MyDD :: A Look Into PA-08

A Look Into PA-08

by Chris Bowers, Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 06:55:59 PM EST

I see from PAProgressive diary that the Patrick Murphy campaign has just conducted their benchmark poll in PA-08. It has some bright points to it. For starters, Democrats leads the generic ballot test there by four points (40-36), whereas in last year's benchmark poll by the Schrader campaign, the generic ballot lead was only one point (42-41). Further, with extremely low name ID, Murphy starts within 11 points of Fitzpatrick (46-35), which is somewhat closer than where Schrader started (down 16 points, 46-30). Overall, that could mean a slight bump of three or four points for the next Democratic nominee in the district, unless the difference is just statistical noise. Of course, since the district has been trending blue for a while now, I don't think that it is entirely statistical noise. This district is definitely winnable.

However, I do want to emphasize something that worries me greatly about the benchmark poll. Like the one conducted last year, again I see what strikes me as a tremendous over-emphasis on trying to win the campaign on reproductive rights. Fitzpatrick does indeed have a true wingnut position in this area that is out of step with the district, but that does not mean that it is a winning issue for the campaign. Last year, almost certainly as a reaction to the numbers in the benchmark poll, the DCCC sent out several mailers attacking Fitzpatrick for these stances. The problem was that they sent them pretty much everywhere in the district, including the heavily Catholic areas of the district that are definitely not pro-choice. So, in some parts of the district, money was spent by Democrats and Democratic campaign committees in order to actually advertise on behalf of Fitzpatrick. With this attention to detail, it is no shock that we end up losing districts where we could win.

This isn't even to mention the fact that this is a congressional campaign, not a Senatorial, Gubernatorial, or Presidential campaign. With no control over the judiciary or local laws, the House actually has relatively little impact on reproductive rights. Thus, making reproductive rights the focus of a House campaign makes about as much sense as running for mayor of Philadelphia on a "Bring the Troops Home Now" platform. It is not a high priority in this particular election.

What is a high priority for voters in PA-08 is energy and environmental policy. This is Michael Fitzpatrick's big selling point, and apart from $2.5M in slime ads accusing Ginny of raping young girls in Afghanistan, this is what he based his campaign on in 2004. It is the only issue that Fitzpatrick uses to emphasize his independence from Tom DeLay and the wingnut majority within the Republican Party, a majority from which many Bucks county Democrats cannot run away from fast enough. One of the main keys to winning this campaign is going to be to take this strength away from him.

Now, Fitzpatrick is going to point out that he voted against the Energy Bill, thus trying to make him look both independent and a defender of the environment. However, he was on the wrong side of many big amendments to the Energy Bill, and hammering that home will get you a lot further than pointing out that he is on the wrong side of a political issue over which his elected office has little power to legislate. For example:

Fitzpatrick voted against punishing energy companies who defraud the public by overcharging for electricity and gas (Dingel Amendment);
he voted against granting local authorities control over where new natural gas facilities are located (Castle Amendment);
he voted against punishing polluters for dumping on minority and low-income neighborhoods (Hastings Amendment);
he voted against greater investment in cleaner energy (Bishop Amendment);
he voted against including alternative fuels in our strategic energy reserve (Kaptur Amendment).

This really isn't a surprise. The entire reason he did not win the endorsement of any environmental groups last time around was because he did not answer all of the questions on their application sheets. Had he done so, he would have actually been required to make many of his anti-environmental views known to the public. Instead, we had to wait until he entered Congress and started voting against the environment for everyone to know what his true positions were. Now we all know that Mike Fitzpatrick is clearly not a friend of the environment. Hammer that. Repeat that. Put that in your stump speech. Stick in on your direct mail and put it in your TV spots. Take that away from him, and not only does he seem like a fraud, he also loses any sense of independence from the wingnut Congress. With Fitzpatrick on the wrong side of the issue that brought him into office in 2004, PA-08 becomes extremely vulnerable.

My favorite in this race may not be around anymore, but to see another Democratic candidate in that district walking down the same failed path that was taken in 2004 is extremely worrying. If you have actually spent time in that district watching its politics, you can learn a lot more about it than any cookie-cutter benchmark poll can ever tell you. Emphasize the issues that are relevant to the office you are competing for, and that really matter to the people who live in that district.

Since 2002, there has been few things more frustrating and empty sounding than Democrats who favored the war going on about how the war was a good idea and we should continue it, but Bush conducted the war badly because he didn't bring in our allies, because our humvees don't have enough armor, because the intelligence was bad, or because firehouses are opening in Baghdad while they are closing in America. Have such statements ever influenced anyone when someone who supports the war speaks them? Do such statements represent anyone? Consistently, according the trend-lines in the CBS poll currently up at the top of the Iraq section of polling report, only around 5-10% of the population thinks the war was a good idea but disapproves of Bush's handling of the war.

That sort of lame "I support the war but not the way it was conducted" stuff barely worked for anti-war Kerry voters in 2004, and it certainly isn't going to work for anti-war voters in 2006. By that point, the debate will have shifted entirely away from poor planning, bad intelligence, half-hearted diplomacy and the like, and it will instead be focused squarely on withdrawal. If you support the war, just say so, and stop coming up with any way you can think of to tell anti-war audiences otherwise. At least voters will respect you for standing up for what you believe in, rather than just trying to tell people what they want to hear.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment

We are really that bad at micro-targeting? (3.00 / 1)

We sent pro-choice mailers to whole neighborhoods of pro-life Catholics? That is depressing. Micro-targeting can't be THAT hard. And you're completely right about running on an issue that doesn't come before the Congress.

Ugh.

by texas dem on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 08:20:06 PM EST

And that's the question, isn't it? (none / 0)

The fact that the DCCC sent these mailings everywhere in the district is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is who received those mailings within the district.

In the absence of information regarding what, if any, targeting was done for these pieces, discussions about the impact that those mailings may have had should be considered purely speculative.

by Politicalhack06 on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 08:59:52 PM EST

Re: And that's the question, isn't it? (none / 0)

How is this the DCCC's fault? Presumably, the local campaign knows its district better than the national folks. Was it sloppiness on their part?

by Adam B on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 12:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And that's the question, isn't it? (none / 0)

"How is this the DCCC's fault? Presumably, the local campaign knows its district better than the national folks. Was it sloppiness on their part?"

If the DCCC sent mailings to an untargeted / unfiltered audience, I can see what Chris is saying.

That, however, seems to me to be rather unlikely given the sheer expense of sending mass mailings. Doing so would require money to be pulled away from other mailings, media and other races.

So, without knowing the universe that such mailings went to, it's purely speculation that those mailings had a negative impact on Schrader's results last year.

Not to mention the fact that Schrader did nothing to hide the fact that she was pro-choice (likely voters read newspapers, listen to the radio, watch debates, etc... it's not like the only source of political information they get is mailings from the DCCC).

Or the fact that Repubicans and the Fitzpatrick campaign were perfectly capable of targeting anti-choice messages about Schrader to their likely voters. They probably did.

Or the fact that the district had been represented by a pro-choice Republican for years.

Blaming the DCCC is easy, but it doesn't always make a lot of sense. In this particular case, it would appear to make even less sense than usual.

by Politicalhack06 on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 01:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And that's the question, isn't it? (none / 0)

Schrader's pro-choice views were, as Chris noted, central to her campaign.

I thought a major problem she shared with Lois Murphy (beyond inexperience, though Murphy seemed more polished) was an inability to fight back against the "you took money from MoveOn" smears. We can't be silent in the wake of such crap.

by Adam B on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 02:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And that's the question, isn't it? (none / 0)

"Schrader's pro-choice views were, as Chris noted, central to her campaign."

Exactly. All the more reason that the 'blame the DCCC mailings' refrain is likely far more conjecture than reality.

by Politicalhack06 on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 04:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Abortion doesn't come before Congress? (3.00 / 1)

"And you're completely right about running on an issue that doesn't come before the Congress."

Ummm... since when does abortion not come before the House?

Let's be serious here.

H AMDT 209 to HR 1815: Amendment sought to allow military personnel and their dependents overseas to use their own funds to obtain abortion services in overseas military hospitals.

05/25/2005: Amendment Rejected: 194-233 (Roll no. 216).

HR 748: To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes.

04/27/2005: Passed: 270 - 157 (Roll no. 144).

S 3: A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

House Conference Report Vote: 10/2/2003: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 281 - 142 (Roll no. 530)

HR 760: To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

House Passage Vote: 06/04/2003: Passed: 282-139, 1 Present (Roll no. 332)

H.AMDT.27 to HR 503: Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to establish a federal crime for violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy.

House Passage Vote: 04/26/2001: Passed: 252 - 172, (Roll no. 89).

H.AMDT.1017 to HR 4781: Amendment sought to strike language from the bill that prohibits using any of the funds it distributes to pay for abortions or the administrative expenses connected to any federal health plan that provides benefits or coverage for abortions.

House Passage Vote: 7/20/2000: Passed: 216-202 (Roll no. 428).

H.AMDT.997 to HR 4811: Vote to adopt an amendment that would strike language from the bill that prohibits giving United States funds to any organization working overseas that uses its own funds to provide abortion services or engage in advocacy related to abortion services.

House Passage Vote: 7/13/2000: Passed: 239-185 (Roll no. 400).

H.AMDT.882 to HR 4690: Amendment sought to strike section 103 which prohibits funds in the bill from being used for an abortion, except where the life of the woman would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in the case of rape.

House Amendment Vote: 6/22/2000: Rejected: 156-254 (Roll no. 318).

H.AMDT.722 to HR 4205: Amendment sought to repeal the statutory prohibition on privately funded abortions in overseas military facilities.

House Amendment Vote: 5/18/2000: Rejected: 195-221 (Roll no. 203)

HR 3660: To amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.

House Passage Vote: 4/5/2000: Passed: 287-141 (Roll no. 104).

H AMDT 360 to HR 2606: Amendment restricts funding for population planning activities unless the foreign organization certifies that funds will not be used to promote abortion as a method of family planning, or to lobby for or against abortion.

House Amendment Vote: 7/29/1999: Adopted: 221-208 (Roll no. 350).

HR 1218: To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

House Passage Vote: 6/30/1999: Passed: 270-159 (Roll no. 261).

H.AMDT.156 to HR 1401: Amendment sought to repeal the statutory prohibition on privately funded abortions in overseas military facilities.

House Amendment Vote: 6/9/1999: Rejected: 203-225 (Roll no. 184).

AMDT 142 to HR 1906: An amendment to prohibit any funds to be used by the FDA for the testing, development, or approval (including approval of production, manufacturing, or distribution) of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion

Housese Ammendment Vote: 6/8/1999: Passed 217-214 (Roll no. 173)

This list could go on and on and on and on.

The fact is that Congress does deal with these issues regularly, and while Members of House may very well have less impact on abortion issues than other elected or un-elected officials, they do play a role - an important one, at that.

More to the point, though, suggesting that we give free passes to members who vote against their district's wishes, on this or any other issue, is simply outrageous.

by Politicalhack06 on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 09:21:19 PM EST

Re: Abortion doesn't come before Congress? (none / 0)

If you want to run your campaign on those bills, go ahead. Most of those are repeats of almost exactly the same bills, and are all narrowly targeted issues surrounding reproductive rights. Any campaign can only get their message out on a small number of issues, especially in the Philadelphia market with several big campaigns and with a local media that focuses less on local politcs than any other major market. If you want to make whether or not the United States should be funding overseas aid to pro-choice organizations one of those issues, go right ahead. Just don't expect it to swing the seat.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 10:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Abortion doesn't come before Congress? (none / 0)

You're totally missing the point, and whether you intended to do so or not, distorting mine in the process.

First of all, let's remember that this minor thread started with your assertion that:

"With no control over the judiciary or local laws, the House actually has relatively little impact on reproductive rights. Thus, making reproductive rights the focus of a House campaign makes about as much sense as running for mayor of Philadelphia on a "Bring the Troops Home Now" platform. It is not a high priority in this particular election."

The fact of the matter is that leadership in Congress has been steadily attempting to chip away at reproductive rights in this country for years. A piece here, a piece there, a chunk there.

And how have they attempted to do that? Well, they have to pass laws. Like the late-term abortion law, for instance.

And who votes on laws like that? Or the one that bars members of the military from receiving a constitutionally-protected medical procedure in a military hospital (even if they pay for it with their own money)? Yup. It's the House and Senate.

Those votes were simply examples that demonstrate the fact that the House, yes, does frequently deal with abortion issues.

Sorry to be totally sarcastic about it, but claiming that "making reproductive rights the focus of a House campaign makes about as much sense as running for mayor of Philadelphia on a 'Bring the Troops Home Now' platform" is just silly to begin with.

State and local governments provide the vast majority of the funding for schools. By the standard you suggest on abortion, we shouldn't criticize a Republican member of the House who votes against funding to reduce class-sizes.

ANY vote that a member of Congress casts, regardless of how big a role the House plays in a certain policy area, is fair game. If it polls well district-wide, use it. If it polls well with a certain demographic, target that demographic and use it.

Save the 'doesn't play much of a role' stuff for policy seminars and term papers. If it cuts with voters, there's a place for it in the campaign.

And as you know, votes alone are not the basis for direct mail, TV, radio or Internet communications. As a result, Fitzpatrick's previous statements on abortion issues, his endorsements, his campaign money, his support for a rabidly anti-choice president and GOP House leadership, all can be used to get the point across.

Those specific votes are all just pieces of a larger puzzle. And who says you have to talk about specific pieces of legislation anyway?

He's 100 percent anti-choice. He's taken [insert money total] from organizations that oppose the right to choose and want to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports X,Y,Z, etc. etc

Finally, and this is really the most important thing, when 61 percent of a district is pro-choice, you don't abandon the issue because you didn't like the way it may (or may not) have been handled in the past.

That's not to say that other issues might not be more salient, but leaving ammunition by the side of the road on the way to a fight just doesn't make much sense.

by Politicalhack06 on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 02:39:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Distorting points (none / 0)

At the beginning of your post your put the following line in quotes:

"And you're completely right about running on an issue that doesn't come before the Congress."

You based your entire first post on a line I didn't even use in my article, and you are accusing me of distorting your point? My actual quote was:

"the House actually has relatively little impact on reproductive rights."

I didn't say it had none and I didn't say it didn't come before Congress. I said it had relatively little. However, you protrayed me as saying that it had none with a fabricated quote and then accuse me of distorting your point? That is just crap.

And I am not talking about abandoning any issue. I am talking about which issues should become the focus of the campaign. My argument was that Fitzpatrick's anti-environmental record should be front and center in this campaign rather than reproductive rights, as the benchmark poll suggested it should. Any honest reading of my post would have made that clear.

by Chris Bowers on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 10:22:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Distorting points (3.00 / 1)

For whatever reason, my attempt to reply to the post by texas dem on Mon Sep 26th, 2005 at 08:20:06 PM EDT came up as a reply to your initial posting. Probably my mistake.

As a result, you'll see that the quote I cite was not "fabricated." I shouldn't have to even have to defend that because the mistake was obvious, but I do because you chose to accuse me of fabricating something that happened to be the very first response to your post.

So, if you want to accuse me of responding to the wrong post, fine. Reading your own blog, however, would be my first suggestion before you accuse your readers of "fabrication."

The point remains that the standard you suggested for the abortion issue in House races ("relatively little impact") would completely negate any criticism of a House candidate on any number of issues. I cited education as another example, but there are many more.

How much impact the House has on a particular policy area is totally irrelevant to whether or not a vote or votes should be considered for use against an opponent.

You suggested such a standard, not me. I simply reacted to it.

I'll be the first one to agree that, based on the benchmark, that enviromental issues jump to the forefront.

But to claim, as you did, that abortion is "not a priority in this particular election" when 61 percent of the district is pro-choice makes my reading of your post quite fair, and yes, quite honest.

Campaigns can, or should be able to, walk and chew gum at the same time, and as you know, different audiences react to different messages.

In other words, a good campaign should be able to utilize and focus on a number of issues, from the environment to abortion to education to etc., etc. Such focus can come from the carpet bombing approach (TV, radio, some mail) or more narrowly targeted communication (mail, Internet).

And any issue on which 61 percent of the distict is on your side is, clearly, a priority and something that has to be focused on, again, contrary to your assertion that "making reproductive rights the focus of a House campaign makes about as much sense as running for mayor of Philadelphia on a 'Bring the Troops Home Now' platform."

Regardless of such disagreements and misunderstandings (on both of our parts, probably), though, keep up the good work.

by Politicalhack06 on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 12:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Murphy focusing on abortion? (none / 0)

Chris,

Perhaps it's me, but I haven't seen Murphy focusing on abortion that much at all - he's been doing a bunch of stuff, but hasn't pushed the abortion issue. Know something I don't?

Also, Murphy has been pushing for an exit strategy for Iraq (see the City paper article about him at http://citypaper.net/articles/2005-09-22/cb3.shtml.
I don't view him as a kerry clone - in fact, he comes off much stronger than Kerry on these issues, at least face to face.

Again, my impressions, but perhaps you have a view I don't?

by PAprogressive on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 10:16:09 PM EST

Re: Murphy focusing on abortion? (none / 0)

"Perhaps it's me, but I haven't seen Murphy focusing on abortion that much at all - he's been doing a bunch of stuff, but hasn't pushed the abortion issue. Know something I don't?"

I haven't seen him do it, but the poll you released made me worried that the campaign will do it. The poll you posted was clearly a benchmark poll. Many campaigns use the benchmark poll in order to determine which issues they should focus on. The benchmark poll you posted focued on reproductive rights over all other issues. Especially after seeing the campaign last year where the nechmark poll showed the same results, I am not in any way convinced that that is the issue the campaign should focus on. Mention, sure. Focus on, no.

Thsi post is just trying to advise them against making the same mistakes of the past. I haven't seen them do it yet, but the poll you released made me very worried.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 10:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Murphy focusing on abortion? (none / 0)

Gotcha. I wouldn't be as worried. I have a pretty good suspicion that pat's team knows his strengths, and although abortion is a hot topic, I think they will handle it well.

That'll be my hunch, we'll surely see how it plays out.

by PAprogressive on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 12:10:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What century ? (none / 0)

I wonder what century we're
living in with media buys if
a suburban Congressional
candidate might put ads on
costly big city broadcast TV ?

Betcha that over 80% of the
households get cable. Less
than half the TV audience now
belongs to over-the-air stations.
And the local cable companies
do sell ad time.

The leading cable channels give
each local cable operator slots
to fill with ads they sell locally --
2 minutes per half hour or so.

Because of the limited availability
you'd better buy time for October
2006 tomorrow -- if the Rethugs
haven't already bought them out.

But if you can get your ads on BET,
MTV, ESPN and any regional sports
channel, CNN, MSNBC, the Weather
Channel -- as well as TBS, TNT, USA,
Lifetime, and other re-run and old
movie channels, by the end of the
campaign your ads WILL be seen
by almost everyone in your district.

by Woody on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 11:08:13 PM EST

Energy Prices (none / 0)

Chris,
I think you glazed over the most important issue from now until next April. Energy costs. By the time of the election it might be something different, but for now Patrick should be running on ENERGY. My parents live in Pennsylvania and natural gas has doubled in price. I heard on NPR that it could possibly double again.

Through the entire PA winter we need to be hammering that Republicans got us here, with a bad energy policy that is pork for big oil. Republicans got us here by not being prepared for natural disasters. Most blue-collar folks in PA are going to be turning their thermostats way down. I grew up that way. I know how bad a parent feels when their kids wake up cold, how guilty. They are going to be looking for someone to blame. FOCUS like a LASER.

BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics

by Robert P on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 06:30:07 AM EST

Murphy on Iraq (none / 0)

Chris, you said:

And one more thing. If you are going to support the war as a Democrat, please stop pandering to anti-war audiences with lines about faulty armor, poor planning, and firehouses opening in Baghdad but closing in America.
...
That sort of lame "I support the war but not the way it was conducted" stuff barely worked for anti-war Kerry voters in 2004, and it certainly isn't going to work for anti-war voters in 2006. By that point, the debate will have shifted entirely away from poor planning, bad intelligence, half-hearted diplomacy and the like, and it will instead be focused squarely on withdrawal. If you support the war, just say so, and stop coming up with any way you can think of to tell anti-war audiences otherwise. At least voters will respect you for standing up for what you believe in, rather than just trying to tell people what they want to hear.

From everything I have read and heard about Patrick, he is for a timetable to leave Iraq. Since he was there, and he has seen people die, he just does not want an immediate withdrawal because that would not be the best thing at this time. He does want the administration to stand up and say what their objectives are, when they are expected to be met, and when the US will leave Iraq. That is all anyone can ask for. He has not been wishy washy on this, like Kerry was. He has been articulate and unwavering.

Thoughts...

by smm401 on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 09:48:49 AM EST

Re: Murphy on Iraq (none / 0)

I really haven't seen anything about a timetable, either in his posts online, the the Inquirer article about him, in his emails, on his website, or when I have seen him speak. I think it would be great if he was in favor of said timeline--then I wouldn't really care what his original position on the war was--but I'd like to see something saying that he is.

by Chris Bowers on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 10:28:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Murphy on Iraq (3.00 / 1)

Chris,

I think the relevant line is from the Citypaper article:

"Murphy, who's facing Republican Michael Fitzpatrick, wants to bump the minimum wage above $7, scale back the Patriot Act and, most of all, "excuse my French, but demand a goddamn pull-out schedule from Iraq.""

He speaks at multiple events daily and about this issue at almost every single one, regardless of the audience, regardless of whether the press is reporting it.

by sem1480 on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 11:26:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not from PA 8, but PA 13/NE Philly (none / 0)

I must say this about the pro-choice mailings through Catholic neighborhoods. Yeah, it was boneheaded, but you have a surprisingly large number of pro-choice Catholics; however, for many of us it's not a #1 issue. Many people, including myself have been quite turned off to the way the Church/Archdiocese of Philadelphia is handling many issues such as sex abuse and telling me how to vote. My sentiments are shared by many Catholics in NE Philly and Lower Bucks County (PA 8). The Dems can mention they are pro-choice in the Catholic areas of NE Philly/Lower Bucks, but only briefly mention it as part of a greater platform, not your bread and butter like Ginny Schrader did.

by FlyersFan26 on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 04:05:21 AM EST

Fitzpatrick mailing (none / 0)

I live in the PA-08. After the transPORKtation bill went through, I got a direct mail piece from Fitzpatrick bragging about bringing home $25.9 million for Pennsylvania projects.

I don't know how this went over locally.

by quirked on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 09:19:31 AM EST

Fitz knows he's vulnerable (none / 0)

And you can rest assure I'll be up there pulling for Pat Murphy. Fitz will try to do a lot of things because he's vulnerable even though he can only take partial credit for it. If I'm not mistaken Allyson Schwartz also pulled some $$$$ for that transportation stuff as well.

by FlyersFan26 on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 12:04:22 AM EST

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.