoard the wealth and will never provide those jobs. Romney will seek to protect the lives of unborn children. Obama will protect the rights of women. Obama will try to provide plenty of medical care for older Americans and the poor, possibly bankrupting the country. Romney will strip those benefits to the bare bones in an effort to save the economy, likely resulting in little or no medical coverage for the poor and the elderly. Hmmmmm??

Debates Fail to Decide Elections Amid Myth of Kennedy-Nixon
By Mike Dorning - Oct 2, 2012 10:18 PM ET


For all the lore and media buildup, the events haven’t had much impact on election outcomes.

“Where you started the debate season is pretty much where you end the debate season,” said Christopher Wlezien, a political science professor at Temple University and co-author of the book “The Timeline of Presidential Elections.”

No candidate who was leading in the polls six weeks before the election has lost the popular vote since Thomas Dewey in 1948, according to Wlezien and Robert Erikson, a political science professor at Columbia University. They studied polling data going back to 1952 and computed a running average “poll of polls” for each presidential election.

Why Undecided Voters Won’t Be Deciding This Election
By Ezra Klein Sep 26, 2012 6:30 PM ET

This election will probably be decided by a tiny fraction of the electorate in eight or nine states. The undecided voters in those states are popularly portrayed as people who just can’t make up their minds. But that’s not quite right. They aren’t so much “undecided” as uninterested and, frankly, uninformed; in political-science parlance -- and SNL ads -- they are “low information”

More at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-26/why-undecided-voters-won-t-be-deciding-this-election.html

Obama Lead Over Romney Similar to 2008 Margin Over McCain
By Jonathan D. Salant - Oct 3, 2012 12:34 PM ET

This could be the difference in Florida on Nov. 6:

"Obama also leads Romney 70 percent to 26 percent among likely Hispanic voters, according to a CNN/ORC International poll published yesterday."

HMLA-267, that B-17 example is bad. More of those limped home than had any right to, any reasonable hope to. On the other hand, Obama may be able to limp home to the WH.

Running on his record: A blank DVD/CD, except for Obamacare, which most Americans don't care for. Oh, and the Mid-East in flames, many dead Mexicans due to ATF-sponsored gun-running, and a dead ambassador.

The comments above leave me thinking that Republicans are going to toss away any ground gained last night. For the first time in 22 months of campaigning, Romney was in command of the conversation and presented his ideas (du jour) with some vision and clarity.

And the reaction this morning? "We told you Barry couldn't talk without a teleprompter!" It's really just all about hate, isn't it?

As a democrat I was hoping that the debate would get to Hope and Change....because after the four years of Obama we still need to Hope and we haven't seen much Change. In fact I have less Change in my pocket.

With TOTUS banned from the debates, Obumma will go O for 3 and lose the election.

I find it reassuring that whomever wins we are going to keep killing brown people all over the world.

And with the uber-security apparatus set up at home, the skin tone is going to change to all shades pretty darn soon.

Go Team Amerika, F Yeah!

Jack wrote: I think you overestimate how many minds are changed by TV debates: barring a major mishap, which did not occur tonight, relatively few.

I'm willing to consider that few are truly undecided by this point. Why, then, post an article about the debate at all?

I do think that there was a "major mishap", but IMHO it has more to do with full exposure of the media narrative as it finally went off the rails.

People who rely upon the MSM might be asking themselves: If they misled us about Romney being worse than ten Satans, then what else might they have distorted?

Obama's performance was (to realists) predictably underwhelming. Romney's energy was a pleasant surprise, but not completely out of left field.

Exposure of the media's deeply untrustworthy handling of this entire election cycle is the real disaster from last night. The MSM won't regain the public trust anytime soon.

I'm surprised the Nobel Peace prize hasn't been awarded to one of the participants of last night's debate. Who should it go to? Maybe Jim Lehrer.

What we saw was a man (President Obama) unused to being challanged.

mcinor: OK... You made me google, "TOTUS". And I thought I knew all of the acronyms. Very funny!

Opps... Double post

Roger -

Your comments about "hate" and teleprompters are as vacuous as Obama's presidency.

I remember when my party last tried to actually nominate a Democrat. Corporate drone democrats are useless. I miss Howard Dean.

I don't get how "Romney and the people around him scare the sh*t out of me, and Obama is a failure" is "hate".

Challenged? Like the Space Shuttle Challenger?

Try reading with your eyes open.
Telepromter quips thus far: 4
Shots at Joe Biden: 3
Enthusiastic responses to Romney proposal: 1
Clever lines by mcinor: 2 -- the Chris Matthews line was fabulous.

What have you got against Windsurfing? It' a great sport.

The best Chris Mathews Line was that he looked like he went from feeling a tingle up his leg to feeling a load in his pants.

Today POTUS whines that he wasn't debating (i.e. he wasn't beaten by) the "real" Romney, that guy up there was actually a hologram of Reagan.

What happened to the swagger of the man who (in 2009) responded to serious policy questions with "I won"?


Hate, racist, Hitler, Nazi, etc and their derivatives (Bushitler, Feminazi by Rush) etc etc...

It seems to make the users of such shorthand feel good about themselves while also thinking that they are refuting their opponents arguments.

I don't get it either.

Obama wasn't prepared to debate the former governor of Massachusetts, and frankly I can't remember ever seeing that Mitt before. Certainly not during this campaign. It was actually a brilliant tactical maneuver by Romney's handlers. Whether he can hold that persona and win with it remains to be seen. But he definitely got up off the mat.

And the reaction this morning? "We told you Barry couldn't talk without a teleprompter!" It's really just all about hate, isn't it?

Yeah and it is just pure love for Romney. I don't have the time but:

Loathe Romney = 1
Romney is unlikable = 1
Romney is evil = 1

There is a lot of hate coming from both the right and left. As I recall there was a lot of hate directed at the previous occupant of the oval office.

I personally like President Obama but I still think he is a terrible president.

Objectively speaking, Biden is an idiot. He is a loose cannon, a serial plagiarist (law school and 1988 Neil Kinnock speeches during the 1988 presidential elections), and a blowhard (I have personal experience with that because I worked at a law school where he was an adjunct at and he proved it on a weekly basis).

The guy looked tired while Romney was firing on all cylinders. It was kind of a surprise because Obama is a good speaker, but I guess his real strength is giving speeches. That's much different than a debate, or so it seems.

It's unlikely to make any difference, but at least Romney is putting on a good show.

It was a great strategy for Romney to pivot to the center in this debate. The uninformed voter might think he's running on a centrist platform. That might help him pick up some undecideds, those voters who are both independent, plan to vote, but who also don't follow politics enough to have made up their minds yet.

There probably aren't many of those, and there are still 3 more debates.

I kinda with Romney was a real centrist like back when he was governor, that'd be a good race, but he'd never have won the primary that way.


From the perspective of an old Lincoln/Douglas and Oxford high school and college debator, this was not a debate. I heard it via radio so I was not distracted by the visuals (a plus, in my book).

Two things missing: Someone stronger than Jim Lehrer to make the participants answer the questions, stay on topic and abide by the time limits and questioners of some stature who had proven themselves well-read enough on the various "plans", "statements", "promises" and histories of the candidates to ask hard questions of both of them. Questions they would be required to answer. This would be far more useful then allowing them to exchange boilerplate quotes and pie-in-the-sky promises without any substantiation.

Jim Lehrer, Bill Moyer, Curious George and Big Bird - your days are numbered. But maybe one of Mr. Romney's business "small" business associates will give you a job . . .

NW Portlander wrote: From the perspective of an old Lincoln/Douglas and Oxford high school and college debator, this was not a debate.

If you want to win the highest office in the land, then you have to show up and battle it out under the rules in effect, not the rules you really wanted.


Both parties have input on the debate format I believe the next two events have different rules, including one with a "town hall" format. Seems fair to me... bring it.

The candidates have two choices: Engage in whatever passes for a debate, or decline to participate. If you're not ready to wade in and face your opponent, then you might not win the office.

The format isn't the problem. The moderator wasn't the problem. The altitude wasn't a problem. The *ideas* are the problem. The *record* is the problem.

Even I'd rather have a beer with Oblameo than Romney (except I'd get HIS beer).

But if I HAD to trust someone with my checkbook and a power of attorney for some reason, I would never trust anyone with so many question marks as Obama has in HIS background.

It was the Packers - Seahawks redux: Neither side won or lost, nor could, nor cared to. That's not what it -- the (USA) problem -- is all about anyway. It's about the refs.
The 'refs,' that is, the massTVmedia.

Our 3rd gen descendants won't even remember the names of the teams in 'the game in Seattle.' They'll remember 'it was all about the refs.'

"But, but, the media told me that Obama was the ..." ~ Random
There's the problem spoken right there.
"Obama has been a lifelong politician." ~ Ron wade
That's a No-Information viewpoint. (Riffing on the meme 'Low-Information Voter.') However and anyway by reading Obama's biography as best informed -- parentage natures and timeline of nurturing experiences -- the overall summary in obituarial epitaph is less like 'politician' and more like 'opportunist,' which is the same as car saleman: he isn't there to fix, build or improve the product, he's only there to sell it, whatever he finds on the floor, in stock, on hand, when he came to work, (cars or government, no matter). A car salesman is not a politician, he's an agent. Read the biographic material and then consider how real the possibility, plausibility seems to you: Obama could be a lifelong agent.

A synonym for 'massTVmedia' (which doesn't refer to any of the persons or personalities in it), is 'CIA' (which doesn't refer to any of the persons or personalities in it). And the most reasonable, strongest argument that 'massTVmedia' is interchangeable with 'CIA' is argued this way: 'Agency' statements when TV started (1950s) stated exactly that they ('CIA') were intending and determined to control and operate mass media ('TV') in order to control and operate public thought; (uh, 'publicly-distributed intelligence'). They flat out said boasting they were the ones doing it, and there are countless examples that they did and do do it.
The only other suspects with the means and opportunities are: the actual persons and personalities working in and producing 'massTVmedia,' and they all say they don't control TV; each of them say, "it's just a paying job, I love to perform."

Those of us who remember living life before TV can clearly see the difference in glaring contrast as opposed to now. Eisenhower and Stevenson did not 'debate' in 1952, on TV or otherwise; (neither one was the incumbent POTUS). Or maybe they did and I missed it. [ www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1952.html ] Earlier, certainly 1948 and always before prez candidates NEVER had TV Debate and I can't think of any (1792-1948) that had any 'debates' at a joint appearance. Or if they did it wasn't publicly known; (no TV cameras in House and Senate chambers).
Our 3rd gen descendants likely won't remember living life before smartphones, which are the '2-way wrist TV' devices Dick Tracy (Chester Gould) was socio-politicking us with in the 1950s. It seems to me today's moment is ripe for a flash election of a '3rd Party' not-seen-on-TV candidate overnight garnering veritably 50 million 'like friends' signing in a virile election VoteBook.

Neither O. or R. deserves nor is worthy to be Prez. They're both jerks, insipid jackasses. Personally. Federal elections are become Fall Series episodes of 'USA's Got Politicians.' In it for themselves, only. I mean, there are recording contracts! and TVguest appearances! at stake, a career and millions of dollars, whether scoring second-place or next-to-last in a two-man contest.

"Most of the tv ad times ... are already bought up, btw .... Those bloody things do make an impact in the end." ~ Mojo
TV Control (wherever that is) must not allow lopsided over-and-done 'decisions' ahead of time. (Nor can 'they' allow un-decisions dragging on into the Christmas TV ads solstice schedule.) If polling disparity finds one candidate too far ahead too soon and one too far behind, then TV Control cooks the books and fudge-factors the polls in order to disappear the image of disparity. It's gonna be close, too close to call, stay tuned in for more information. If some accidental untoward 'thing' happens to one of the candidates, aliens abduct him let's say, and so the staged 'opposition' ends, then you can be sure all the TV ad-buy contracts would be canceled ... TV 'earnings' would crater, it might crash the economy. No doubt these bloody things absolutely do make an impact hyping the TV phantasmagoria. Yet the matter of imagery is regularly grandly overestimated. TVbites don't change anyone's vote, it has no material effect on competitively ingrained ruts. In truth, (what no one tells pollsters), everyone's gut vote is already set either for or against the obvious (choice), there are NO 'undecideds' actually, (except the group undecided as to whether or not they'll bother to vote at all), and it turns out the same in the end as "if the election were held today ...," but without October's TV revenue of words from our sponsors.

Romney's behavior was on oxycontin. Obama's behavior was on ambien. Which shows the complete gamut of personalities that TV audience identifies with and votes for (or against). They both give me the creeps.

* But, do beware the Diebold Effect. *
Which in fact trumps everything else. The computer machinery for Touch-the-TV voting is pre-programmed and ready already to produce Karl Rove's favorite fraudulent ballot counts. Read all about it.


If Obama were an airplane, he'd be a B-17G

Bob T:

Nah -- he'd be a Brewster Buffalo.

Tensk, I read your first two paragraphs and thought you made a good point (without still knowing who wrote it). Then it went bad. Were you channeling Obama and his long oratory style?

thanks I guess, lw.
My problem: I don't understand why good people berate each other over mirage candidates, as if they were men in fact. They are not men. I keep thinking that people might see the actual men corporeal in plain view along the side and in the background of political power positions, if those treacherous men were simply pointed out and named. Massmedia doesn't point out those subversive and seditious players and news shapers since massmedia is some of them.

Obama's team wants him to be the underdog, and represent the little man. They lowered expectations prior to the debate. It's not beyond possibility he threw the debate without being obvious in order to grasp the mantle of the underdog/challenger/anti-establishment candidate. That's how he won the first time. There's nowhere to go but up from here, and no way it gets worse. The next two debates will be either a draw or proclaimed a "win" for Obama and the buzz will be he's rising, and just in time.

...That's how he won the first time. There's nowhere to go but up from here, and no way it gets worse. The next two debates will be either a draw or proclaimed a "win" for Obama and the buzz will be he's rising, and just in time.

I wouldn't put any scenarios past these two parties and their kabuki theater. Enter the
machines another spooky element to contend with!

Clicky Web Analytics