Juan Garcia Handily Defeats Rep. Gene Seaman, House Dems Pick-Up Five Seats

Congratulations to Juan Garcia! (3.00 / 1)

Corpus Christi Caller-Times says San Patricio County delivered too

CC Caller Times article November 8, 2006
Garcia wins District 32 seat

San Patricio County voters help Democrat oust incumbent Seaman

SINTON — Juan Garcia has won the District 32 Texas House of Representatives race, upsetting Republican incumbent Gene Seaman.

With 328 ballots still out, Garcia is up by 602 total votes, according the San Patricio County election officials.

Earlier in the day -- with the three precincts still out -- Seaman led Garcia by 24 votes, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s Office.

Way to go Juan!

---

by: sonia @ Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 18:53:03 PM CST

Aransas County & Seaman (3.00 / 1)

There was a reason Aransas County Republicans voted for Garcia and your explanation doesn't come close to the truth...

---

by: miguel4 @ Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 19:21:00 PM CST

What? (0.00 / 0)

I didn't even give an explanation, I just said he did well. How about offering an explanation instead of, you know, just typing for no reason...

/and why bicker over a victory? Oh yeah -- we're Democrats.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:36:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yup we're Democrats (0.00 / 0)

We won big nationally and we won some good things here in Texas, it's just that the national wave didn't extend here in seems. There are reasons for that, some cultural, but more importantly structural.

The numbers say a lot of things, which is why I like looking at them. The don't usually lie when you are able to look at them historically.

And as Phillip knows, I'm not an adherent to the "shut up and be quite" wing of the Democratic Party.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:23:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hesitant (1.00 / 1)

I'm pretty hesitant to reply here for fear that I'll be tackled but... oh well.  Here goes.

I question that Garcia won "handily".  Yes, he did win... by almost 800 votes of which I wouldn't consider "handily".  The win was just under 2%, both candidates were under 50% and if it weren't for San Patricio county Garcia's chances were very slim. 

Yes he did win.  But why did he win?  To some, this is going to sound like sour grapes but I tell you, it's not.  His field organizing campaign was solely funded by one person:  Mikal Watts.  The negative campaign ads of which the Garcia campaign claimed they were going positive were funded by a Watts funded PAC.  I must be reminded that this was a very conservative district but it makes me wonder... Garcia's chances were doubled, tripled and possibly quadrupled due to Watts.  If not for him, he would've lost.  What does this say of our system?  Who does Garcia owe allegiance to now?  He will most certainly have to perform very well here in order to be reelected but my strong feeling is he's using this as a launch pad somewhere else (Ortiz Sr.'s seat).

My feeling was either Garcia was going to win by a little ("handily") or by a lot, but this win I don't think was either of those.  What we saw was an unprecedented field organizing campaign.  All the negative publicity was going against Seaman.  Juan's endorsements were incredible, even capturing the CC Caller Times.  What I'm saying is, this was Juan's election to lose... and he won, barely. 

Don't get me wrong, Juan Garcia is a great guy but we've once again fallen into the trap of the very thing we hate. 

I don't consider The Archer Group honest by any means.  I neither have much confidence in Mikal Watts. 

I've been labeled by a few as the "angriest Democrat in TX" (ouch, this hurts so bad) and it's probably true.  I'm angry because if this is what has to occur to see the Democrats take back TX then we're screwed.  We've compromised our values and morals for the very thing we hate and want to see done away with. 

TX Democrats get angry when the Green Party attempts to get on the ballot.  TX Democrats are largely ignorant of IRV and Range Voting.  Do TX Democrats want to see the electoral college done away with?  Do TX Democrats want to see clean publicly funded campaigns or the biggest bidder to have the most say?

I'm no politician or an analyst, let alone a great writer or a grand speaker.  I am an angry voter though and I'd like to think I call a spade a spade when I see one.  Yeah, sure... Garcia is better than Seaman by a few football fields but Garcia just won by a 60 yard field goal. 

Juan Garcia, bless his heart, just won because he was funded by a rich highpower lawyer.

I'm not trying to tarnish anybody here (except maybe the infamous Archer Group - oy ve).  Juan may very well and probably will go to high places... but I still wonder.

Scattered thoughts and comments but there you have it, probably one of the most down to earth *and fair* analyses you'll get in these parts. 

---

by: whoisgringo @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 12:57:10 PM CST

I very strongly disagree. (5.00 / 1)

Given the overwhelming Republican advantage in this district (it leans 60%/40% in favor of the Republicans), a Democratic win of about 2% is a handy win (well outside the realm of possible reversal by recount).

Your suggestion that this "was Juan's election to lose" is simply a misreading of District 32.  You are new to South Texas so your misreading of the district is quite understandable, but those of us who have been here a while know that Josephine Miller is a great Democrat who campaigned like hell (and who Eugene Seaman beat by 7%), and it is not a coincidence that Seaman drew no opponent in '98, '00, and '04.

Mikal Watts certainly provided a huge boost to Juan Garcia's campaign, but you give Watts too much credit and Garcia too little. 

Watts's well-funded ground campaign wasn't entirely for Garcia's benefit.  Watts's ground campaign focused as intently on the Democrats running for County Judge and Sheriff. 

The Nueces County-wide district where the Sheriff and County Judge candidates were running was a majority-Democratic area whereas Garcia's four-county-embracing district did not have that demographic advantage for Garcia. 

Notwithstanding the demographic advantage that the Sheriff and County Judge candidates benefited from, they lost while Garcia won.  Watts' ground campaign was, therefore, effective only where the candidate himself was effective.

Your conclusion that Garcia "just won because he was funded by a rich highpower lawyer" is demonstrably false.  If your conclusion about Watts single-handedly electing Garcia were true, the Sheriff and County Judge candidates who also had Watts's support would have won (or at least come closer to winning). 

By my count, The Archer Group went 1-for-3 in the South Texas races, and you also give them far too much credit for Garcia's win.

Finally, it unfairly insults Garcia, Watts, and all of Garcia's many supporters (and non-supporters who live in District 32) to imply that Garcia "owes allegiance" to Watts.

Garcia won with the support and hard work of many people (including me) besides Watts, and Garcia will pay his allegiance to those he was elected to represent (which, by the way, also includes me but does not include Watts). 

If you can question a candidate's "allegiance" to those who he received funding from, you need to find an interest besides politics because every candidate needs money to win and you will not be able to find any candidate who is supported only by people you admire (and if you did find such a candidate, they?d lose from lack of wide support).  I wish we had publicly funded elections, but we don't, and if you tear down all candidates who receive money to finance their campaigns, you'll never get behind a winning candidate and -- until we elect some good candidates -- we'll never get publicly funded elections.  Your attack on candidates who win with private funding will do nothing but perpetuate the election of candidates who would never even consider publicly funded elections, and I am sure that Garcia would be more receptive to this idea than Seaman ever was.

Also, what makes you think that Garcia owes Watts allegiance instead of assuming, as I do, that Watts and Garcia both owe their allegiance to the betterment of the general good? 

Do you doubt that Garcia's campaign was aimed at promoting the public good -- that's the strong impression I have of Garcia based on the issues he campaigned for and based on my conversations with him. 

Do you doubt that Watts -- who's made a career of representing people killed or crippled by unreasonably dangerous products -- does not seek to promote the public good?  I see no evidence of that.  When other "rich highpower lawyers" supported Strayhorn, Watts backed Chris Bell (and not because he believed that Bell was going to beat Perry and then "pay allegiance" to Watts).  Watts has supported both Democrats and Republicans, but he's supported Democrats over 90% of the time.  I don't always agree with him, but it seems silly to beat up our winning candidate just because Watts supported him (just like it would be silly to beat up Bell because O'Quinn supported him).  Where is your comparable concern that Bob "Shoddy Home" Perry and Texans for Lawsuit Reform (a/k/a Insurance Companies Against Accepting Fair Responsibility) poured twice as much money into Seaman?s campaign?  Will we ever win back Texas if Republicans get limitless funding from James Leininger, Bo Pilgrim, Perry, and LTR while our candidates rebuff funding from large contributors?

Frankly, I wish Watts or O'Quinn or any of the other big political benefactors were more involved in supporting Democrats because I think David Van Os, Hank Gilbert, Judge Bill Moody and several others might very well have won if they had just half the funding of their opponents in order to get their ideas to a broader audience.  I thank Watts for supporting Garcia rather than condemning either Watts or Garcia.  I wish you would, too.

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 15:25:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To be fair (0.00 / 0)

To be fair, I wasn't "condemning" Garcia.  I'm pretty sure I made that clear in my post and would appreciate you not take me out of context.  In respects to Watts, yeah... he was the sole funder for their door knocking campaign. 

On the contrary, it is not an insult to Garcia and his supporters.  That's why I was hesitant on posting because I feared what someone would say or how far they'd go to take me out of context.

I do question if Garcia owes some sort of allegiance to Watts.  Why wouldn't he?  We're talking about a campaign that accused Gene Seaman outspending them when all is said and done, they're neck and neck.

You do, however, make an interesting point about the county judge race which was in lockstep with the Garcia campaign.  To be fair, they were marred by a jail issue which I still haven't made a fair decision on.  I think it might go to show how something, well lubed, a very well oiled machine, a very well funded campaign still can't "win" campaigns.  That's up for debate.  To put in perspective and as I understand it, Garcia edged out a win on approximately one day's worth of work for the door knocking campaign.  Mind you, this was unprecedented; door knocking for months well ahead of schedule and following up with these voters.  I'm just not so sure. 

Is it a badge of honor to be solely funded by a benefactor?  You mistake my so-called "attack" on Garcia when I'm actually critiquing the system.  Please, don't take this as an attack on the voters and supporters and Garcia himself - I think I've made myself pretty clear.  For a second there, I felt like John Kerry explaining himself.  ;) 

I appreciate your feedback but I will respectfully disagree.  Yes, you are right, I am new to South Texas but I'm not new to politics and I wasn't born yesterday.  It needs work and I've offered a critical analysis which in these parts folk won't like to hear.  I'm just trying to be objective, certainly not tarnish as you've tried to make me out to be doing.

I look forward to continuing this conversation. 

---

by: whoisgringo @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 16:16:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You say, "To be fair, I wasn't 'condemning' Garcia" but (5.00 / 1)

you asked "Who does Garcia owe allegiance to now?" and then said  "I'm angry because if this is what has to occur to see the Democrats take back TX then we're screwed.  We've compromised our values and morals for the very thing we hate and want to see done away with."

The implication of your statement is that Garcia has compromised his morals and owes allegiance to his contributors.  If not, what were you referring to when you said "I'm angry because if this is what has to occur" and what are you saying is a "compromise of our values and morals"? 

Garcia is a better man than what you imply.

Also, you are mistaken.  Garcia knocked on many doors, his wife knocked on many doors, unpaid volunteers knocked on many doors -- Watts was not the "sole funder of their door knocking campaign." 

As far as I understand, what Watts funded was the Archer Group effort, and neither Garcia's campaign nor his door knocking were limited to the Archer Group's efforts.  Plus, the failure of the Archer Group to succeed (or even come close) in the County Judge and Sheriff races implies that their door knocking campaign was not as effective as Garcia's own efforts.

You say "I do question if Garcia owes some sort of allegiance to Watts.  Why wouldn't he?"  I'll tell you why he wouldn't -- Garcia would owe Watts no allegiance because Garcia can't be bought and it strikes me as offensive for you to suggest otherwise.

If you were making this allegation about a candidate who had a long history of voting against his constituents' interest and in favor of his financial contributors' interests (like Seaman), I'd understand the basis for this allegation, but Garcia hasn't voted on anything yet so your suggestion that Garcia has been bought is both offensive and wholly without any support or basis.

You say "I'm actually critiquing the system," but you aren't criticizing anyone but Garcia and Watts, are you?  You haven't offered any suggestion for how our candidates can win against the funding advantage that Perry, Leininger, etc. give the Republicans, have you?

If you believe Watts's support for Garcia was only for political gain, how do you explain Watts's support for the Democratic candidate for Sheriff?  Watts doesn't even live in Nueces County so what is the huge political benefit he got from supporting the Sheriff candidate?  I wouldn't criticize teachers for donating money to a candidate who shares their values, I wouldn't criticize plumbers for donating money to a candidate who shares their values, so why should I join in your criticism of a lawyer who donated money to a candidate who shares his values?

Finally, you say "We're talking about a campaign that accused Gene Seaman outspending them when all is said and done, they're neck and neck."  I think you are very much mistaken based on the volume of Seaman television commercials I saw, but neither of us will know until the post-election finance reports come out.  What motive do you have for saying that Garcia "accused" Seaman of outspending him when the post-election finance reports haven't even come out yet?

If we are ever going to have publicly funded elections, we are going to have to get privately funded politicians to sponsor that legislation.  Singling out Garcia for criticism because he successfully navigated the current system seems a poor strategy for achieving the goal of fixing the system when Garcia's opponent has (1) fewer real people living in the district as doners, (2) more PAC donors, and (3) more big dollar issue-specific donors.

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 17:22:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where to begin? (0.00 / 0)

A critical analysis of one of our golden boys campaigns will deservedly get a lot of flack.  I realize that and that's ok, it's to be expected. 

Where to begin?  Let's go from the top shall we?

You said:

"The implication of your statement is that Garcia has compromised his morals and owes allegiance to his contributors.  If not, what were you referring to when you said "I'm angry because if this is what has to occur" and what are you saying is a "compromise of our values and morals"?"

I haven't implied anything.  Let me just say it to be clear.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars were just poured into a campaign that we barely won.  It's good that Garcia won but I regret the path that we continually take to get there.  You do make a valid point in that this is all we've left in order to change things, you are right.  Honestly though, I'll believe it when I see it.  It's tough, I doubt we will though.  This is in generall, not specifically targeted at Garcia.

Let me be clear, I single this race out because this is the one I know up close and personal.  This is the one I've followed, this is the one I made several personal sacrifices for and then ultimately left because I felt compromised and it was taxing.  The irony of it is, I prefer being out in the field with 2 or 3 hours of sleep doing military exercises or what have you.  Much more taxing but the absence of feeling compromised morally imho.  That's just me.

You said:

"Garcia is a better man than what you imply."

I haven't implied anything.  I told you how I felt about it personally.  I gave my analysis of what I think is wrong.  This isn't a personal attack, this isn't a smear and please don't twist it around to be one.  It's not.  This is a moot point.

You said:

"Also, you are mistaken.  Garcia knocked on many doors, his wife knocked on many doors, unpaid volunteers knocked on many doors -- Watts was not the "sole funder of their door knocking campaign.""

Sure, yes, Garcia and others were there knocking away.  Let's talk about the paid canvassing program of which I talked about (the door knocking campaign).  Watts was the benefactor there. 

You said:

"As far as I understand, what Watts funded was the Archer Group effort, and neither Garcia's campaign nor his door knocking were limited to the Archer Group's efforts.  Plus, the failure of the Archer Group to succeed (or even come close) in the County Judge and Sheriff races implies that their door knocking campaign was not as effective as Garcia's own efforts."

Yes, you are correct in that Watts funded the Archer Group's endeavors.  The field organizing (i.e. the paid canvassing that was on the streets nearly everyday) was under the Archer Group.  The county judge and D32 race worked practically in lockstep with each other.  One failed, the other succeeded and imho it was close, closer than they had anticipated, closer than we all had anticipated.  That's just me though.  We're talking about this unprecedented campaign that were at thousands of houses everyday.  You'd think, I thought, it'd work swimmingly which proves my point that we can't just throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at a campaign and expect to win.  Moreso, I'm confused at the voter to voter contact they had and still less than stellar results, unless I'm missing something.

You said:

"You say "I do question if Garcia owes some sort of allegiance to Watts.  Why wouldn't he?"  I'll tell you why he wouldn't -- Garcia would owe Watts no allegiance because Garcia can't be bought and it strikes me as offensive for you to suggest otherwise."

I'm sorry it strikes you offensive, it really shouldn't.  Just ignore what I'm saying and think that the campaign went over really really well and we've nothing to learn from it.  Or, you can take bits and pieces and do whatever you want.  It won't hurt my feelings, I've nothing to gain or lose here except contemplating what just happened.  Yes, I do think Garcia will owe something... some sort of allegiance.  Whatever it is, whenever it comes up, I think it will happen.  He was the benefactor, what else can I say?

You said:

"If you were making this allegation about a candidate who had a long history of voting against his constituents' interest and in favor of his financial contributors' interests (like Seaman), I'd understand the basis for this allegation, but Garcia hasn't voted on anything yet so your suggestion that Garcia has been bought is both offensive and wholly without any support or basis."

Good point.  Please don't take offense to it, just shrug it off... we're talking, this is discussion.  I think I've managed to display my support for Juan here several times (albeit skeptical yet it's still there).  Want me to say it again?  Read the above response from if necessary.

You said:

"You say "I'm actually critiquing the system," but you aren't criticizing anyone but Garcia and Watts, are you?  You haven't offered any suggestion for how our candidates can win against the funding advantage that Perry, Leininger, etc. give the Republicans, have you?"

Yes, I am critiquing the system.  I am skeptical of Watts because of said reasons.  No where have I made personal accusations against Juan.  Those who actually ran the campaign, I'm dearly skeptical of - whatever it takes.  It's a rat race which is why most folk have much disdain for politics and politicians.  But this is the race I know, I loved (and hated) and made sacrifices for.  I have offered suggestions on how to level the playing field (irv, clean/public funding, abolish the electoral college).  Just don't do it imho, scary thought I know and not pleasant at all.  Or elect folk who will actually fight for it, and you and I know that's few and far between.  I'll have to see it to believe it.

You said:

"If you believe Watts's support for Garcia was only for political gain, how do you explain Watts's support for the Democratic candidate for Sheriff?  Watts doesn't even live in Nueces County so what is the huge political benefit he got from supporting the Sheriff candidate?  I wouldn't criticize teachers for donating money to a candidate who shares their values, I wouldn't criticize plumbers for donating money to a candidate who shares their values, so why should I join in your criticism of a lawyer who donated money to a candidate who shares his values?"

Where did I say Watt's support was only for political gain?  Oh, wait, I didn't say that.  You should join in my criticism of the system (not Garcia!) when campaigns hinge on a benefactor to stay afloat - something's wrong, wouldn't you say?  Think we've gone over this before.

You said:

"Finally, you say "We're talking about a campaign that accused Gene Seaman outspending them when all is said and done, they're neck and neck."  I think you are very much mistaken based on the volume of Seaman television commercials I saw, but neither of us will know until the post-election finance reports come out.  What motive do you have for saying that Garcia "accused" Seaman of outspending him when the post-election finance reports haven't even come out yet?"

Yes, they stated repeatedly that they were outspent but they viewed these campaigns quite distinctly, one being the field organizing campaign under the Archer Group and the other of the Juan Garcia Campaign.  Together yet distinct marching in lockstep.  The Juan Garcia campaign sent out various emails that they hadn't gone negative or what have you, and technically I guess they didn't because the Watts funded PAC did it for them.  I don't think they were as outspent as they claimed but don't take my word for it, read the reports.  The negative ads were most certainly coming from both sides.

As to your last statement, I half way agree with you.  You make good points in regards to Seaman's support base.  It's a good thing Garcia got elected as opposed to Seaman and I'm singling out this campaign because it's the one I know up close and personal.  It's not pretty, it's really not - at least I don't think so. 

Some can label me sour grapes if they want, make false accusations, constantly state that I'm implying things that I'm not.  This is what I observed and this can by and large be said about most campaigns.  What does this say about the process?  A good friend told me, whom I supported for office, that it shows the Democratic Party's failure to truely organize from the grassroots.  Most campaigns are candidate driven which I don't think is healthy and we've a reliance on big donors and special interests who may have no interest in the platform.

But what do I know?  I'm just sour grapes and "the angriest Democrat" in TX.

---

by: whoisgringo @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 19:40:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sour Grapes (5.00 / 1)

Juan Garcia's win was huge for South Texas and especially those living in his 4 counties who haven't had TRUE representation in Austin in over 10 years.

Whoisgringo, you may not be the "angriest Democrat in Texas", but you certainly are sour grapes and you definitely have no right talking about honesty and fair analysis.

You deal harsh words for Garcia, Watts, and the Archer Group but you never reveal your history with the campaign. I worked for Juan Garcia for about 3 months in the summer months, 2 of them with whoisgringo. With Garcia's donor support and the planning and experience of the Archer Group, we led "Army of Juan" blockwalkers five days a week into South Texas neighborhoods to talk with voters face-to-face. Army of Juan registered voters and let people new that Juan would provide a new direction for South Texas up in Austin.

About two months in, whoisgringo reached his breaking point and decided that Juan's race wasn't worth the long hours that a campaign requires, angrily quit, and walked out on his final day without any regard for the future of the campaign.

The Archer Group has experience in running what is basically a high-tech grassroots campaign. Instead of relying on campaign ads and newspaper endorsements, they know how to get people out on the streets talking to voters face-to-face. It worked for underdogs turned mayors Bill White in Houston and Phil Hardberger in San Antonio. In a 60% Republican House District, it worked again with Juan Garcia. This is not the "thing we hate" and there is nothing Republican about it. It is quite the opposite--Juan for supporters out to talk to voters about the issues instead of filling the airwaves with negative attacks.

Juan did an amazing thing. He won in a 60% DPI district and did it without once going negative. This may not have been a landslide win, but let's get all the facts out there, whoisgringo, before giving your "fair analysis". This Juan is thanks to Juan's amazing dedication to his constituents and the voters desire for a new direction in Austin.

You're nothing but sour grapes gringo. Let's not try to say otherwise.

Go get'em Representative Garcia!

---

by: ACH85 @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 16:46:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh boy. (1.00 / 1)

Here we go.

Nothing but sour grapes is absolutely false.  Another reason why I was hesitant on responding. 

If you were there, then you'd remember that I actually went away for military training and chose not to come back after working there for 2.5 months.  It was a tough decision not coming back but it was right for me, personally and morally for a few of the aforementioned reasons.  You could tell the truth that I left for a month of military training but you left that out for obvious reasons.  You could also mention that often it wasn't as organized as you had hoped.  Remember this?  Try telling the truth.

The point is, we can throw all the money we want in an election and this is what we get.  Watts is 1 out of 3 for this election cycle. 

Yeah, no doubt... this is critical.  Juan won and I'm glad he did, didn't I say this already?  Do you want me to say it again? 

But why?  In what kind of system?  We're proud of this?  Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent and he squeaked it out.  Saying it's just one thing and turning the other way... it's just not that simple. 

You're right, Juan personally didn't go negative but the Watts funded PAC did that for him. 

The high-techyness of it all sounded really appealing at first... but I just don't know about it anymore.

Squirm your way around, but please don't, *do not* lie to attempt to prove a point or tarnish my name. 

---

by: whoisgringo @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 17:08:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let me be clear... (0.00 / 0)

Look to the system, the way we are doing things.

This does not bode well for us.

If one takes that as an insult to Juan Garcia or the voters or the supporters, they are clearly mistaken.

---

by: whoisgringo @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 17:12:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Whoisgringo: (0.00 / 0)

So, it seems like you don't like a lot of money being in a campaign, and you're concerned about some allegiance that Garcia may owe to Watts? And we need to fix this by limiting campaign contributions (doing away with an electoral college does absolutely nothing for a Texas House race).

Well, I can get with some of that. Let's limit campaign contributions -- I'm all for it. But we can't do anything until we have control. This isn't going to be done with a Speaker like Craddick, an LTG like Dewhurst, and a Governor like Perry. I wish I could make everyone sit down and listen to issues and discussions and never ever ever be influenced by anything else, but that's now how it works. Period.

Does that suck? Of course it does. But we can either change the system from within or throw stones from the side of the road. Electing people like Garcia, and Pierson, and Howard is the only way we can hope to change Texas' political system from within.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 00:26:00 AM CST