Cable News Candidate Proxy Wars…

The New York Times Brian Stelter writes about cable news adn its growing role as a proxy for electoral candidate battles…

That is what cable news does now: fire up the base.

Even more than they did than in 2008, Fox News Channel and its left-leaning counterpart MSNBC are playing outsize roles in the midterm elections this year. Attacking the news media is time-honored in politics, but the recent fund-raising efforts show how some candidates and groups have been directing their attack ads this year not at other candidates, but at cable television.

Marco Rubio, the Republican Senate candidate in Florida, said in a Web ad over the summer that his economic plan must be right because the MSNBC host “Rachel Maddow thinks it’s wrong.” Christine O’Donnell, the Republican Senate candidate in Delaware, criticized “the liberal media led by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann” in an e-mail pitch last month — conveniently next to the “Donate Now” button.

81 Responses to “Cable News Candidate Proxy Wars…”

  1. Christine O’Donnell Trying To Break the Spell on Delaware. Trick Or Treat It’s Your Choice Delaware.

  2. Nice to see you again, Laree, but how ’bout responding to the topic?

  3. Not a lot of news in the article; just rehashed stuff that’s been talked to death already.

    It’s not news that both FNC & MSNBC have distinct political POV’s but aside from the fact that one is conservitive, one progressive there are really only two differences between the two. One is ratings and the other is FNC’s actively fundraising; e.g.promoting candidate websites on air, asking viewers to donate to conservitive groups, hosts attending fundraising events and letting guests directly ask for money.

    At some point the legality of such blatant political activities by a supposed neutral news network will have to be dealt with by the FEC & others.

    MSNBC; although it has a definite bias towards the Democrats; has stayed away from direct political fundraising – so far.

  4. Exactly, Fritz. Fox is an active participant in the GOP’s campaign activities, and that’s just the way their constituents/viewers like it. What’s that word that rhymes with ‘pullschnit’..

  5. It is all one grand, fat circus. The first order of disaster is the surplus of non adult candidates. The second order of disaster is that too many news networks concentrate, not on news or even opinions, but, rather, sound bites.
    There have always been lies, it is just that, in 2010, there are more and they are put out again and again. Please remember that most voters have not been paying attention and when they do check in and hear some piece of garbage, they assume that it is fact, or, if they did not follow all of the factfinding on some unbelievable fact, they will assume that it is false. Newspapers used to filter all of this, but, enen they have been dummied down by the lack of quality journalism.

  6. Ironically, “progressive” seems so much a big step backward.

    The political process, itself, has been increasingly reliant on the misuse of sound bites ever since recorded radio and television came into being. Before that it was the misuse of written quotes. What we’re seeing with the cable news nets, today, is the logical progression of that.

  7. “Progressive” should be the eighth word you can’t say on television. It’s presumptuous and precocious and condescending and I hate it.

  8. Promoting candidates’ websites? Happens regularly on MSNBC. The other day not only did a honcho for some Dem Senate candidate promote the website on air, he solicited for volunteers to come man the polls for his guy. Nobody raised an eyebrow about that.

    I’m uncomfortable with allowing solicitations on air, whether for money, volunteers, or whatever. Letting a guy give his website out though doesn’t strike me as some great travesty. A venial sin at most, if that.

  9. Joe

    the topic is Cable News Candidate Proxy Wars…Christine O’Donnell a candidate the last time I checked is mentioned by Spud here.

    ” Christine O’Donnell, the Republican Senate candidate in Delaware, criticized “the liberal media led by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann” in an e-mail pitch last month — conveniently next to the “Donate Now” button.

    And what the MSM is doing for the Democrat candidates by creating narratives about their opponents, and repeating them over and over again is here.

  10. redorth Says:
    October 23, 2010 at 7:06 pm

    It is all one grand, fat circus.

    I did name my blog “You Have To Be This Tall To Go On This Ride” so you didn’t arrive at that conclusion first 🙂

  11. Of the activities Fritz listed as egregious, I would drop websites. EVERYONE promotes their website; politicians, actors, authors, guest pundits..everyone.

  12. Point taken, Laree. I have a “thing” about people who post a link to their own blog without commenting. Which I should probably keep to myself since this isn’t MY blog..

  13. …plus, it was nice when you started chatting with us. You haven’t done that in awhile.

  14. Letting someone give out their website is fundraising on air, isn’t it? What’s the first thing you see on any candidate’s website? I just tried a handful, and the answer is: a big red button that says “DONATE”

  15. If you will allow me to continue on my pout, I will contend that the core of the problem is the relationship between the political parties and corporations. Seems that so many candidates do not run to serve, but rather, to create or maintain a career. This is absolutely no revelation to you all, I know, I just wanted to add my two cents worth of agreement.
    I just haven’t seen anybody that wasn’t in the pocket of a corporation, special interest group or some silly zealotry, since my days in college in 1965-9 (the era when the wackos took over the street). I am gravitating into the depression that our Nation doesn’t matter anymore and only “power” matters.
    Besides, my Sooners were badly beaten tonight and I am having a very poor temper tantrum. Wonder if this is how Chuck Todd felt when Miami was bashed. Sorry, I appologize.

  16. -politicians in the pocket of a corporation, special interest group… etc.-

    We all tout this line from time to time (or “pout” it, in fred’s case) but I believe it is important to keep in mind that we possess an enumerated constitutional right to petition our elected representatives. The “we” includes not only American citizens as individuals, but also as organised groups by those who hold our proxy. “Special interest groups” include labour unions, corporations (which are also individual taxpayers), trade associations, as well as single-purpose societies such as the Multiple Sclerosis Society of America, or NAACP, etc.

    If you’re running for or currently in office and you can’t voice your support for some special or corporate (job creating) interests then you have no business being a politician.

  17. Hey Fred, I don’t think you need to apologize for a good rant. You tend towards a magnanimous “can’t we all just get along” vibe in many of your posts. You’re more fun when you’re pissed. 😉

  18. “Promoting candidates’ websites? Happens regularly on MSNBC. The other day not only did a honcho for some Dem Senate candidate promote the website on air, he solicited for volunteers to come man the polls for his guy. Nobody raised an eyebrow about that.”

    Your right J$ and I probably worded that badly.

    You can’t stop a candidate, or a campaign staffer, from promoting their website on a show and that happens on all networks and even on Sunday shows.

    What I was referring to was the deliberate promotion of the website by the host or network by calling attention to it or putting it on the crawl.

    I may be wrong on this; and if I am I’m sure you will point out where; but MSNBC doesn’t do this; with a possible rare exception; and FNC does do it on a regular basis.

  19. Happens regularly on MSNBC. The other day not only did a honcho for some Dem Senate candidate promote the website on air, he solicited for volunteers to come man the polls for his guy. Nobody raised an eyebrow about that.

    I think if you say that it happens regularly on MSNBC, you should be able to prove it. As far as I know, it doesn’t happen regularly where MSNBC promotes the hell out of a candidate. The only show I’ve seen do something close to that is Ed Schultz, who’s brought on many people like Andrew Romanoff, Taryl Clark, the guy facing Boehner in Ohio, etc., and said how great they are. So, I’m not denying that.

    But, what other show did it happen on, Johnny? Because, like fritz, I haven’t seen it, either.

  20. Hannity & Hannity is the only cable show that I’m aware of with candidate promotions that are just shy of being blatant. As for the other FNC shows, though, I’ve seen Democratic candidates recite their web site addresses, too, but usually both sides are left with only detailing their talking points. The actual news stories appear to always be split evenly between the two major candidates, with the sole exception being Alaska… my perception is that Sen. Murkowski’s write-in campaign is getting more air time than the Democratic candidate.

    All of FNC’s conservative and liberal political contributors engage in candidate advocacy on their own time. Gov. Palin’s endorsements, however, are far more prominent simply because she’s hot right now – double entendre entendre’d. And the use of Rachel Maddow in campaign ads isn’t surprising at all, as she’s become the hot, new “Michael Moore” symbol… but whether that’s fair or not is questionable.

    I don’t recall Glenn Beck’s Washington rally being partisan, and even Gov. Palin’s speech during that event avoided partisanship. Neither Huckabee nor Palin is currently running for anything and they’ll be off the air if they do, so I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

  21. Final rant. The 5 to 4 Citizens United decision did not come from any sence of democracy. It was purely the product of POWER being abused. Idiots!

  22. Preach it, Fred. That ruling was obscene.

  23. Bulls**t! The decision was a good one – now it is up to the congress to try another avenue to control the spending. If we have to go through another set of court cases so be it. That’s how our system works. The fact the “The Anointed One” called out the decision in the State of the Union address does not make it a bad. The “Constitutional Scholar” misled the American people about the decision and he knew it but didn’t care about the truth. Even the “legal scholars” om MSNBC said he misrepresented the opinion. Get over it!

  24. YOU get over it, you screeching jerkface. The activist arsehole Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations to complete their takeover of American elections. I’m not gonna get over it.

  25. paminwi, Have you ever been on the Board of Directors of a publicly traded corporation? The mindset totally removes the “human” factor and replaces it with pure greed for profit. The “consumere” is not the public but, rather, the stockholder. Their object is to manipulate the stockholder into being happy purely via increased returns on their investment.
    Terms like freedom, justice and equality are totally redefined in the corporate structure. Every effort is utilized to bypass any regulation which causes expense or could negatively impact the bottom line. Any generosity is focused upon creating “value added” propaganda ment to positively impact the bottom line.
    Having said this, and gotten that out of my system, let me state that corporations do have great value as finanancial engines for society and the employees. They also create value in providing the “mostest for the leastest”. But they are not human and are not ment to think democratically. Their buying of politicians and, via funding and advertizing, buying the sucker public, corporations are just not in tune with the “rights of man”.
    I contend that the corporations should be kept out of the public sector (as if you hadn’t guessed that already) and keep their focus exclusively in the private sector.
    Sorry about the rant. My Sooners were REALLY bad last night and I tend to dwell, far to long, on these things.

  26. I really do wish that I could read what I type before I submit. It is either the exceptionall light color of the pre-submit type, a problem of my monitor, or, my poor eyesight. Regardless, please forgive my errors, I mean well.

  27. Of course, you had outside funding and unions buying elections long before this ‘horrendous’ ruling, and the ‘threat to democracy’ seemed less of a concern then. It’s all in who’s side is being supported and promoted, when you strip it all away.

  28. It seems to me reading the comments here that the opponents of the Court’s ruling in Citizens United don’t like it because corporations will now have the right to advocate polices they don’t agree with.

    Sorry, that’s not sufficient reason for me to prevent people from using their corporations for political speech. We’re not a democracy; we’re a constitutionally-limited republic that place limits on what the majority want. Even unpopular groups have rights.

    In any case, we’re now back to the same limits (broadly speaking) that we had prior to 2002 and the enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign laws.

  29. — McCain Feingold —

    Which should have been struck-down by the Supreme Court.

  30. “Of course, you had outside funding and unions buying elections long before this ‘horrendous’ ruling,”

    You guys say that crap all the time. Care to name me one elected official that had his seat won by union buying his election. It hasn’t happened.

  31. I am absolutely opposed to union contributions as well. My preference is that ALL elections receive nothing but public funding and the election results being the result of the merits rather than the depth of their money pockets. Guess I want to live in Europe.

  32. — You guys say that crap all the time. —

    Which is no different that you guys whining about evil corporations supporting positions that you don’t like. In the end, no one ‘buys’ anything, except for the ones that register fakes and vote with dead people. When I hear about ‘corporations’ doing that, I’ll deem it a valid concern.

  33. imnotblue Says:

    Not to give him any extra press on this (because he doesn’t really need it, although it is deserved), J$ responded to the article and the “challenge” put forth by Mr. Griffin.

    ProgLib should take special note:

  34. If I want to say something I have a constitutional right to say it. If I want what I say to reach as many people as possible, then I may have to take out full page ads in newspapers and/or infomercials on the telly if I can afford it.

    What’s obscene is that, in America, there are people who want to restrict my right to do so. They want to require me to use public- (means government) funded ads or accept spending limits. Seriously? That’s government-controlled speech and the freedom from that is a right so fundamental that it’s numbered “1” in our Bill of Rights.

  35. There’s a long history of politicians being in the pockets of unions. And unions using their power to get politicians elected. Union corruption in American politics is well documented (Teamsters anyone?).

    Yes, as is corporate corruption. Even more so.

    I find it shocking that people think that Americans who own a corporation shouldn’t have free speech rights to advocate for or against public policies. What are they supposed to do? Be silent? Just accept whatever policies the government proposes on them and their livelihood.?

    I’ll say it again: just because you don’t like what their political views are doesn’t mean you can suppress them.

  36. Good job, Al.

    There is no doubt that the ruling increases the likelihood of corruption in the political process. No doubt whatsoever.

    But suppressing the speech of Americans isn’t the solution.

    We need to find another way to mitigate this.

  37. George Will has it better than anyone.

    Quoted from Politico –
    — ”The trio of Meg Whitman in California, Rick Scott in Florida and Linda McMahon in Connecticut together have burned through more money than the Chamber of Commerce, American Crossroads..AFSCME have pledged to spend — combined….But here’s the punch line: None of these candidates is ahead in the polls. Two of them — Whitman and McMahon — are actually behind. —

  38. “except for the ones that register fakes and vote with dead people.”

    Yet another load of crap you guys spout. If you can’t name any elections that were proved to be bought by unions then perhaps you can name a single election that was won by voter fraud of fake registrations or dead people voting. It never happens. In fact I’ll bet you can’t even give me an example of a single instance of voter fraud using dead people voting or fake registrations that involved more than a handful of people. It just doesn’t happen anymore.

  39. Where in this world did I content a restriction on any individual’s right to free speech? Even individuals in a corporation or a union have ever right to speakout or contribute. My opposition is to enities being allowed to fund without transparancy or rules. Enities have minds of their own, well outside the interest of individuals.

  40. Man, this spelling thing is REALLY out of hand. Sorry for my typos.

  41. fritz3; it just happened in 2008 in Wisconsin at the presidential election. The initial lawsuit was over 50 people in the Milwaukee area and they are still working on fraudulent vote for over 700 others. It does happen and will continue to happen. In Wisconsin (I don’t know about other states) we have same day registration. You can register to vote by showing a utility bill, a cell phone bill, a car registration, etc. with an address on it and that is the address you will be registered at. Your address on that documentation DOES NOT need to match any photo id issued by our state. That is how fraud happens in Wisconsin. Please don’t say voter fraud does not occur unless you have the facts on your side. I work at the polls and have for 18 years so I know how easy it for someone to have voter fraud in Wisconsin. there has been a push for many years to have to show ID but the Democrats who have controlled out state legislature for years say that to show ID will disenfranchise voters.

  42. — you can’t name = it never happens —

    Can’t argue with flawless reasoning like that. Not much point in arguing, since you’ve decided that it ‘never’ happens. Much as you’ve decided that MSNBC has — so far — stayed away from direct political fundraising.
    Failure to recognize does not equal ‘doesn’t happen’.

  43. -Won by fake voter fraud-

    That would be Illinois going for Kennedy instead of Nixon. Unlike Vice President Gore, however, Vice President Nixon thought it best not to contest the election, thinking he might have another shot at the job if he accepted the defeat with grace.

  44. fredorth – no I have never been on the board of directors of a publicly traded company but I believe your fear of them buying elections is equal to my fear of unions buying elections. I just know that the unions (who I have negotiated contracts with as part of a personnel committee in my community (the teamsters) )do not take anything else into consideration when they want something for themselves – not our community, not the rest of the city employees – just whatever they want they will get and in Wisconsin there are rules about binding arbitration that if they hold out long enough we are REQUIRED to go to binding arbitration – which IMHO means the community (the taxpayers)gets screwed everytime they hold out.

  45. Pam; I never said it didn’t occur. I’m sure it does on both sides. Its just not ever decided an election. The cases you cite are handful of unproven allegations. No election was overturned.
    Al; that was over 50 years ago, if it was ever true at all. I’m talking something in the last few elections since this became an issue.
    Laura: If it happened you would tell me so just change the subject to something else. Weak.

  46. panwini, Other than for my idiot typos, you should have noticed that I included unions in the “no go” list for funding. Otherwise, nothing here is going to convince anybody of anything. I just wanted to rant and complain about my beloved Sooners playing badly (at least my refound team, the Cleveland Browns, won today).

  47. In my desperate attempt to ‘change the subject’, I’ll say that there is no reason to attempt voter fraud, except for the possibility that it may sway an election. By it’s nature, there is no way to irrefutably prove whether or not it has happened. It is then a matter of personal faith to say that it never happens. There’s an awful lot of close races where one could be excused for wondering.

    Apropos of nothing, it is the Democratic Party that consistently opposes voter identification at voting places, although I think we have it in GA. They also want to make it as easy as possible for every disinterested citizen to register and cast a vote. I personally think that if voting is as important as we say it is, we oughta be willing to make at least a nominal effort to do so. If I can’t be bothered to drive to a church in the middle of nowhere every couple years, then it must not be important enough to me.

  48. “Free speech” is used as an excuse to allow unregulated power and money into the election process. “You have to allow it, because it’s a constitutional right”, then they wipe their hands of all responsibility and walk on, content in their inerrant interpretation of the constitution. The problem is in treating the US Constitution as the Word of God.

    It’s just a damn founding document that has been amended numerous times to correct obvious deficiencies. To stand on it as All Knowing, while using it to hand this country over to the highest bidder, is unpatriotic.

    Chew on that awhile, kiddies..I’ve got some documents of my own that I’m way behind on..

  49. — It’s just a damn founding document that has been amended numerous times to correct obvious deficiencies. To stand on it as All Knowing, while using it to hand this country over to the highest bidder, is unpatriotic. —

    And that, dear children, is the difference between the two. Not to mention the screaming, whining fit that would be thrown if they were called ‘unpatriotic’.

  50. “just a damn founding document”…

    WOW! That’s about the most offensive thing I’ve read in a long, long time.

    The words on that damn founding document are the ones that every single man and woman who’s ever served in the military swore an oath to “uphold and defend” to the best of their ability… including their own deaths.

  51. Al, I have full empathy for your statement. I also contend that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, thus we have the Federal Court System. I just want to keep them honest.

  52. joeremi; I don’t appreciate being called a “screeching jerkface” I let it ride for awhile before I responded to what I consider to be irresponsible name calling – I appreciate that you have a VERY strong different opinion than you but name calling does not improve your argument – maybe diminishes it?

    I also actually feel bad for those folks who demean the Constitution – when you actually take the oath to uphold the Constitution for the first time you actually “hear” the words very differently than when you hear it for others to take the oath. I speak from personal experience when I say I view the document with some wonder as we have progressed forward as a country since I have had to “take the oath”.

  53. Give me a break, Al. My comment has nothing to do with people who served in the military. It has everything to do with treating the Constitution as an inerrant tome that only means one thing. It’s the same argument I have with people about the Bible. Those who perceive it as literal and without flaw have to ignore its many contradictions – including different versions of the same story in the Gospels – and pretend that perceptions of its meaning have never changed based on the realities of the current day.

    I don’t think the Founders envisioned the level of power and money we now see exerted on our political process, and I don’t think a literal, “constructionist” interpretation of the First Amendment answers the question of “fairness” that our current reality confronts us with.

  54. I don’t appreciate being called a “screeching jerkface”

    I don’t appreciate being told to “get over it!”. If you’re going to discount my opinions by yelling at me, you’re gonna get it back.

  55. It’s pretty difficult to misinterpret 1st amendment free speech rights. It’s about as straight-forward as it gets and the Court has adjudicated that issue several times. We are free to amend that damn founding document, however, and limit some citizen’s rights. Won’t be a free country worth a spit if we do, though.

  56. Good old Joe dropped the mask.

    When that ridiculous useless document allows things he doesn’t like, then darn it, it goes out the window.

  57. -Founders envisioned the level of power and money we now see exerted on our political process-

    You must’ve failed your high school American history.

  58. Wait wait..where’s that mask? My opinions about “constructionist interpretations that hurt the common man” stand. “Damn founding document” was a bad idea. I move to strike.

  59. And, joe, your comment has everything to do with those who’ve served and died in our military. If you can’t see that then there’s no common ground with which to even have a discussion.

  60. joe: you are right “I said “get over it” but I DID NOT say “get over it you screeching jerkface” Name calling shows the level of discourse you are willing to go when someone disagrees with you strongly.

  61. Sorry Al. I was focused on the “innerancy” argument, and didn’t think about the military service angle. As I said, I probably should’ve self-edited. I’m still a little pissed about “get over it!”. It’s about my least favorite phrase in the English language.

  62. joe: you are right “I said “get over it” but I DID NOT say “get over it you screeching jerkface”

    Well then you’re just better than me. You rarely have anything to say besides “liberals suck”, and it’s tiring. Get over it.

  63. Just checking, has anyone actuall shot anyone during one of these “discussions”?

  64. My opinions about “constructionist interpretations that hurt the common man” stand.

    So, if the ruling helped the “common man”, you’d be for it.

    That’s not what a Constitution is for. Or how Justices are to rule.

    Anyway, I think smear artists like Limbaugh and Olbermann (at the very top of my growing list) and the nonsense on the cable networks that we complain about daily have done a lot of damage to our democracy.

    But I don’t want them silenced.

  65. — anyone actually shot —

    You ever notice that Spud is also known as ‘ICN2..?

  66. laura, Thank you for pointing that out.

  67. stevemg, Excellent manner in phrasing your analysis.

  68. Good point, Fred. I better watch of these people knows where I live. An NRA member, naturally. I’m no genius..

  69. If I shot the idiot I’d have to heal him… for free.

    No, Fred. Joe can piss me off but he always knows when he’s being an ass and he always attempts to correct.

  70. “In my desperate attempt to ‘change the subject’, I’ll say that there is no reason to attempt voter fraud, except for the possibility that it may sway an election.”

    Exactly laura and since no election has ever been swayed then why do it. It only happens in in small incidents and then by on both sides.

    It’s just an excuse for the right to gin up the base with an unfounded fears. People threaten voters with claims of going to jail for parking tickets and other lies have just as much an effect if not more on election outcomes. Even so I don’t think voter intimidation, although it is far more widespread, has ever effected an election outcome either; at least not in the last few decades.

  71. To quote the great one himself ”Whatever”.

  72. …he always knows when he’s being an ass…

    Yeah, I hate that. I’m working on that ‘purity of assness’ where you’re completely oblivious to it, and can be a screeching jerkface at will.

    Oh crap, that reminds me..sorry Pam.

    Didn’t I say I had work to catch up on? Is it possible that led to my agitated state? Do I self-ask more questions than Donald Rumsfeld? Bye!

  73. To quote the great one himself ”Whatever”.

    Can I quote you. 😉

  74. ”Nevermore”.

  75. We had a pet ravin, for a short time, a few years back and we called him Quoth. 😉

  76. Yappy little buggers, ain’t they?

  77. As far as ‘ginning-up’ is concerned, all sides do it, and each example has a grain or even an element of truth. Frankly, it’s too broad a subject for me to focus on, and it’s utterly subject to what one is already inclined to believe. So it becomes ”Oh yeah…well, well, Oh yeah” blah blah ‘whatever’ .
    Sometimes I bore myself and pass out. Enjoy the quiet.. 😉

  78. I disagree with Steve about Limbaugh and Olbermann. They get people interested and involved. Sure, there’s a small few who only get their information from these guys but I bet most look elsewhere and form differing opinions.

  79. ProgLib should take special note…

    There’s no reason for me to “take special note” when I already know it has happened, INB. In fact, I admitted that it happens a lot on The Ed Show. The big difference in J$ examples (to Fox) are that MSNBC does not post the candidates website, ask the viewers to donate, support the candidate, etc. I’ve seen Hannity and Cavuto do it plenty of times, and the myriad of those examples are at Media Matters. I think INB should “take special note” of THAT, unless he doesn’t want to get himself proven wrong, as usual.

    P.S. Phil Griffin is a douchebag… he’s a terrible spokesman for the network. He needs to focus on being President and stop putting out challenges and saying they do this while FNC doesn’t, and so on. You only end up putting your foot in your mouth like that.

  80. […] repeated and stated the candidate’s website name, and so on. I knew all this already, and stated it repeatedly on Inside Cable News, so there was no deniable on my part. Frankly, Mr. […]

  81. I disagree with Steve about Limbaugh and Olbermann. They get people interested and involved.

    Yes, Al, but by demonizing and delegitimizing the opposition.

    Calling liberals or conservatives evil or the President a fascist isn’t helping make compromise possible (not to mention it’s simply not true).

    About 40 percent of Americans call themselves conservative. Another 20% or so liberal. Whether the right or left likes it or not, they have to compromise with the other side.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: