Republicans continue post-election outreach programs

Following their losses in the 2012 elections, Republican officials across America have stepped up their outreach efforts to improve their standing with black voters, voters over age 65, college students, disaster victims, voters with disabilities and women voters.

• Ron Weiser, finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, continues his party’s outreach to black voters.

• Sen. Tom Coburn explores new strategy for Republican outreach to voters over age 65.

• Florida Republican leaders explain outreach effort to appeal to younger voters.

• Rep. Scott Garrett continues Republican outreach to victims of natural disasters.

• Rick Santorum spearheads Republican outreach to voters with disabilities and those who love them.

• House Republicans outline plan to demonstrate commitment to women and minorities.

• Glenn Reynolds also offers his plan for Republican outreach to women voters.

• Rep. Steve King continues Republican outreach to Latino voters.

 

  • That Other Jean

    I do hope they all keep it up, loudly.  That way, unless the American people are irreparably stupid, no Republican will ever be elected to any public office, ever again.

  • Tricksterson

    Unless Garrett isn’t planning on running again howthehell does he expect to get re-elected?

  • P J Evans

     Shh – we’re not supposed to notice what he’s actually saying, we’re supposed to just trust him, because he’s a Real True Amercian.

    (Typo unintentional, but I’m leaving it. Dear Ghu, it’s hard to understand how they’re that disconnected from reality and still alive and walking around.)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Do they really have such a tin ear that they think hectoring non-whites is the way to win their hearts and minds?

    This kind of holier-than-thou behavior which assumes that the scales will just fall from the target’s eyes and the light will be seen and the One True Way revealed is very reminiscent of the way Bush’s cabal thought they could run the post-war Iraqi occupation.

  • Lori

    If he’s in a skillfully gerrymandered district he can say whatever he wants and as long as he has a pulse and an (R) next to his name he’ll get reelected. We really need to do something about non-partisan redistricting.

  • Gotchaye

     It’s mostly beside the point.  I’m sure there are some who are misguided enough to think that this actually is how to go about appealing to a broader section of the population, but what Lori says just above doesn’t go far enough.  An R next to your name /doesn’t/ guarantee reelection in these highly-gerrymandered districts – you have to win the primary first.  And winning the primary is about winning exactly the people who are going to guarantee that the general election candidate with an R next to his or her name always wins.

    It’s like Gingrich in the presidential primaries.  The point is not to convince black people that he wants what’s best for them or that he’s on their side or even that he particularly likes them.  The point is to be seen to be taking a “tough love” sort of position with respect to black Americans for the benefit of the people who buy Gingrich’s books or who tune in to watch when he’s on TV.  Speaking truth to power, and all that.  Gingrich never had any reason to care what 95% of black Americans thought of what he was saying.

  • P J Evans

    An R next to your name /doesn’t/ guarantee reelection in these
    highly-gerrymandered districts – you have to win the primary first.

    But having the district boundaries drawn by your party makes it so much easier to win.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    I thought gerrymandering only helped you win the general election. If you lose a primary because you embarrassed yourself before your constituents, then — yes — your party will still probably keep the seat but only after replacing you with someone else on the ticket.

    (For example, Missouri is a fairly conservative state but I think that the Republicans would have liked to replace Todd Akin with someone else on the ballot, because even a state that leans conservative won’t put up with absolutely anything a Republican says or does. Voters do have a way of shutting that kind of thing down.) 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Pretty much, yeah. The problem is, outside of House of Representatives elections, it’s harder and harder to gerrymander enough to win an election without at least being competitive. You have to at least be tolerable during the primaries to people nearer the center, because you can’t get people to just forget about all that stuff when you try to pivot in the general election. 

    Romney kind of got tripped up by that; he was trying to out-scumbag Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich, and he more or less succeeded, but he had to run away from all that the moment the convention started because the hardcore right-wingers that control some of the really competitive battleground state primaries are not really representative of even most Republicans, much less most American voters. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I just don’t get how Mitt Romney can commit Republican heresy by conceding that African Americans in particular do not benefit as much as whites do, and for it to go down the Republican memory hole so completely that:

    1. Nobody from the (R) side threw a huge strop over it,

    2. Nobody from the (R) side took the chance to build on that tentative olive branch and begin shifting Republican policies to better benefit people of color.

    I mean, when your leading candidate implicitly concedes that Republican dogma about equality of opportunity is wrong, it should be time to wake up and smell the coffee!

  • Ima Pseudonym

    You know what would be really awesome?  If the congresscritters howling to cut social security, medicare and medicaid had to spend a month or three trying to live on it.  

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I know Santorum is both an idiot and an arse, but I’m still surprised at his stance on the convention wrt people with disabilities. Often people like him have less arsey stances on things that have personal experience with (see, Dick Cheney and LGBT rights) , which suggests to me that the problem is a lack of imagination and empathy for people they don’t directly relate to.

    Also, I know a lot of very conservative Catholics and for all the many things we disagree about, as a group they tend to be strong on support for people with disabilities. I don’t know any anti-UN freaks, though, so I guess it’s a shock for me to see the UN crap outweight the usually admirable disability position.

  • Turcano

    He’s not.

  • Jeff

    As a Republican, I don’t love the idea of “outreach”, because it can come across as pandering, which is what Democrats do.  But it is a tough problem.  If Republicans believe that their agenda and values — strong families, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, individual liberties, etc. — are congruent with those of non-white constituenices, but those constituencies overwhelmingly vote Democratic, what accounts for this, and what can be done about it?  So the perception seems to be that it’s perhaps a matter of better messaging.  And who will deliver that messaging?  Certainly not the media!  It’s an interesting parallel with faith.  Christians believe that the Gospel is important and that people would respond favorably to it, if they heard it.  But so many don’t want to hear it; at least, not packaged in its familiar trappings.  How to present it in a way that people will respond to?

  • Carstonio

    Looking at the all-white-male lineup of House committee chairs, I suspect that a majority are also evangelicals, and that any Catholics are similar to Paul Ryan.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Have you considered that perhaps the problem isn’t the messaging but the message?

    Because, you know, people whose primary political concern is that they’re on the low end of the income disparity tend to object to political efforts to move money from folks with not much to folks with lots. People whose primary political concern is the ability to not have another baby tend to object to political efforts to make contraception and abortion less accessible. People whose primary political concern is the way that poor and imprisoned demographics skew brown while rich demographics skew white tend to object to political efforts to enforce that disparity including but not limited to stopping black folks on suspicion more often per hundred black folks than stopping white folks on suspicion per hundred white folks (which, since black folks and white use drugs at about the same rate, means the people busted for possession are a higher percentage black than the local population is), enforcing harsh drug sentences more often on poor black folk than on rich white folk, and for-profit prisons.

  • Jeff

    Well, I do think that at least part of the problem is that people like you, and the politicians you (presumably) support, distort the Republican message, and are apparently able to persuade minority voters that your distorted version of the message is the actual message.  A fine example is the way you reflexively grasp for the class warfare card.  No one advocates taking money away from the poor and giving it to the rich; your caricature is even more extreme than the Obama campaign’s, and that’s saying something.  Have the intellectual honesty to say what Republicans *actually* support. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    No one advocates taking money away from the poor and giving it to the rich

    Which clearly explains why companies making record profits pay no taxes (GE) and/or get massive subsidies (oil companies), why I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney does when he makes in ten hours what I earn in a year, and why predatory lending institutions continue to exist.

  • EllieMurasaki

    (If you’re going to go on about intellectual honesty, it might behoove you to look at what Republican policies actually do.)

    (It’s only class warfare when the underclass start making noise about maybe striking back.)

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh, and let’s not forget all the companies–Walmart leading the pack–where the astoundingly high profits for the owners are at least in part due to paying the employees less than a living wage and hiring two people at twenty hours a week apiece rather than one at forty a week who would consequently have to be paid benefits.

  • http://loosviews.livejournal.com BringTheNoise

     No one advocates taking money away from the poor and giving it to the rich

    I must have imagined all those calls for tax cuts on the rich and reductions in “entitlement” spending then. Because that is exactly what those things do. And you know that.

  • EllieMurasaki

    And let’s not forget the Republican insistence that the proper place for a woman is working in the home to raise her kids with no pay save her allowance from her husband’s paycheck. Unless she’s a poor single mom, in which case how dare she do anything but work a sixty-hour week every week. And should she go on food stamps and attempt to get out of poverty, better make sure to set the asset rules concerning food stamps such that she has no way of accumulating a thousand-dollar emergency fund, let alone a three-, six-, or twelve-months-of-expenses emergency fund, without the food stamps being yanked out from under her such that she has to withdraw savings to keep enough calories coming in. (If she’s lucky enough to live in a state where her car doesn’t count toward her assets.)

    In case you have never felt the need to search out personal finance advice, the very first thing every personal finance advisor says everyone should do is save at least a thousand dollars, preferably enough to cover
    all living expenses for at least a few months, for in case of emergency.

  • Beroli

    Jeff, I am, for the moment, presuming you have at least a soupcon of honesty here.

    Your first sentence in this comment says “…the Republican message.” Your third says “advocates.” Your fourth and final sentence says “support.”

    Those are three different concepts. Generally, for those of us who observe that the Republican Party is now synonymous with money and power being ever-more-concentrated in the hands of a small cluster of straight, white men, the last one–”support”–is the one that matters. Saying “fiscal restraint, personal responsibility” rather than, “Rob the poor to feed the rich!” means nothing, the fact that your fiscal policies amount to money flowing from the poor to the rich means everything. Not all the talking points about “job creators,” not all the blithe assertions that lower taxes on the wealthy inherently mean greater economic growth, change the real-world effects of the policies the Republican Party pushes for.

    But by all means, double down on your belief that everyone wants to be a Republican if you can just find the right phrasing to tell them what being a Republican means.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Christians believe that the Gospel is important and that people would respond favorably to it, if they heard it. But so many don’t want to hear it; at least, not packaged in its familiar trappings. How to present it in a way that people will respond to?

    If you take out all the bits about two people (or, in most framings, one person, and by implication all the people with the same bits between the legs as that person) being responsible for all the wrong in the world, and about one person relieving the rest of us of all responsibility for the things we’ve done wrong, and about forgiveness for wrongdoing being in the hands of God rather than of the wrong-done-to, and (if you want to go for bonus points in the form of starting with conservative Christianity rather than the liberal Christianity our host subscribes to) about wealth being a sign of God’s favor and about sex being a thing to reserve for marriage and childbearing (and God forbid there be one of the three without the other two) and about the ‘loving’ response to someone who’s not following this religion’s rules (even if they are faithfully following the rules of their own religion, or behaving in accordance with their non-religiously-based code of ethics) being to smack them with this religion’s rules and threaten them with eternal punishment for finite wrongs (that are only wrongs because this religion says they’re wrong)…

    Well, it wouldn’t look a hell of a lot like the Christianity you started with, but it might attract the people who have run screaming from the Christianity you started with on account of all the above flaws of said Christianity.

  • Jeff

    There are no calls by anyone for tax cuts on the “rich”, which you know perfectly well.  Republicans advocate maintaining the current taxation levels, as opposed to increasing the tax rate on high earners, which the President supports.  The President advocates this primarily as a mechanism to close the deficit.  The problem, of course, is that the tax increase he advocates is at least an order of magnitude apart from the magnitude of the deficit.  So it won’t really help fight the deficit, and it may do harm, if you believe that the small business owners (or at least, the ones who pay their business taxes on their individual returns) will (as an aggregate) hire less if more of their profit goes to the gov’t.

    The calls for reductions in entitlement spending reflect the fact, agreed upon by all, that current and projected levels of entitlement spending are unsustainable in the long term.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Wait, no, I think I mischaracterized liberal Christianity, my apologies, bump the part of my previous comment about Adam and Eve from the all-of-Christianity section to the conservative-Christianity section. Maybe the bit about assuming that the person upset and/or bleeding by a hurtful act is of no relevance to whether the person who did the hurtful act is forgiven for it, too. And add a bit to the conservative-Christianity section about the conservative-Christian requirement that its adherents subscribe to the bullshit belief that evolutionary biology is itself bullshit and the other bullshit belief that humans are incapable of doing large-scale and/or permanent damage to the planet and (in many cases) the other bullshit belief that Jesus is coming Real Soon Now to whisk the True Believers off to paradise and torment the rest of us for the rest of ever.

  • EllieMurasaki

    If you want a dollar of government spending to produce nearly two dollars in economic activity, give that dollar to a poor person in food stamps or unemployment benefits. If you want that dollar to produce thirty cents or so in economic activity, give that dollar to a rich person in tax cuts (personal or corporate) or subsidies to established businesses.

  • Jeff

    I’d like to think that I have a soupcon of honesty, if I knew what a soupcon was.  But I wonder whether you do.  To wit:  I didn’t say that everyone wants to be a Republican.  What I actually said was that there are members of minority communities who hold views that are compatible with Republican positions, but those people vote Democratic.  For example, the African American community votes overwhelmingly Democratic (95%, I think?), yet for African American Christians, certain Democratic positions (e.g. abortion) are problematic.  So for that subset of African American voters who vote Democratic in spite of their beliefs, (a) why do they do that, and (b) how can Republicans connect with those individuals and persuade them to vote Republican?  It’s a separate question from how to persuade people with beliefs that are NOT compatible with Republican positions, although I of course think that too is important and worthwhile.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *soupçon*
    A very small amount; a hint; a trace.

    I’m thinking that those African-American voters consider compelling people to continue pregnancies that risk their physical, mental, and/or financial health to be less important than making sure food stamps (which are some people’s whole food budget and which are never enough per person to be anyone’s whole food budget) don’t get cut any further, and/or less important than bringing the percentage of black men in the criminal justice system (about a fourth, lifetime) in line with the percentage of white men in the criminal justice system (about a twentieth, lifetime).

    I note that I said several things before BringTheNoise and Beroli said anything, and you saw their comments so you must have seen mine, and you have responded to them and not me. I do not like being ignored.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    We’ve seen what happens in similar situations. They either succeed with great difficulty, or they give up. They make a statement about how they have a newfound respect for the difficulties americans face. They describe them as heroes.  And then they go right back to trying to cut those programs, happy and self-assured that those noble heroic americans will rise to meet the challenge.

    Because, just like how we can’t have sensible gun control laws, we can’t have sensible public assistance. Because then the people on it wouldn’t be “heroes”, and being a hero is totally worth any death toll.

  • EllieMurasaki

    That and it’s never the same to begin with. For somebody who’s living on a budget equivalent to public assistance in order to find out what it’s like to live on public assistance, giving up and going back to the comfy salary is an option. For someone who is actually, y’know, living on public assistance…

  • Beroli

     

    For example, the African American community votes overwhelmingly
    Democratic (95%, I think?), yet for African American Christians, certain
    Democratic positions (e.g. abortion) are problematic.  So for that
    subset of African American voters who vote Democratic in spite of their
    beliefs, (a) why do they do that,

    The obvious answer would seem to be “because they find Republican positions even more problematic.” Of course–that’s an answer that means you have to do something other than repackage the same message, and so, as this post comments on, Republicans prefer not to acknowledge it.

    Putting all your eggs in the anti-choice basket and expecting single-issue voters to carry elections for you is a losing strategy, and gets worse every year. Please continue to use it.

  • wendy

    Here’s a start, one free pro-tip:

    Black voters. More than 30% are solidly conservative — on economics, on foreign policy, on crime, on guns and abortion and family and personal responsibility and a whole host of other issues. Yet they’ve been voting more than 90% Democrat since the 1960′s. Because voter suppression is a dealbreaker. VOTING RIGHTS is their a-number-one issue. 

    They will happily stand in line 8 hours to vote for somebody they disagree with on every single other thing when one party wants to make it easier to vote and the other party wants to make it harder to vote. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    That hadn’t occurred to me but it makes sense. And if it’s true, given that the reason Republicans are suppressing the black vote (at least the reason they’re saying out loud for why they’ve been doing it recently) is the overwhelming Democraticness of the black vote, then Republicans really are trying to fuck themselves running, aren’t they?

  • hidden_urchin

    If the Republican Party wants to attract a certain demographic, e.g. ethnic minority groups, then the number one thing GOP politicians have to start doing is stop insulting those voters by implying, for example, that they are willing to commit voter fraud for the Democratic Party or that they vote Democrat just because they want government handouts.  That is the very first thing the GOP must do.  People will not vote for politicians who hold them in contempt.

    Until the GOP stops showing contempt for entire segments of the population nothing else matters.  However, if you want a hint as to what step two is, the GOP needs to start listening to potential voters instead of having conversations with empty chairs.  A lot of people don’t vote based on ideology but actually do pay attention to how their lives will be materially affected by certain policies.  See, for example, the ultra-wealthy who have successfully campaigned for years to keep the government from making them pay their fair share in taxes.  Actually, drawing Democratic voters might mean that the GOP has to swing moderate on some positions such as mariage equality.

    In addition to the above two changes, there is one more thing the GOP must do to attract non-Republican voters.  It has to split from the Tea Party.  You cannot appeal to every one in politics so you try to appeal to the most people possible.  The Tea Party is a small, extremist movement and pandering to those voters will necessarily reduce the number of non-Tea Party voters willing to vote GOP.  Lose the Tea Party and its accompanying platform and one has a shot at gaining back lost conservative independents.

  • BC

    If Republicans believe that their agenda and values — strong families, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, individual liberties, etc.  
    Well, as someone who never, never votes Republican, I can tell you that this is NOT the Republican agenda that was acted on during the Bush and Republican Congress days.  “Strong families” = anti-gay, that’s all the Republicans ever did to help create “strong” families.  “Personal responsibility” = not taking responsibility for the effect of their policies on the Great Recession, trying mightily to push the blame onto minority homeowners.  “Fiscal restraint” = I’m laughing at this;  have you seen the chart that shows how we got to the large debt we now have?  It’s Bush tax cuts, Iraq war, Afghanistan war, and the Part D (prescription) Medicare.  All Republican ideas, the Republicans even went so far as refusing Medicare the right to bargain for lower drug costs that the VA health system uses to keep costs down.   Also, Dick Cheney famously said , “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”   “Individual liberties” = Patriot Act, anyone?   This, too, is Republican idea.   For women:  The Republican fetish for anti-abortion legislation pushes medical tests for non-medical reasons (ultrasounds) and attempts to propagandize women for a political reason.  At the same time, Republicans are slashing spending on WIC, which helps pregnant and lactating women and infants and young children maintain a healthy diet for a developing and growing child.

  • http://loosviews.livejournal.com BringTheNoise

    There are no calls by anyone for tax cuts on the “rich”, which you know perfectly well.

    Fine, the GOP wishes to extend the tax cuts Bush II signed into law, which would otherwise expire, and are fighting to the wire to include people earning over $250,000 per year. The current position requires positive action to remain such, and the Republicans are fighting to do that. If that’s somehow different to wanting a tax cut to you, then so be it, but it looks indistinguishable from where I’m standing.

  • Lori

     

    As a Republican, I don’t love the idea of “outreach”, because it can come across as pandering, which is what Democrats do.   

    It’s always nice when someone’s first sentence serves as fair warning not to pay any attention to anything they have to say. It’s so polite and considerate.

    If Republicans believe that their agenda and values — strong families,
    personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, individual liberties, etc.   

    Individual Republicans may believe in these things, but as a party the GOP do not believe in any of them. If we as a nation are very fortunate, the days when the GOP could use these supposed values as a smokescreen are coming to an end.

     

    How to present it in a way that people will respond to?   

    Not holding them in contempt would be a good place to start. As would stopping the practice of using values, which as I noted are a lie at the party level, as a tool of control.

    IOW, the GOP needs to be a totally different organization than it currently is.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    There are no calls by anyone for tax cuts on the “rich”

    Romney’s plan included a “permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates” as well as eliminating the estate tax and repealing the AMT.

  • Lori

     

    No one advocates taking money away from the poor and giving it to the
    rich; your caricature is even more extreme than the Obama campaign’s,
    and that’s saying something.  

    Have you actually looked at the polices currently be advocated by your party Jeff? And no, watching Fox News doesn’t count. I mean, have you actually sat down and looked at a fact-based report on what your party is currently doing? Because they are advocating taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. That is not a caricature, it’s fact.

     

    Have the intellectual honesty to say what
    Republicans *actually* support.    

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  • Lori

     

    Oh, and let’s not forget all the companies–Walmart leading the
    pack–where the astoundingly high profits for the owners are at least in
    part due to paying the employees less than a living wage and hiring two
    people at twenty hours a week apiece rather than one at forty a week
    who would consequently have to be paid benefits.   

    The kicker being that many Walmart employees need food stamps as a result of this policy. Which means that tax payers are subsidizing increasing the vast fortune of people who are already fabulously wealthy for no reason other than being direct descendents of Sam Walton.

  • Lori

     

    if you believe that the small business owners (or at least, the ones
    who pay their business taxes on their individual returns) will (as an
    aggregate) hire less if more of their profit goes to the gov’t.   

    I do not. Because I A) know actual small business owners and B) have looked at economic history.

     

    The calls for reductions in entitlement spending reflect the fact,
    agreed upon by all, that current and projected levels of entitlement
    spending are unsustainable in the long term.  

    The fact that you believe, or would at least say that you believe, that this fact is “agreed upon by all” tells me that your information sources are severely limited and not very good.

  • Lori

     

    I’d like to think that I have a soupcon of honesty, if I knew what a soupcon was. 

    Let me Goggle that for you

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=soupcon

  • Lori

     

    For example, the African American community votes overwhelmingly
    Democratic (95%, I think?), yet for African American Christians, certain
    Democratic positions (e.g. abortion) are problematic.  So for that
    subset of African American voters who vote Democratic in spite of their
    beliefs, (a) why do they do that, 

    Because they consider the fact that the GOP uses racism to pander (why yes, the Republicans do it too) to it’s base and in the process does real harm to people who aren’t white, to be more important than using the law to strip women of their bodily autonomy.

     

    and (b) how can Republicans connect
    with those individuals and persuade them to vote Republican?  

    Good luck with that.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    As a Republican, I don’t love the idea of “outreach”, because it can come across as pandering, which is what Democrats do

    Implicit in this statement is the idea that the default member of the party is a white male, otherwise there’d be no “out” in the reaching. Trust me, there’s a big difference between “including” and “pandering”, and the people you consider “out” are aware of the difference.

  • AnonymousSam

    Yeah, oddly enough, when Herman Cain says that the only reason Romney’s African American support was so low is because the African American Republicans were at work when the calls were made, a number of African Americans greater than zero happened to notice that they were African American and a little tired of Republican racist dog-foghorns.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    pandering, which is what Democrats do

    Ho! Please, pull the other one!

    Republicans most definitely do pander, in spades. Every time one of your guys talks about “inner-city entitlements”, that’s code for “those lazy shiftless black people sucking down welfare by the trainload”*.

    * Even though actual TANF spending is a piddly fraction of the US federal budget and the kinds of “entitlements” people don’t normally think of as such because they go to the middle class are what really gobble up federal spending: namely, military and social-security spending along with federal Medicare for seniors.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    also, as spake by Jeff:

    fiscal restraint

    fiscal restraint

    fiscal restraint

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

    A Republican virtue?

    Do, please try not to make me get a heart attack laughing mmkay

    Or do deficits mysteriously not matter when they’re about tax cuts for rich people and waving around the US’s metaphorical giant dick, a.k.a. its military?

  • BaseDeltaZero

    Okay, who the hell invited Satan into the thread?

  • fredgiblet

    I for one support this.  I want to see the Republicans double-down on everything that’s blatantly wrong with them, hopefully they’ll lose 2016 so badly that they collapse and split.  Then we can have some re-organization and get a decent party or two out of the chaos.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X