Woodall Takes On Norquist, Tea Parties Support Hice.

7th Congressional District candidate Rob Woodall has decided not to sign the American’s For Tax Reform “no tax increase” pledge. Woodall explains (via the Political Insider):

ATR sponsors the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to encourage lawmakers to oppose tax rates increases, but a second element of the Pledge requires lawmakers to oppose the elimination of special interest tax deductions and credits unless a new deduction, credit, or tax reduction is created as a replacement.

“By maintaining a tit-for-tat approach to tax policy, not only is fundamental tax reform and a much-needed overhaul of the tax code hindered but the ability to eliminate destructive and wasteful tax policy is also hindered.”

Woodall provided a lengthy example that focused on a $6,500 golf cart tax credit passed in 2009:

“Anyone who purchased a ‘road ready’ golf cart in 2009 could receive a $6,500 check from the federal government, and thousands took advantage of the offer. This was a dumb tax credit, and America borrowed the dollars from China and Japan to pay for it.

“The ATR pledge, however, would prevent Democrats and Republicans from coming together to agree to kill this bad tax credit unless they also came together to agree on a new way to hand out that $6,500 through tax code manipulation to taxpayers.

“The priority of 7th District voters is to kill that bad tax credit and stop the borrowing from China and Japan. Voters here are tired of everything being thrown into the same giant piece of legislation.

“If we want to eliminate wasteful credits and deductions, we should do that in one bill. If we want to create new credits and deductions, we should do that in a separate bill.”

BTW, I did not sign the ATR pledge either for the same reason. If we in Georgia discover that is costs more money to process driver’s licenses and decide to raise the fee to cover the cost, signers of the ATR pledge would be in violation of their pledge should they vote for such a bill. Not signing the ATR pledge doesn’t make me and Woodall pro-tax increases (though I’m sure some of you will spin it that way), it means we don’t want our hands tied by an absolute and unworkable pledge.

Meanwhile, Jody Hice has received the support of the Atlanta Tea Party and according to Debbie Dooley in comments on the Gwinnett Daily Post website, all other Tea Party groups in the 7th Congressional District.

“Dr. Hice was the candidate who signed the pledge without hesitation and has vowed to oppose earmarks, fight for tax reform and fight for our core values of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets,” she said. “We feel very confident he will represent the district as a citizen legislator. We feel it is time for a strong new voice in Washington, D.C.”

Prior to the July 20 primary, the Atlanta Tea Party supported Clay Cox, a state representative who was involved in the movement for more than a year. The endorsement brought controversy, though, when other tea party groups decided against endorsing a candidate, and individuals in those groups said Hice was their man.

106 comments

  1. Fred Smulavich says:

    “If we in Georgia discover that is costs more money to process driver’s licenses and decide to raise the fee to cover the cost, signers of the ATR pledge would be in violation of their pledge should they vote for such a bill. Not signing the ATR pledge doesn’t make me and Woodall pro-tax increases (though I’m sure some of you will spin it that way), it means we don’t want our hands tied by an absolute and unworkable pledge.”

    Sure, but that will mean a whole lot more when the Federal government has anything like the budget that Georgia has. The Feds have plenty of money, and a whoooole lot of ridiculous spending. (BTW – I still think the state of Georgia has plenty of special interest nonsense it could cut out too)

    I’m definitely with Hice and Norquist on this one. I think a lot more people in Congress need their “hands tied” as far as taxes go.

    • John Konop says:

      Fred,

      We are in the RED because cutting taxes without proper spending cuts is fiscally irresponsible not CONSERVATIVE! If you cannot make the cuts than all you are doing is selling off your kids’ future!

      And if services increase in cost via inflation you either have to raise the fees and or make the cuts.

      • Fred Smulavich says:

        John-

        That’s exactly what I was talking about, and what I meant when I was referencing the budget. We need SPENDING CUTS. The whole notion of Keynesian tax cuts is rather insane. Jody indicates the same mentality, which is why I don’t take issue with him signing these pledges. In fact, quite the opposite, I think he’s serious and won’t just play the “D.C. Shuffle”

        • John Konop says:

          Fred,

          The problem with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is they supported tax cuts without the spending cuts. And that is why no REAL FISCAL CONSERVATIVE should sign the pledge. It was the above lack of logic from Taxpayer Protection Pledge that got us into this mess.

          • BuckheadConservative says:

            I’m actually with Woodall and Buzz here, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, the TPP isn’t about tax cuts necessarily but rather opposing tax raises.

  2. John Konop says:

    .
    BUZZ, I 100% agree! This is what a REAL FISCAL CONSERVATIVE should stand for!

    ….BTW, I did not sign the ATR pledge either for the same reason. If we in Georgia discover that is costs more money to process driver’s licenses and decide to raise the fee to cover the cost, signers of the ATR pledge would be in violation of their pledge should they vote for such a bill. Not signing the ATR pledge doesn’t make me and Woodall pro-tax increases (though I’m sure some of you will spin it that way), it means we don’t want our hands tied by an absolute and unworkable pledge……

  3. ga775 says:

    Is there a pledge out there that Jody has NOT been eager to sign his name to? He hasn’t even won the GOP nomination and he’s already beholden to about a dozen special interest groups. Doesn’t bode well when he gets up there with the big boys.

  4. GaConservative23 says:

    “Anyone who purchased a ‘road ready’ golf cart in 2009 could receive a $6,500 check from the federal government, and thousands took advantage of the offer. This was a dumb tax credit, and America borrowed the dollars from China and Japan to pay for it.”

    “The ATR pledge, however, would prevent Democrats and Republicans from coming together to agree to kill this bad tax credit unless they also came together to agree on a new way to hand out that $6,500 through tax code manipulation to taxpayers.”

    I can’t think of anything resembling wasteful spending more than a $6500 tax credit for a golf cart. Thank you, Rob, for actually looking at the details of a pledge before signing it.

    Sadly, in today’s political climate, you apparently have to sign every far right wing pledge put in front of you. And Hice knows this.

    Hopefully the people of the 7th are smarter than that.

  5. Harry says:

    The way I interpret this – and call me simplistic – Woodall if elected will be a status-quo insider in DC, and not a reformer.

  6. ACCmoderate says:

    More proof that some folks in the tea party have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about.

    • BuckheadConservative says:

      Or they’re just staking a claim way out there to the right in hopes of moving the median more their way. Maybe they’re not thinking about it like that expressly, but I think it serves a useful purpose in shaping policy debate because there are definitely folks on the far left side of that curve pulling equally hard.

  7. ga775 says:

    @Harry – why would you sign a pledge if it were simply a “guide” with “wiggle room?” Doesn’t that defeat the ENTIRE notion of signing a PLEDGE?

    Norquist is disingenuous at best and an outright liar at worst. Woodall has never talked about tax hikes. In fact, I’ve heard him say that he would take the $300 billion left over from TARP and Stimulus and re-direct that money towards deficit reduction and tax cuts. Which candidate truly sounds more solutions-oriented to you?

    • Harry says:

      Not sure why you think Norquist is disingenuous or a liar, but I’ll look more into Woodall’s stated positions on fiscal policy and see if I can find a basis to feel more positive about his campaign.

      • Provocateur says:

        Norquist is both, as well as a launderer of money on behalf of Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed.

  8. John Konop says:

    I have made no secretes that I think the FAIR TAX is voodoo economics. But I will give Rob Woodall credit for taking this fiscally responsible position.

      • Harry says:

        John, I’d like your view on the FLAT TAX as well, as compared and contrasted to the FAIR TAX and the PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX.

        • John Konop says:

          Harry,

          I would support a hybrid between the Fair Tax and Flat Tax.

          1) I like the concept of eliminating all write-offs
          2) A hybrid would lower the % of the NST which would eliminate many issues with the Fair Tax.
          3) The hybrid would also capture more of the underground economy which the Flat tax does not do.

          The key in my opinion is the NST has to be in the single digit area. I also like Icarus idea of a Flat Tax and using a NST to replace FICA. That would create more jobs with less of a cost on employers and lower the cost by picking up underground economy contributions.

          NST=National Sales Tax

          • Harry says:

            Yes, it does make sense. I especially like the part about substituting FICA, as the current system would still require a determination of net income from self-employment for the self-employed. Going to another way to finance FICA would make for higher employment levels. I also would favor a combination that eliminates the need for pre-bates being administered and paid to low income people, as that would add a big layer of costly bureaucracy.

            • John Konop says:

              ….I also would favor a combination that eliminates the need for pre-bates being administered and paid to low income people, as that would add a big layer of costly bureaucracy….

              VERY GOOD POINT!!!!

    • c_murrayiii says:

      haha, typical TPM, nothing positive to say, hiding behind a mask because you are a political coward

  9. ga775 says:

    If you can find anywhere – in video, audio, or print – where Woodall said he wants to raise taxes, I’ll admit to being the liar.

      • bowersville says:

        Not to worry, when the witch burners run out of targets they will burn, roast and consume their own.

        Especially when the water tap runs dry.

        No more earmarks, you thirsty? Grow your own water.

  10. Joshua Culling says:

    It’s disingenuous for Woodall to talk about eliminating the tax credit for golf carts as a Pledge violation. The federal Pledge, in its entirety:

    I, ____, pledge to the taxpayers of the __ district of the state of _____, and to the American people that I will:

    ONE, oppose any and all efforts to raise the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
    TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
    ——
    If Woodall doesn’t like tax credits, then he can vote to get rid of them if the revenue is offset with tax cuts elsewhere. He is trying to say that “tax reform” (i.e. broaden the base, lower the rates) is impossible under the Pledge. This is a lie. If Woodall doesn’t like tax credits, then he can vote to get rid of them if the revenue is offset with tax cuts elsewhere. But by signing the Pledge, he’s indicated he’s not interested in controlling the growth of government in this way.

    Also, Pledge signers are free to vote against tax cuts. They just can’t vote for tax increases.

    The problem here is that we have a candidate who wishes not to “tie his hands,” so he’s telling lies about the Pledge to justify his unwillingness to sign.

  11. adamradman says:

    The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is a tool used to promote revenue neutral tax reform and fight against tax increases. Lowering the rate AND broadening the base is perfectly acceptable under the Pledge. If Rob Woodall would like to eliminate any deduction or credit, he is free to do so as long as he offsets that elimination of a deduction or credit by lowering the rates. What Woodall said in his release last week is that he is absolutely fine with eliminating a deduction or credit without lowering the rates. That is a tax increase no matter how you spin it.

    Also, the Pledge does not prohibit any type of tax reform. In fact, the FAIR Tax and/or the Flat Tax are completely compliant with the Pledge as long as they do not increase revenue to the federal government.

    Over 95% of House Republicans including Rep. Tom Price, Rep. Tom Graves, Rep. Paul Broun, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Rep. Phil Gingrey, and Rep. Linder have all signed the Pledge.

    Additionally, the Pledge is not made to Americans for Tax Reform. The Pledge is made between a candidate and his constituents. The only role that Americans for Tax Reform has in the process is to monitor Pledge takers and notify their constituents if a signer has violated his/her Pledge.

    The Pledge is an additional layer of accountability. At a time when Gallup finds that dissatisfaction with politicians/government as the number three issue behind the economy and jobs, people should appreciate the level of accountability Jody Hice is subjecting himself to. George H.W. Bush’s decision to break his famous “no new taxes’ Pledge is a large reason for his loss in 1992.

  12. debbie0040 says:

    Atlanta Tea Party Pledge – Hice signed it Woodall did not

    If elected I:

    Pledge to oppose all earmarks.

    Pledge not to vote for any bill that intrudes on the authority of the state governments and recognize the fundamental principles that powers not enumerated in the Constitution belong to the states.

    Pledge to support legislation that promotes State’s rights.

    Pledge to vote to repeal the OMNIBUS Health Care bill and vote to implement free market, patient centered solutions to our healthcare system.

    Pledge to vote against Cap and Trade.

    Pledge to vote against any new tax increases.

    Pledge to vote against the Fairness Doctrine.

    Pledge to support FairTax legislation or other tax reform bills that simplify the tax code.

    Pledge to vote to make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and making permanent the AMT “patch”.

    Pledge to vote to cut the corporate income tax rate to encourage investment and job creation in the United States.

    We agree that the mandatory use of E-Verify by all employers in the United States, along with “attrition through enforcement” policies that promote disciplined and constitutionally compliant enforcement of our federal immigration laws deters unauthorized entrants and the flow of contraband to our country.

    We agree that rewarding those who violate our immigration laws undermines the credibility of immigration enforcement, so we pledge to vote to uphold federal law and oppose amnesty programs for illegal aliens. We also pledge to vote to institute strict penalties for employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens. We pledge to vote to secure our borders as a pre-requisite to immigration reform and vote to only allow government benefits to legal residents.

    • I can’t put words in Woodall’s mouth but based on comments you’ve made you say he didn’t sign it because it calls for a complete ban on earmarks.

      A complete ban on earmarks would mean, for example, the 7th District would not receive any federal dollars for specific transportation projects. If Linder had refused all earmarks the 85-316 interchange would not have been fixed.

      Again, I’ll let Woodall speak for himself but these absolute pledges are not workable in many cases.

      I appreciate a candidate who refuses to paint himself into an impossible corner, especially when he knows it will cause activist groups to attack him during a campaign.

        • Harry says:

          Buzz,

          Ultimately you will have to decide for yourself if you go down to the gold dome and play the game, or not, and support one side or the other. I hope you make the right choices.

          We’re in a fiscal and social crisis in this country. The times they are a changin’. The political class needs to lead, not follow.

      • griftdrift says:

        Buzz understands that governance is more than following checklists or staying in the good graces of certain “report cards”.

        Independents value competence over ideology.

        That’s the only reason I’m still considering voting in the runoff…

    • John Konop says:

      …..Pledge not to vote for any bill that intrudes on the authority of the state governments and recognize the fundamental principles that powers not enumerated in the Constitution belong to the states………

      What about state immigration laws, the argument is the federal government is not doing their job?

      …….Pledge to support legislation that promotes State’s rights……..

      Does that mean you are for a sate banning gun rights?

      ……Pledge to vote against any new tax increases…….

      What if the cost of the service increases via inflation and does it include fees?

      …….Pledge to vote to make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and making permanent the AMT “patch”………

      What if Congress does not make the cuts to balance the budget?

      …..Pledge to vote to cut the corporate income tax rate to encourage investment and job creation in the United States…….

      What if Congress does not make the cuts to balance the budget?

      I remember the good old days went being conservative was about pay-go concept of paying for whatever you are passing. Also most issues are gray ant so black and white.

        • therightdirection says:

          so what you’re saying is that higher taxes is ok if we “can’t” find any spending to cut?

          • John Konop says:

            1) I am a bigger fan of fees for services to charge the people that use them and to stop the feeling of something for nothing attitude about getting government services without the real cost.

            2) Any real fiscally responsible person running a business would tell you cutting prices for more sales without covering cost is an irrational business model. And it is better to raise prices to cover cost than to lower prices to get into debt.

            3) We are in this fiscal mess by people wanting services and going to war without paying for it. And if you have to pay for it, than you find out how much people really want it and or support the policy.

  13. ga775 says:

    @debbie0040

    Because Jody signed your pledge, one of two things will happen: either Gwinnett will no longer be able to use Lake Lanier for drinking water in less than two years or he will break your pledge.

    Woodall said last night he will use an “earmark” to introduce a bill to designate Lake Lanier’s water for drinking – in the light of day, subject to open debate on the House floor. If you can think of another way to do this without an “earmark,” I’d be interesting in hearing it…

    (SPOILER ALERT: There’s not.)

    • Harry says:

      There’s another way to do this, know as a normal budget appropriation to a responsible department of government. An earmark is just a way to play footsie with lobbyists.

      • ga775 says:

        That’s called an earmark, Harry. You literally could not have defined the term any better.

        Of course the term earmark itself has bad connotations, and rightfully so. A lot of politicians sneak non-germane appropriations in under the cover of darkness and that’s wrong.

        There’s nothing wrong with a Congressman requesting money for his district, so long as he/she is willing to put their name proudly beside it and subject it to open debate on the floor.

      • Provocateur says:

        And, Harry, you don’t think there are lobbyists who lobby department heads for money allocation???

  14. debbie0040 says:

    We sent Rob the pledge and he did not sign it. He did not give a reason. We had a discussion about earmarks and he supports earmarks. Every Congressman thinks their earmarks are good. It has to stop somewhere. Many Congressmen have taken a pledge not to ask for earmarks.

    They system needs to be reformed.

      • ga775 says:

        I agree, it should be more transparent. However, we aren’t going to be able to re-structure the method through which billions of dollars of appropriated in Congress within the next two years (a tall order for a freshman Member), but we will have to solve Gwinnett’s water and transportation problems or else we will be in huge trouble. Not a perfect solution, but it is one of those difficult decisions that has to be made: drinking water and traffic solutions OR making a rhetorical statement by refusing earmarks? Both are choices that could be made, and we all know which candidate falls on which side. Vote accordingly, one way or the other.

        • bowersville says:

          The larger question that’s not rhetorical is what will happen if earmarks are refused and the water dries up? Without raising local user fees on water/sewer where will the revenue come from to supply the increasing demand for water?

          Will it be left to the local governments to raise fees only to their water/sewer users? How high per individual/commercial user will it go?

          • Harry says:

            The per capita earmarks received by the likes of Price and Linder are a tiny fraction of those received by Democratic representatives. Maybe we should just vote Democratic, then we’ll get the really good earmarks.

            A better solution is to let the budget appropriations process work as intended.

  15. PegM says:

    It is intellectually ingenuous to force people to sign pledges that leave no room for situational actions. You cannot deal with absolutes in this world we live in. We vote people into office who can make decisions based on the nuances of the issue not a black and white pledge driven mentality. Hats off to Rob for being honest and not just (like Hice) signing anything to get favoritism. The Tea Partiers are starting to look like country bumpkins to me and not sophisticated partners in this highly charged world we live in.

    • therightdirection says:

      If the situation were really that dire, I’m pretty sure ATR would understand. Even if they didn’t a majority of voters would see they were misguided and legislator would be spared. The politically easy thing to do is to raise taxes. It takes guts to make real spending cuts.

      • debbie0040 says:

        Where do you think the GOP would be without the tea parties drawing attention to the policies of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, W? What if they formed third parties because they were sick of the attitudes of many in the GOP?

        Don’t expect us to blindly support the same candidates that the GOP establishment does. Which would you rather have happen? The tea party activists sit out the November elections or have us working in the primary system to nominate candidates we can support?

        We have refrained from forming third parties and are concentrating on reforming the exisiting parties and that has ruffled feathers..Had you rather we just formed a third party?

        • BuckheadConservative says:

          You’ve not ruffled any feathers. You’ve not even made any sort of serious challenge to the establishment.

  16. c_murrayiii says:

    Funny, I read in National Journal they conducted a poll that said the one thing that mattered most to voters, across districts and political backgrounds (meaning self-identified Repubs and Dems) was their Congressman/woman bringing money and jobs to the district. In fact, when directly asked if a candidate supported earmarks for the home district, what impact would it have on the person’s willingness to vote for that candidate, less than a third said they’d be less likely to vote for that candidate. Nearly half said it would increase the likelihood they’d vote for the candidate. So, not only is the Atlanta Tea Party’s (Debbie’s) and Hice’s position practically unwise, it is also in conflict with what the actual voters prefer. Come August 10th, I guess we’ll find out if the issue as a whole (earmarks) matter much to the 7th’s voters and further, if they prefer a congressman who will fight for their reasonable needs or who will instead let our access to water and transpo dollars fall by the wayside.

  17. Bill30097 says:

    Having just moved here from the People’s Republic of New Jersey a couple years ago and liking Boortz and Linder, I voted for Wodall in round 1. Then Hice made the runoff so I checked him out and liked him a lot. Then I find out Woodall doesn’t live in the district. Question: Did Woodall grow up here and then move to DC to work for Linder on behalf of the district? Yes is reasonable and makes the “not living here” charge meaningless but NO would change my vote.

    • Harry says:

      Woodall was born in Athens, GA and attended Marist HS in Atlanta, Furman University, and UGa law school. So yeah, unlike you and me he’s local!

    • debbie0040 says:

      Woodall maintained his residence in the D.C. area and just recently moved his residence to Georgia this year.

    • Provocateur says:

      You like Boortz, yet admonish me for the occasional article in National Review that advocates drug legalization.

      Nice hat trick there, Bill. How do you walk with at least one of your feet in your mouth all the time?

  18. debbie0040 says:

    Atlanta Tea Party is not the only tea party that endorsed Hice. I make no apology about opposing earmarks. Earmarks are one of the reasons millions of people took to the streets last year in protest. Without earmarks ObamaCare never would have passed. Earmarks are used as bribes for votes.

    Since we are non partisian I did send the pledge to Heckman and give him the chance to sign the pledge. It will be interesting to see if he does..

    I believe Mr Woodall to be an honorable man but disagree with him on both pledges he did not sign. We will not stop fighting until our country is back on track and there are not earmarks and the system is reformed. If Mr. Woodall wins, we will support him on issues we agree on and oppose him on issues we don’t agree on. I do believe we would agree most of the time..

    http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/

    • John Konop says:

      ….. Without earmarks ObamaCare never would have passed…..

      Not necessarily true, but if we had a REAL PAY-GO policy nothing would pass without the money to pay for it!

      • bowersville says:

        Obamacare wouldn’t have passed without that pro-life blue dog paper waving Nevelle Chamberlin acting and retiring squish Bart Stupak D-MI.

        • debbie0040 says:

          Bowersville, without earmarks, Stupak would not have had the chance to cast the winning vote. It never would have made it that far as it would have never passed the Senate.

          • B Balz says:

            We all knew he Bill was going to pass once Stupak acquiesced.

            Many Americans will see important benefits from this health care Bill. Unfortunately, we can’t pay for these benefits. 2014 is the watershed year.

            “Just added a few more cars on the freight train going over the cliff” – Rep. Jim Marshall 8th District GA

  19. debbie0040 says:

    We need to elect Congressmen that oppose earmarks and that will pledge not to raise our taxes. Tom Price and many members of the RSC have made such pledges. Price supported Woodall because he worked with him over the years and had a friednship with him

    We can not elect congressmen that will go to D.C. and vote for business as usual..

    • c_murrayiii says:

      I’d rather vote for a representative that WILL oppose senseless pork, that WILL NOT vote to raise taxes, and that WILL have a relationship that is productive with his fellow Republicans in Congress. Woodall won’t be about business as usual, but he will be about business, the business of curbing the wasteful spending and overreaching regulatory power of Washington.

      • c_murrayiii says:

        I meant to add, that I want a Rep. who is about getting things done/stopping bad legislation, not about signing off on PR pledges with little practical meaning.

  20. Rep. Mike Coan says:

    I signed the ATR pledge and no one “got me!” That is a crock, fellas! What happens is occasionally you will undoubtedly have an issue come up that gets close to the line of the pledge. The next move is to address the concern in a way that you don’t break the pledge. Guess who wins in this? you got it, THE TAXPAYERS!!!!
    Is it easy? NO. But it is a way to keep electeds accountable and for some, that makes them uncomfortable. That is, in my humble opinion, a very good thing.

  21. debbie0040 says:

    Rep. Coan, when are you going to run for higher office? We need public servants like you…

  22. Tea Party Man says:

    Rep. John Linder never had a problem signing the Americans for Tax Reform pledge. Woodall wants to be the next John Linder. I know John Linder, John Linder is a friend of mine. Mr. Woodall, you are NO John Linder !

  23. debbie0040 says:

    Rob Woodall may very well win, but we are doing our best to see that Jody Hice wins. It is a matter of principle . We would not endorse Woodall if he is the GOP nominee for the November election, but would support him if he won when he was right and oppose him when we thought he was wrong.

    • c_murrayiii says:

      Why do you keep posting this? Come Aug. 10, we’ll see that the people of the 7th could care less what the Atlanta Tea Party does or does not do. You are working hard to make your group irrelevant.

      • Lady Thinker says:

        I have to agree c_murray. I think Woodall will be better than Hice and I don’t think the pledge is that revelant because things can change and Woodall does not need to for his hands to be tied.

  24. franb says:

    Debbie0040- I can not believe you would not endorse Woodall , a conservative, against a democrat,because of that” silly” pledge.History shows us that votes have consequences. Look that the votes that were wasted on Ross Perot and it gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton!

Comments are closed.