Pulled from realclearpolitics.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/iowa-primary.html
"Election 2008 Iowa Primary polling
Iowa Democratic Caucus
Poll Date Sample Clinton Edwards Obama Richardson Spread
RCP Average 09/06 to 09/29 - 26.5 21.5 23.0 10.8 Clinton +3.5
American Res. Group 09/26 - 09/29 600 LV 30 19 24 10 Clinton +6
Newsweek 09/26 - 09/27 LV 24 22 28 10 Obama +4
Strategic Vision (R) 09/21 - 09/23 LV 24 22 21 13 Clinton +2
LA Times/Bloomberg 09/06 - 09/10 462 LV 28 23 19 10 Clinton +5 "
Click this link to see the dogfight in Iowa. Clinton is clearly not going to get spanked in Iowa and as such you will not see a Howard Dean type collapse, but if either of her competitors win Iowa it could turn them into legit contenders overnight. To me, it looks like Obama and crew have taken the advice of the only person in their campaign with any sense (michelle Obama) and now see Iowa for what it is --- their only hope of getting into this race.
"Iowa Republican Caucus
Poll Date Romney Giuliani Thompson Huckabee McCain Spread
RCP Average 09/06 to 09/29 26.0 16.8 15.3 8.0 8.3 Romney +9.2
American Res. Group 09/26 - 09/29 22 21 16 4 11 Romney +1
Newsweek 09/26 - 09/27 24 13 16 12 9 Romney +8
Strategic Vision (R) 09/21 - 09/23 30 17 13 8 6 Romney +13
LA Times/Bloomberg 09/06 - 09/10 28 16 16 8 7 Romney +12"
Click this link to see the Romney Strategy in Iowa. He has spent a lot of money over the last few months advertising in Iowa and has built up a sizeable lead. Now the other contenders are on to his strategy and are trying to eat into his lead in Iowa to become the candidate who gets the Iowa Primary "bounce to relevance".
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
More on the flight of key players in the Christian Coalition
http://rightsfield.com/category/endorsements/
"Dobson’s Choice
by Paul Curtis on October 1st, 2007
First things first: can we please stop referring to the Council for National Policy as “secretive”? The CNP is the most publicity-seeking “secret” organization on the planet. It’s made up of prima-donna religious right leaders who enjoy their public positions of political influence; if it were truly clandestine it wouldn’t be alerting the national media every time it has a significant meeting.
So the CNP is considering backing a third party candidate if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination. Again, it’s no secret that the group has been casting around for candidates for some time now: back in February, for instance, it was deliberating over whether to throw its support behind a Christian conservative in the GOP primary — Huckabee, or Brownback, or South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. Christian Right heavyweight Paul Weyrich described the Council as “split 50-50″ over whether to unite behind a second-tier candidate, or to just split up according to individual dictates of conscience and calculation. The discussions ended without consensus, and the CNP’s main movers have mostly sat out the primary race since then, which should tell us something about how much all this talk really means.
The problem was with the notion of backing a horse that couldn’t win. And if the Council wasn’t willing to support a second tier candidate in the primary, why would it be willing to take the much longer odds of organizing behind a third party candidate in the general?
There’s no denying the seriousness of the dilemma facing Christian conservatives. Their influence within the GOP is fading fast; they’ve never been much more than cheap foot soldiers to a party run by a business lobby with little interest in social issues either way. If they allow the Republicans to nominate a pro-choice candidate, and fail to challenge the decision, they stand to lose much of what remains of their political credibility. But at the same time, they hardly seem to be spoiling for a fight. It’s true that they could throw the election to the Democrats by winning only a couple of percentage points next November. But what will that win them? Do they really want proof that all they can draw is a couple points? It could make them look every bit as marginal as Ralph Nader.
This is indeed a dangerous moment for the Republican party. It seems that the party is calculating that its mass support, once built on the backs of the anti-abortion movement, can now be drawn from the legend of perpetual war. Over the long run, I suspect that’s not likely to be a winning strategy. But in the very short term, understand that, for the “secretive” CNP, the decision to support a third-party candidacy will not come easily, and it very well might not come at all. "
"Dobson’s Choice
by Paul Curtis on October 1st, 2007
First things first: can we please stop referring to the Council for National Policy as “secretive”? The CNP is the most publicity-seeking “secret” organization on the planet. It’s made up of prima-donna religious right leaders who enjoy their public positions of political influence; if it were truly clandestine it wouldn’t be alerting the national media every time it has a significant meeting.
So the CNP is considering backing a third party candidate if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination. Again, it’s no secret that the group has been casting around for candidates for some time now: back in February, for instance, it was deliberating over whether to throw its support behind a Christian conservative in the GOP primary — Huckabee, or Brownback, or South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. Christian Right heavyweight Paul Weyrich described the Council as “split 50-50″ over whether to unite behind a second-tier candidate, or to just split up according to individual dictates of conscience and calculation. The discussions ended without consensus, and the CNP’s main movers have mostly sat out the primary race since then, which should tell us something about how much all this talk really means.
The problem was with the notion of backing a horse that couldn’t win. And if the Council wasn’t willing to support a second tier candidate in the primary, why would it be willing to take the much longer odds of organizing behind a third party candidate in the general?
There’s no denying the seriousness of the dilemma facing Christian conservatives. Their influence within the GOP is fading fast; they’ve never been much more than cheap foot soldiers to a party run by a business lobby with little interest in social issues either way. If they allow the Republicans to nominate a pro-choice candidate, and fail to challenge the decision, they stand to lose much of what remains of their political credibility. But at the same time, they hardly seem to be spoiling for a fight. It’s true that they could throw the election to the Democrats by winning only a couple of percentage points next November. But what will that win them? Do they really want proof that all they can draw is a couple points? It could make them look every bit as marginal as Ralph Nader.
This is indeed a dangerous moment for the Republican party. It seems that the party is calculating that its mass support, once built on the backs of the anti-abortion movement, can now be drawn from the legend of perpetual war. Over the long run, I suspect that’s not likely to be a winning strategy. But in the very short term, understand that, for the “secretive” CNP, the decision to support a third-party candidacy will not come easily, and it very well might not come at all. "
Rassmussen Report: Weekly Presidential Candidate polling numbers
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history
These polls are useful for looking at national candidate momentum, but do not take them for anything more than that. I firmly believe the early primary results could make any candidate listed a Presidental nominee. For example if Mitt Romney wins the first few primaries, he could easily pass Thompson and/or Gulianni as I see them as weak front runners. Both candidates campaigns could quickly implode in the weeks before super duper tuesday (or sooner).
These polls are useful for looking at national candidate momentum, but do not take them for anything more than that. I firmly believe the early primary results could make any candidate listed a Presidental nominee. For example if Mitt Romney wins the first few primaries, he could easily pass Thompson and/or Gulianni as I see them as weak front runners. Both candidates campaigns could quickly implode in the weeks before super duper tuesday (or sooner).
Rassmussen Report: Republican frontrunners faltering?
"2008 Republican Presidential Primary
Republican Nomination Race Gets Murkier With No Clear Frontrunner
Monday, October 01, 2007
For those covering the story of the Republican Presidential Nomination this week, the focus will be on interpreting the results of the various candidate’s fundraising results for the third quarter. For political junkies, that’s interesting stuff, but it’s unlikely to add clarity to who is ahead or behind at this time.
While Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson lead in the national polls (see weekly poll results) and Mitt Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is no true frontrunner among GOP hopefuls. If anything, the race is getting murkier as time goes on.
A week ago, Rasmussen Reports noted that Romney needs to win big in both Iowa and New Hampshire if he is to remain a viable top-tier candidate. Polling data, however, shows that his lead is shrinking in New Hampshire. Since he has a home-court advantage as the former Governor of neighboring Massachusetts, and because he began campaigning in New Hampshire far before anybody else, Romney needs a solid victory just to meet expectations.
On Saturday, it was Giuliani’s turn to receive news that could threaten his candidacy. A group of influential Christian conservative leaders threatened to consider backing a third-party candidate if the former New York City Mayor wins the GOP nomination. While such a third-party campaign would likely attract only a small percentage of the vote, that could be enough to doom any GOP hopes of winning the White House in 2008. Earlier in the week, the campaign’s chief fund-raiser resigned amidst speculation that third quarter fund raising may not have been up to expectations. These news items are particularly troubling for Giuliani because much of his current success is based upon the perception that he is the most electable Republican candidate.
Before Giuliani’s tough week, Thompson took a hit from many conservatives after acknowledging that he doesn’t attend Church every Sunday. Thompson has also been under fire from inside-the-beltway conservatives such as George Will. Those challenges are troubling for Thompson because his current success derives from the fact that he’s seen as the most conservative Republican candidate.
The continuing challenges faced by each of the leading Republicans may force the chattering class to wait for voters to get engaged before a clear frontrunner emerges. It is even possible, of course, that no clear frontrunner may emerge even after the dust settles following the nearly national primary day of February 5.
For those who like a little more clarity, the narrative in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination is much simpler--Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner, but her victory is not yet inevitable.
Rasmussen Reports conducts national telephone surveys on the Presidential race every night and releases updated data from our Presidential Tracking Poll by noon each day, Monday through Friday.
Those results are based upon a four-day rolling average and provide a quick update on the race.
In addition to the daily tracking poll, Rasmussen Reports provides weekly results to provide a longer-term overview of the race. These updates are based upon nightly telephone surveys. Results are reported based upon interviews conducted on the seven days up to and including the night before posting.
For the seven days ending September 30, 2007 show that Fred Thompson earns 25% of the vote while Rudy Giuliani attracts 23%. Mitt Romney has moved back into third place, supported by 13%. John McCain is now the favorite for just 10% and Mike Huckabee is at 6%. Four other candidates split 4% of the vote while 19% are undecided (review history of weekly results).
The seven day results typically include interviews with more than 1,000 Likely Republican Primary Voters. This includes both Republicans and those independents likely to vote in a Republicans Primary. In some state primaries, independent voters are allowed to participate in party primaries while in others they are excluded. The margin of sampling error for the weekly update is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Updates prior to July 16 were based upon four days of polling conducted the Monday through Thursday preceding release.
Rasmussen Reports continuously updates general election match-ups and other key stats for all Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates. "
Republican Nomination Race Gets Murkier With No Clear Frontrunner
Monday, October 01, 2007
For those covering the story of the Republican Presidential Nomination this week, the focus will be on interpreting the results of the various candidate’s fundraising results for the third quarter. For political junkies, that’s interesting stuff, but it’s unlikely to add clarity to who is ahead or behind at this time.
While Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson lead in the national polls (see weekly poll results) and Mitt Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is no true frontrunner among GOP hopefuls. If anything, the race is getting murkier as time goes on.
A week ago, Rasmussen Reports noted that Romney needs to win big in both Iowa and New Hampshire if he is to remain a viable top-tier candidate. Polling data, however, shows that his lead is shrinking in New Hampshire. Since he has a home-court advantage as the former Governor of neighboring Massachusetts, and because he began campaigning in New Hampshire far before anybody else, Romney needs a solid victory just to meet expectations.
On Saturday, it was Giuliani’s turn to receive news that could threaten his candidacy. A group of influential Christian conservative leaders threatened to consider backing a third-party candidate if the former New York City Mayor wins the GOP nomination. While such a third-party campaign would likely attract only a small percentage of the vote, that could be enough to doom any GOP hopes of winning the White House in 2008. Earlier in the week, the campaign’s chief fund-raiser resigned amidst speculation that third quarter fund raising may not have been up to expectations. These news items are particularly troubling for Giuliani because much of his current success is based upon the perception that he is the most electable Republican candidate.
Before Giuliani’s tough week, Thompson took a hit from many conservatives after acknowledging that he doesn’t attend Church every Sunday. Thompson has also been under fire from inside-the-beltway conservatives such as George Will. Those challenges are troubling for Thompson because his current success derives from the fact that he’s seen as the most conservative Republican candidate.
The continuing challenges faced by each of the leading Republicans may force the chattering class to wait for voters to get engaged before a clear frontrunner emerges. It is even possible, of course, that no clear frontrunner may emerge even after the dust settles following the nearly national primary day of February 5.
For those who like a little more clarity, the narrative in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination is much simpler--Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner, but her victory is not yet inevitable.
Rasmussen Reports conducts national telephone surveys on the Presidential race every night and releases updated data from our Presidential Tracking Poll by noon each day, Monday through Friday.
Those results are based upon a four-day rolling average and provide a quick update on the race.
In addition to the daily tracking poll, Rasmussen Reports provides weekly results to provide a longer-term overview of the race. These updates are based upon nightly telephone surveys. Results are reported based upon interviews conducted on the seven days up to and including the night before posting.
For the seven days ending September 30, 2007 show that Fred Thompson earns 25% of the vote while Rudy Giuliani attracts 23%. Mitt Romney has moved back into third place, supported by 13%. John McCain is now the favorite for just 10% and Mike Huckabee is at 6%. Four other candidates split 4% of the vote while 19% are undecided (review history of weekly results).
The seven day results typically include interviews with more than 1,000 Likely Republican Primary Voters. This includes both Republicans and those independents likely to vote in a Republicans Primary. In some state primaries, independent voters are allowed to participate in party primaries while in others they are excluded. The margin of sampling error for the weekly update is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Updates prior to July 16 were based upon four days of polling conducted the Monday through Thursday preceding release.
Rasmussen Reports continuously updates general election match-ups and other key stats for all Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates. "
The biden plan passed in non-binding form. Iraqi and White House leadership's ability to siphon American tax dollars one step closer to an end?
Biden to Iraqi pols: 'I Don't Know Who the Hell They Think They Are"
October 01, 2007 7:13 PM
ABC News' Brian Wheeler Reports: Joe Biden today responded to criticism of a resolution passed by the Senate last week that called for federalism in Iraq. During a conference call with reporters, Biden steadfastly denied that the resolution was aimed at breaking up Iraq, and said, "It is not partition, it is not foreign imposition, and it will not produce bloodshed and suffering in Iraq. It’s hard to imagine how more bloodshed and suffering in Iraq could exist."
Biden’s amendment, introduced with Sen. Sam Brownback R-KS, was passed by the Senate last week by a vote of 75-23. It was immediately criticized by a wide spectrum of Iraqi politicians as an attempt to split up the country, and on Friday Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told the AP: "It is an Iraqi affair dealing with Iraqis. Iraqis are eager for Iraq's unity. ... Dividing Iraq is a problem, and a decision like that would be a catastrophe."
Today Biden was heated about Maliki’s contention that the U.S. Senate should mind its own business: "For Maliki and Iraqi leaders to suggest we don’t have a right to express our opinion, I don’t know who the hell they think they are. We have a right. We’ve expended our blood and treasure in order to back their commitment to their constitution. That’s the deal."
On Saturday the U.S. embassy in Iraq issued a statement denouncing the resolution, saying "attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed. The United States has made clear our strong opposition to such attempts."
Biden said the embassy was doing the bidding of the White House, and of Ambassador Ryan Crocker Biden said, "He has no legitimate basis to say this is partition. He knows better."
Senators Biden and Brownback sent a letter to the White House today asking for a personal meeting with the President to discuss the resolution. In addition the letter asks the administration to "convene a conference for Iraqis to reach a comprehensive political settlement based on federalism. Far from calling for the break up of Iraq, as suggested by the statement from U.S. Embassy Baghdad on September 30, our proposal is the last best chance to prevent Iraq’s partition or fragmentation."
The resolution may be non-binding, but Biden’s putting on the full court press all the same.
October 01, 2007 7:13 PM
ABC News' Brian Wheeler Reports: Joe Biden today responded to criticism of a resolution passed by the Senate last week that called for federalism in Iraq. During a conference call with reporters, Biden steadfastly denied that the resolution was aimed at breaking up Iraq, and said, "It is not partition, it is not foreign imposition, and it will not produce bloodshed and suffering in Iraq. It’s hard to imagine how more bloodshed and suffering in Iraq could exist."
Biden’s amendment, introduced with Sen. Sam Brownback R-KS, was passed by the Senate last week by a vote of 75-23. It was immediately criticized by a wide spectrum of Iraqi politicians as an attempt to split up the country, and on Friday Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told the AP: "It is an Iraqi affair dealing with Iraqis. Iraqis are eager for Iraq's unity. ... Dividing Iraq is a problem, and a decision like that would be a catastrophe."
Today Biden was heated about Maliki’s contention that the U.S. Senate should mind its own business: "For Maliki and Iraqi leaders to suggest we don’t have a right to express our opinion, I don’t know who the hell they think they are. We have a right. We’ve expended our blood and treasure in order to back their commitment to their constitution. That’s the deal."
On Saturday the U.S. embassy in Iraq issued a statement denouncing the resolution, saying "attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed. The United States has made clear our strong opposition to such attempts."
Biden said the embassy was doing the bidding of the White House, and of Ambassador Ryan Crocker Biden said, "He has no legitimate basis to say this is partition. He knows better."
Senators Biden and Brownback sent a letter to the White House today asking for a personal meeting with the President to discuss the resolution. In addition the letter asks the administration to "convene a conference for Iraqis to reach a comprehensive political settlement based on federalism. Far from calling for the break up of Iraq, as suggested by the statement from U.S. Embassy Baghdad on September 30, our proposal is the last best chance to prevent Iraq’s partition or fragmentation."
The resolution may be non-binding, but Biden’s putting on the full court press all the same.
Ginrich on his pass on the Republican candidacy and how to beat clinton
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3671797&page=1
Newt Gingrich Defends White House Pass as Legal Necessity
Former Speaker of the House Criticizes Campaign Finance Laws
By MARY BRUCE
Sept. 30, 2007
Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich reiterated this morning that his recent pass on a 2008 White House bid was a legal necessity.
Gingrich rejected the notion that it was for lack of resources or potential. He announced this weekend that he would not be a Republican candidate because it would prohibit him from continuing to work with his American Solutions organization.
"To give up and kill an organization we spent a year on, and that had 2,000 sites around the country where people had now invested their time and effort, just to look at whether or not you could run, I thought would be irresponsible," Gingrich said in an exclusive interview on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
He went on to rail against campaign finance laws.
"The McCain-Feingold Act criminalizes politics ... We were informed yesterday morning that if I had any communication with American Solutions after I became a candidate, it was a criminal offense."
Gingrich, who was poised to launch a $30 million fundraising Web site, asserted that he could have been a serious contender.
"I think it would have been a real campaign. I think we would have had a chance to win," he said.
On what it will take for the Republicans to win, Gingrich said, "The Republicans have got to get out from under Washington. And, if we nominate somebody who is a continuation of where we are right now, we're going to lose."
He went on to offer up his predictions for the Republican candidates. "Both Giuliani and Romney are beginning to articulate really dramatic change. I think that Thompson has not yet. I think Huckabee is very effective, and if Huckabee can find money, he will be dramatically competitive almost overnight. He's probably the best performer in terms of giving speeches and being appealing."
On the Democratic front, Gingrich made clear his belief that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the candidate to beat.
"I believe she is very professional. I think the Clinton machine is the most powerful political machine in modern America. I think her husband is the smartest politician in our generation," he said.
But, according to Gingrich, "trying to beat Sen. Clinton, personally, is just insane. Everybody in America who's ever going to vote against Sen. Clinton, knows everything that anyone's going to tell them. And, everybody in America who's going to vote for her knows everything you could possibly tell them."
Instead, Gingrich argued that beating the Clinton campaign is an ideological, rather than personal, case.
"The left is fundamentally wrong from the standpoint of most Americans on issue after issue," he said.
"Let's take her as a very solid professional, competent person, and say, do we want to go — does America want to go where she would take America?"
Newt Gingrich Defends White House Pass as Legal Necessity
Former Speaker of the House Criticizes Campaign Finance Laws
By MARY BRUCE
Sept. 30, 2007
Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich reiterated this morning that his recent pass on a 2008 White House bid was a legal necessity.
Gingrich rejected the notion that it was for lack of resources or potential. He announced this weekend that he would not be a Republican candidate because it would prohibit him from continuing to work with his American Solutions organization.
"To give up and kill an organization we spent a year on, and that had 2,000 sites around the country where people had now invested their time and effort, just to look at whether or not you could run, I thought would be irresponsible," Gingrich said in an exclusive interview on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
He went on to rail against campaign finance laws.
"The McCain-Feingold Act criminalizes politics ... We were informed yesterday morning that if I had any communication with American Solutions after I became a candidate, it was a criminal offense."
Gingrich, who was poised to launch a $30 million fundraising Web site, asserted that he could have been a serious contender.
"I think it would have been a real campaign. I think we would have had a chance to win," he said.
On what it will take for the Republicans to win, Gingrich said, "The Republicans have got to get out from under Washington. And, if we nominate somebody who is a continuation of where we are right now, we're going to lose."
He went on to offer up his predictions for the Republican candidates. "Both Giuliani and Romney are beginning to articulate really dramatic change. I think that Thompson has not yet. I think Huckabee is very effective, and if Huckabee can find money, he will be dramatically competitive almost overnight. He's probably the best performer in terms of giving speeches and being appealing."
On the Democratic front, Gingrich made clear his belief that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the candidate to beat.
"I believe she is very professional. I think the Clinton machine is the most powerful political machine in modern America. I think her husband is the smartest politician in our generation," he said.
But, according to Gingrich, "trying to beat Sen. Clinton, personally, is just insane. Everybody in America who's ever going to vote against Sen. Clinton, knows everything that anyone's going to tell them. And, everybody in America who's going to vote for her knows everything you could possibly tell them."
Instead, Gingrich argued that beating the Clinton campaign is an ideological, rather than personal, case.
"The left is fundamentally wrong from the standpoint of most Americans on issue after issue," he said.
"Let's take her as a very solid professional, competent person, and say, do we want to go — does America want to go where she would take America?"
Monday, October 1, 2007
Did we just see the beginning the breakup between the Christian Reich and the Republican Party?
NPR: Christian Conservatives Mull Third-Party Candidate
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14858831
Click the sound link to hear the story.
In Short, the Arlington Group met with Fred Thompson and were lukewarm about him as well. As it stands Mike Huckabee appears to be the only candidate religious enough for them, but they are not endorsing him because he is not a front runner. Instead they will begin investigating whether the can lure in a name candidate as a late entry (not likely at this point) or as an independent.
They seem ready to move into action if Gulianni gets the nomination --- an end result made all the more likely if they do not endorse any other candidates. All this in spite of the fact that a 3rd party candidate would certainly kill any republican's chances in the upcoming election.
The other Republicans power brokers are attempting to keep them in check by advising that if they run a 3rd party candidate they will be handing the election not to the democrats in general, but HILLARY CLINTON specifically.
Who is the arlington group? Not small potatoes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_Group
http://www.thearlingtongroup.org/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14858831
Click the sound link to hear the story.
In Short, the Arlington Group met with Fred Thompson and were lukewarm about him as well. As it stands Mike Huckabee appears to be the only candidate religious enough for them, but they are not endorsing him because he is not a front runner. Instead they will begin investigating whether the can lure in a name candidate as a late entry (not likely at this point) or as an independent.
They seem ready to move into action if Gulianni gets the nomination --- an end result made all the more likely if they do not endorse any other candidates. All this in spite of the fact that a 3rd party candidate would certainly kill any republican's chances in the upcoming election.
The other Republicans power brokers are attempting to keep them in check by advising that if they run a 3rd party candidate they will be handing the election not to the democrats in general, but HILLARY CLINTON specifically.
Who is the arlington group? Not small potatoes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_Group
http://www.thearlingtongroup.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)