MyDD :: Florida 2006: non-partisan redistricting, Castor, Nelson

Florida 2006: non-partisan redistricting, Castor, Nelson

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 01:21:00 PM EST

After ACORN and Floridians For All (the ones behind the successful effort that makes law a state minimum wage starting at $6.15 per hour six months after enactment and indexed to inflation each year) won at the ballot with 71%, it gives a bit of hope for progressive reform in Florida's 2006 election for Democrats. In a recent strategy group, I learned from talking with a few Floridian leaders about a number of plans that are being worked on for 2006.

Specfically, a ballot initiative is being spearheaded by Democrats for 2006 that would turn over redistricting to a non-partisan body. That would put an end to a partisan system that's produced an unbalanced 18-7 Republican congressional delegation; a 84-36 Republican State House; and a 26-14 Republican State Senate. In a state that's pretty much 50-50 in terms of partisan strength at the ballot, it takes an awful lot of gerrymandering to produce such results.

It's being combined with an effort to clear the field for Betty Castor running for Governor. Alongside Bill Nelson's Senate re-election campaign, the two will champion the ballot initiative for the 2006 campaign. Other possible Governor candidates, such as Davis, Chiles, and Maddox are being encouraged to run for the three Cabinet seats also that will also be on the ballot in 2006. There's no guarantee that the slate will pan out this way, but it does sound attractive to go into Sept. 06 with a unified partisan effort against what's sure to be a crowded and devisive Republican field for the Governor & Senate nominations.

Tags: Governor 2005-6 (all tags)

Permalink :: 54 Comments :: Post a Comment

This is huge (none / 0)

Florida is a crucible. Passing this ballot initiative could have profound implications for redistricting nationwide. Any info on what Republicans are doing to undermine the initiative?

by coldeye on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 01:43:20 PM EST

Karl Rove (none / 0)

Probably Rove is going to put gay marriage on the ballot.

by sam89 on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 02:30:46 PM EST

The field will not clear for Castor (none / 0)

There is no WAY Davis is leaving the House for Cabinet seat. My guess is that he runs for Governor - though it may tough to have two people from Tampa trying to run statewide.

I am not sure Castor was a great candidate.

Maddox in my view is a complete idiot.

There is no way the re-districting thing pass either - it will be viewed as too partisan.

by fladem on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 02:51:27 PM EST

Too partisan? (none / 0)

Non-partisan redistricting is too partisan? I suppose the alternative, gerrymandering by the party in power, is non-partisan?

I don't think that turkey will fly.

It's too early to declare how the initiative will be perceived in 2006. It isn't even drafted yet.

by coldeye on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 03:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That turkey can indeed fly (none / 0)

It's all in how the initiative's enemies portray it. Republicans certainly won't say, "Oh, it says 'non-partisan,' so how can we complain?" The initiative will be ripped apart as a Democratic end-around. Now, whether that actually works with the voters is another story--we practically vote yes on everything. But in a state that's becoming increasingly red, don't think voters will be unaware of who this initiative really favors.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 03:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That turkey can indeed fly (none / 0)

Increasingly Red - maybe. Maybe not. How much of that Red is due to gerrymandering? But you all voted to raise the minimum wage. That issue divides more sharply on Red/Blue lines than non-partisan districting does. Sure nonpartisan districting benefits Democrats in the short-run, but only because it removes the artificial bias of partisan gerrymandering.

EVERY issue is partisan to some extent. Nonpartisan districting is about as nonpartisan an issue as exists today.

I still don't think that framing it as a partisan Democratic issue will fly.

by coldeye on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 06:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You guys vote yes to everything? (none / 0)

That won't last long. In California, land of the proposition, people are starting to vote no by default (usually because there are frequently a dozen or more propositions on the ballot-people get confused and vote no on all of them).

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 07:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Impossible dream (none / 0)

This is the most implausible scheme I have ever heard of. There is absolutely no chance this will work. Sounds great in theory, but I remember this same sort of meeting taking place back in 2002 in an effort to clear the field for the 2004 senate race. What happened instead? You have three democrats smear the %$#@ out of each other. Evidently, these types of meetings don't prevent that.
Why Castor on the top, and the other three are thrown consolation prizes? Give me a break. Castor had her chance, was defeated in a race she should have won against a radical right-winger, and never successfully refuted charges that she harbored terrorists at USF. Result? If she gets the nomination, she will be having to answer these same questions, i.e. "How can she keep Florida safe from terror, when she couldn't even keep a university [she was president of] safe from terror.
You are right, a unified effort will be nice, but there is no prevailing reason why Castor should lead the ticket.

Conclusion: That is what we have primaries for - to let the people decide who should be on top. Any other way would inhibit the choice of Floridians and would be borderline undemocratic to strongarm candidates out of the primary. That, and it is unplausible that these people should fold in the first place.

by kitsae on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 03:54:23 PM EST

Re: Impossible dream (none / 0)

Cassandras said the same thing about raising the minimum wage.

by coldeye on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 06:05:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Impossible dream (none / 0)

Wow....

If you look at the ballot initiatives in Florida - they all passed! All of them! There were even contradictory ballot measures (such as one hurting trial lawyers in relation to doctors, then another hurting doctors in relation to lawyers).

The bottom line is, in Florida, any wisely (and in some cases misleadingly) worded ballot initiative will pass.

So whatever Cassandras said is moot in this case.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 12:32:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Impossible dream (none / 0)

So, uh, why is passing this ballot initiative an "impossible dream" if everything passes?

Am I missing something here?

by coldeye on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 12:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Impossible dream (none / 0)

Yeah, you did missing something...my entire post.

Here is a summary of the argument progression.

The "impossible dream" reference was in regards to Florida Democrats clearing the field for Betty Castor to run for Governor, with other hopefuls vying for Cabinet posts. (see my original post).
You counter by fallaciously drawing an analogy between my comments and that of "Cassandras" minimum wage comments.

Note: This had little to do with what I had posted.

I reply by stating that Floridians voted "yes" on all ballot measures in spite of glaring contradictions.
Somehow, you continue with the fallacious analogy to conclude that my "impossible dream" reference referred to the ballot initiative (when, in fact, it referred to the Florida Gubernatorial race - see #1).

Bottom line: My comments remained consistent, while you continued to refer to something (ballot initiative) that increasingly became so removed
from what I originally posted about (Florida's Gubernatorial race) that I think you may have become a bit confused along the way.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 12:13:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah (none / 0)

Thanks for the flame, it really cleared things up.

You made no mention at all in the lead item of your post that you're "impossible dream" remark referred exclusively to the Castor push. Meanwhile the lead and bulk of the diary is directed to the initiative.

Evidently we should all read your mind instead of your posts. And then get flamed if we get it wrong.

by coldeye on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 02:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

All right so it wasn't really a flame, but you still go at me (or my argument) pretty strongly, and if you read #1 of your post it really isn't clear that you are focusing on the Castor aspect. It looks like a criticism of the whole meeting, which included the initiative.

Obviously I think the initiative is a great idea. I don't know or care about Castor vs. Chiles.

by coldeye on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 02:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Ok I went at you....I apologize if #1 was not completely clear.

I agree that the initiative is a great idea. No doubt about that. I also think it will pass no problem.

Disregard my last post, I was unnerved.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 02:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah (none / 0)

This is hilarious.....

1) There was no clarification needed that I was referring exclusively to the Castor push, because that is all I spoke about!

"Evidently" what needs to be understood is how you can read a post exclusively and clearly dedicated to one subject and then derive from it a deranged understanding of something completely and utterly different.

Like I said...hilarious!

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 02:31:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Committee for Fair Representation (none / 0)

The Commitee for Fair Representation sponsors these initiatives. If you are a Florida voter, you can download (PDF) a petition, sign it, and send it back to the Committe for Fair Representation. If you know a Florida voter, you can email a petition to them, so they can do the same. (It doesn't say so on the website, but I believe that each petition must be on one page, so they have to be printed front and back.)

While you're in a mood to sign petitions, you might want to sign this one, which ends the ban on ex-felon voting in Florida. You know, the one that Florida Republicans used in both 2000 and 2004 to stop not only felons from voting, but also non-felons with names that had . . . several of the same letters as felons, apparently.

by Drew on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 05:15:26 PM EST

The only part that intrigues me is the (none / 0)

non partisan redistricting- how would that work?

Curious Bruh

by bruh21 on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 08:51:08 PM EST

Re: The only part that intrigues me is the (none / 0)

All I know is that an independant goup is brought in to draw the districts, not the state legislature.

by sam89 on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 09:03:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0)

The state legislature does choose the members of the commission.

According to the petitions, the initiative would create a seventeen member commission, and the commissioners would be chosen as follows: four by the majority party in the Senate, four by the majority party in the House, four by the minority parties in the Senate, four by the minority parties in the House, and one by the preceeding sixteen commissioners, who must be agreed upon by at least eleven of the sixteen.

The upshot: eight are chosen by Democrats, eight are chosen by Republicans, and one is chosen by the commissioners.

There are additional requirements as to who may serve as commissioners, and instructions on what to do should the commissioners be unable to agree, but those are incidental.

by Drew on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 10:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

I am wondering if this will face a constitutional challenge?

by bruh21 on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 10:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why would it? (none / 0)

States can set the way they redistrict.

Iowa uses the nonpartisan commission, and thay have some of the most competitive races.

by Hughsterg on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:53:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fools (none / 0)

So, let me get this straight. A meeting where Betty Castor is suggested for mayor is a 'hopeful' meeting?

This is why your type of thinking will always lose.

Only a moron would place bets on Castor for governor. She couldn't even beat Mel Martinez, a know-nothing drip with the charisma of a shoe string.

Damn, I hate this. THIS is why we keep losing! Because we continue to advocate the nomination of dweebs, policy wonks, and ugly candidates.
Anyone who advocates that Castor is a great nominee should be shot and have their progressive privledges revoked.

by Sam Loomis on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 11:17:46 PM EST

Re: Fools (none / 0)

Amen.

If Castor couldn't beat the radical Mel Martinez (right up there with Coburn, Bunning and Burr in terms of radical-ness) then she has no chance in hell of beating Crist, Gallagher or Jennings.

I'll load 'em up, you shoot em Sam!

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 12:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

I like Castor as a person, and she did get 48% of the vote in the Senate race (more than Kerry did), but I think Chiles is the stronger candidate. Most Floridians, I think, would see the name Lawton Chiles and immediately melt. And his name ID would only rise over time. So, I could see him winning. But, I like Castor a lot...

by raginillinoian on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 01:00:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

I agree. I worked on the staff 12 hours, oftentimes didn't get payed when we didn't meet fundraising goals, and put my heart and soul into that race.

From the day we won the primary on August 31, we had to raise $100,000 a day until election day.

$100,000 a day.

That meant much of the time the candidate was out of the state raising "big money" in California and New York.

I had originally thought this was a necessity, but soon I became very disappointed with the way Castor ran her race.

It was winnable but she fell sway to what are often referred to as the out-of-state leeches (a.k.a "consultants") who misguided her and abused her campaign treasury.

She had her shot, she blew it, and if she runs in a primary again she will lose, much like Bill McCullom did when he tried to run another statewide race after losing narrowly a few years earlier.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 09:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

Sorry, kitsae. I'm not buying it. I helped out pretty extensively with Betty's campaign (including fundraising), and knew a bunch of the staff. Your claims of not being paid when you didn't meet $ goals, and of "out of state leeches" abusing Betty's campaign treasury does even remotely mesh with my experience with the campaign, nor the accounts I've heard from Betty's staff. It's seems to me that you like Bud Chiles a lot - fine, and good luck during the primary in '06. But you're just making up stuff about Betty and her campaign. Stop it.

by blueflorida on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 02:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

I agree. I worked on Betty's staff. There was definitely a lot of motivation to raise, raise, raise the money. There was quite a bit of money coming in from out of state... a lot, actually. But that's how it is on ANY campaign for a seat that important.

Everyone got paid, all the time. There were some staffers who wanted raises for all the money they were bringing in, and a couple of vocal disputes of that nature, but it was just office politics in a political office. Everyone got paid, all the time.

And it wasn't consultants draining the treasury... it was humongous ad buys. Betty had television airtime bought up for the last week of the general race... three weeks before the end of the primary! There were consultants making these ads, but the big money was to get them on the air.

As far as I know, kitsae, you were not on staff, and your role in the campaign was very limited. So I would advise you to stick to being a Bud Chiles insider and stop holding yourself out as a Betty Castor insider.

by Joe Jones on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 02:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

Joe,

Your analysis is on track. I didn't read your post before I replied to the other fellow.

It is 100% right on the money that they bled alot of money to these consultants who got upwards of 15% for ad buys.

Early on though (I am not sure when you joined), there were times when people were asked to take pay cuts or to skip pay checks. That fact cannot be disputed, because I remember up in Tampa when we gathered to watch the results - Castor even mentioned in the suite (while many were in tears) that she thanked us for all our hard work - even during the times when we skipped pay checks for the cause!

If you were up in the suite, close to midnight, when this announcement was made (it was floor ten I believe), then there is no doubt you were on the staff.

However, coming out and assuming that I was not is wholly innacurate.

If not,

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 02:58:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

If there is any doubt I was on Castor's staff, this post, paragraphs 3-4, should clear it up.

I never saw your name on the staff list, and nobody I worked with on the campaign seems to know who you are.

So... I would like to know what you were doing on the campaign that allows you to make such insightful observations.

by Joe Jones on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 03:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

I never doubted that you were in the campaign. You did the website, thats very cool.

However, I find it odd that anytime I dealt with the website I spoke with Karen and not you.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 03:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

And if you were a Graham transplant, then you obviously know ML is (in finance).

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 03:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

If you want to continue, e-mail me at traderjacks@gmail.com

It would be best to talk about this in much more confidence, than blurting names and dates out in public.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 03:23:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

Kitsae,

The very fact that you don't know who Joe is, proves that you were not on staff. I still maintain that you weren't on staff, or if you were, you were a part of the team that Betty fired in January '04 (more than 10 months before to election day) because of financial mismanagement.

by blueflorida on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 03:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

In many people's informed opinion the financial mismanagement continued up until Nov.2 and beyond.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 03:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

Are you kidding me?! You obviously had a low-level position.

1) First off, the campaign manager Deborah Reed was a DC-insider who was marginalized once Betty got the nomination.

They needed a campaign manager who knew Florida and not some DC insider who brought in all her buddies (particularly for communications and field) that leeched away at campaign funds.

Second, once Deutsch and Penelas lost the nomination, Betty took on much of their staff to "make peace" - i.e. try to tap into their fundraising base by mending bridges. This turned out to be a disaster. Taking on the staff of losing opponents should tell you something - namely that if they were that great they wouldn't have lost in the first place.
They were making media buys and paying out 15% to the person who booked it (I won't name anymore names) - which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If you had ever been to a finance meeting, you would see that there was always someone from Emily's list there who had a virtual veto on everything that was said in relation to how money was spend and how strategy was derived. So when Martinez said out of state interests ran the campaign, he was not so far off.
Sam Bell, her husband, always had one thing on his mind: Money. He was a nervous wreck all the time and his primary goal was to raise money. If that wasn't plainly obvious to you, then you clearly had a marginal role in the campaign.

I don't know what your experience with the campaign was, but the fact of the matter is that the Castor campaign was not wise with their money, and relied on DC-insiders to run a Florida race.

On both accounts, that was a bad move.

Castor is finished.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 02:54:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

They were making media buys and paying out 15% to the person who booked it (I won't name anymore names) - which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can't tell me that's a valid reason for criticism, as that's a racket that's throughout the Democratic establishment, ask Shrum, McMahon & Co.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 08:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fools (none / 0)

Except for the mere fact that in this specific case, they didn't have to do it.

Just because it is a "racket that's throughout the Democratic establishment" doesn't justify one's participation in it.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

George Orwell rolls eyes at us, too (none / 0)

#2 in the above post is the thesis of why the democrats have lost the last ten years.

It is the cold hard truth.
And it cuts deep past the red herring values fights, liberal labels and such.

It's about failure of cold mechanics.

Hiring losers to help us win. If there is a reason many people feel George Orwell is spinning in his grave, we are half-guilty as wee.

by Sam Loomis on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 09:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: George Orwell rolls eyes at us, too (none / 0)

I totally agree that it should end as a practice, it's part of the needed reform.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: George Orwell rolls eyes at us, too (none / 0)

I absolutely agree. It killed Castor in this race.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not only her (none / 0)

But it killed other dems as well.

I remember reading Newsweek in March when Mary Beth Campaignkill from Kerry's team was remarking how they wouldn't go negative because the USA wouldn't tolerate that kind of campaign after 9/11. In the same paragraph it was summarizing the 4 new negative ads the GOP was preparing to launch.

Idiot.

And this lady was on CSPAN the other day in a forum with Kenneth "Rainmaker" Mehlman about campaign strategies. She was in undescribable denial about her piss-poor plans to win.

Let's blacklist anyone that was on Kerry's team from any Pres. race in the future, with a pardon to clintonites who helped Kerry shape up somewhat in the last two months.

How about it?

by Sam Loomis on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:28:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not only her (none / 0)

I saw that program! I love how she mentioned that one of her worst mistakes was underestimating the effectiveness of the Swifty ads.

Funny. I remember reading how Kerry was just dying to respond, and she held him back...

I agree - blacklist those who made the most egregious, illogical errors that significantly contributed to the loss.

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The opponent (none / 0)

Live in St. Pete and was out at a trendy new restaurant (Cafe Alma) that has good food and then DJs come on at 10PMish.

Anyway, there walks past me Charlie Christ (Florida's Attorney General). Here is our conversation...
Me: Mr. Christ?
CC: Call me Charlie
Me: Hi Charlie, I'm _ _.
CC:_ thats a good name. Did you vote this year?
Me: Of course, but the democratic ticket.
CC: Thats great, its how America works. Let me tell you _, I need your help, I am running for Governor. ::Hands me his card::

by House on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 11:37:13 AM EST

Re: The opponent (none / 0)

Wow, he's a shrewd campaigner. He didn't sway you, did he? Cause if he did we'll have to slap you upside the head.

by raginillinoian on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 01:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

with a name like THAT.... (none / 0)

...we don't have a prayer is we nominate someone named after motor oil.

And again, why does Jerome think nominating Castor is a good idea?

by Sam Loomis on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 09:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: with a name like THAT.... (none / 0)

if.

damn those hooked on phonics.

by Sam Loomis on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 09:59:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: with a name like THAT.... (none / 0)

I think she'd win. How that for starters? She was a great candidate, and outdid Kerry, who many thought would win Florida. SHe has very high name ID and her favorables are still high.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: with a name like THAT.... (none / 0)

Yeah, I guess the smartest thing she did was launch pre-emptive ads about that alleged-terrorist-with-the-name-I-can't-pronounce BEFORE Martinez did. I remember seeing her ads about her "attempts" to fire him, and then a few days later, Martinez ran his ads and it made him look like he wasn't following what she was doing.

But you can't deny that we are a party that is stubborn with nominating people over and over who don't win. I don't think she would be elected governor, but I could be wrong.

by Sam Loomis on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: with a name like THAT.... (none / 0)

It is a sad state of affairs that Castor underpreformed Kerry in one of the largest Democratic strongholds in Florida - Dade County.
She completely ignored her base in Florida - which was Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. There was one person on staff that was assigned to this area, and he was a pushover from the Penelas campaign.
Her name ID pales in comparison to the instant recognition Lawton Chiles will receive.
Her favorables on Nov. 2 were below 50% and on par or lower than Mel Martinez. She never accurately refuted the Al-Arian terrorist harboring criticism - she will get hit with it again.
It would be wise to go with a fresh candidate, non-traditional politician who was vice-president of one of the nation's largest charities. That's reform.

Bottom Line: Nominate Castor, you will get more of the same - another loss.

Castor was the antithesis of reform, especially when after she allowed a bunch of DC insiders to take over her campaign (Deborah Reed, Dave Hattaway, etc...)

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:24:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's the bottom line (none / 0)

Exactly kitsae.

And with a name like Christ, we need better name-recognition than Castor.

by Sam Loomis on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's the bottom line (none / 0)

hahahaha, or like the Cubans and Hispanics in Florida likes to say - "CASTRO"

by kitsae on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

from a Cuban (none / 0)

kitsae-
perhaps you should just get a job

by FL06 on Thu Dec 30, 2004 at 07:14:03 PM EST

Re: from a Cuban (none / 0)

I have a job fool :P

501-N brickell ave

by kitsae on Thu Dec 30, 2004 at 07:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.