From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Zellie, baby... chill!

September 2, 2004 12:19 PM

I've been mildly amused, and somewhat perplexed watching the Republicans embrace Sen. Zell Miller. I remember watching a Hannity interview where Miller went off his rocker in venom towards Democrats. He looks like a spurned lover -- obviously someone pissed him off behind the scenes and he committed to getting revenge. It seems so transparent to me, yet the Republicans are happy to give him a soapbox -- a prime slot at the RNC.

The difference in tone between the two conventions is striking. The Dems were so busy trying to show unity while the Reps seem hell-bent on creating division. Yet more grist for the "Dems are pussies" meme.

UPDATE: Duh! It just hit me. That must have been part of the deal -- Miller would get a prime slot at the RNC if he went turncoat.

And Kevin Drumm compiled a few reactions to the "just-short-of-clinically-insane" Miller weirdness.

More from the archive in Politics.

Zellie, baby... chill! (09.02.2004)

Next Entry: Bush Lied, People Died -- photos (09.03.2004)
Previous Entry: Warner Brothers kills documentary "that condemns, basically, war" (09.02.2004)

Read the 47 comments.

Right Wing Robby:

LOL. Conspiracy theory anyone? Zell said nothing untrue. He accuratly put Kerry's senate record in clear view for everyone to see. Everyone knows why Kerry didnt mention his record to his own party. Zell just let everyone know why.

Truth hurts huh.

People like jimbo here cant handle facts. So he tries to find some other way to explain it. In this case, he has choosen the conspiracy theory in which Zell apparently is just getting revenge for being wronged in the past. There is no evidence offered of such a wrong taking place. No facts are put forth to support the claim yet it is transparent.

Just typical liberal BS.

Thu Sep 2 2004 1:08 PM

Jim Gilliam:

Oh you mean these facts?

Thu Sep 2 2004 1:27 PM

Right Wing Robby:

That’s a lovely article.

Where’s the proof the support your claim that Zell is speaking to get revenge and that is "transparent" to you? I see you have also updated your blog adding that there was a deal to get a prime time slot if he turned.

You are throwing out conspiracy theories of which you cannot produce a single fact. Your imagination does not equal fact Jim.

Let me ask again. Where are the facts that lead you to believe Zell is getting revenge or is selling out for some prime time minutes?

Let me expand on the article a little. Its seems to glance over some votes, so I want to make sure the readers are clear on them.

Voted for 7 major reductions in military funding Voted against Gulf War I (1991).
Voted for Gulf War II (but then criticized and voted against military appropriation for troops).
Voted against MX missile.
Voted against Trident Submarine.
Voted against SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative "Star Wars").
Favored UN control of US Troops (in the 1970s).
Supported Slashing $2.6 Billion from Intelligence Funding While Serving as a Member of Senate Intel Committee.
Voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
Voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
Voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988 onward
Voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
Voted to kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
Voted to kill the F-16 E/F (Block 60)
Voted to kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
Voted to kill the B-1
Voted to kill the B-2
Voted to kill the Patriot anti-missile system
Voted to kill the FA-18
Voted to kill the F117

These votes can be checked with the Senate voting record. They are accurate.

Thu Sep 2 2004 2:28 PM

raging red:

Okay, how about these facts?


Many of the defense cuts that John Kerry was supporting were proposed by Dick Cheney as Secretary of Defense.

Thu Sep 2 2004 2:49 PM

raging red:

Oops. I guess I can't use html tags.

(Hope it works this time.)

Thu Sep 2 2004 2:50 PM

Jim Gilliam:

You're absolutely right, I have no facts to back that up. It should be pretty evident in the post that this is all conjecture.

My assumption is that the Republicans aren't stupid ...this convention has been planned down to every dotted i for months and months. It just doesn't make sense they would put this guy on -- he's a flaming whacko. So I'm throwing out an idea that maybe they *had* to put him on.

Thu Sep 2 2004 2:51 PM

raging red:

Sorry, but I've got to highlight this Cheney quote from the article:

Cheney berated Congress for not approving more cuts. "You've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend more money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements," he said then. "You've directed me to buy more M-1s and F-14s and F-16s -- all great systems, but we have enough of them."

Thu Sep 2 2004 2:53 PM


Democrats had the pussy ballerina boy Ronnie Reagan and the Republicans had Zell Miller both to be seen as the "across the isle" turncoat. Only problem is Zell gave a speach worth remembering and Ronnie boy wilted in the lime light.

As for lover scorned - look at the what the democrats are saying about one of their key note speakers from 1992.

Thu Sep 2 2004 3:29 PM


As for the unity speeches at the DNC - you didn't happen to hear Al Gore speech did you?

Thu Sep 2 2004 3:30 PM

evil conservative666:

First off dhermesc, name calling isn't going to get you very far with most people. I figured that out when I was about 15. So you must be about 13, no? Second, which speech of Reagan's are you saying "wilted in the lime light?" I seem to remember the speech from the 1980 convention preceding his defeat. And what about 1984, when Walter Mondale never stood a chance? Couldn't have been either of those. Enlighten me.

Thu Sep 2 2004 3:43 PM

evil conservative666:

CORRECTION! Meant to write "I seem to remember the speech from the 1980 convention preceding his defeat *of Carter*. sorry about that.

Thu Sep 2 2004 3:49 PM

Vee Cee:

evil conservative666: While you are posting corrections, you might as well apologize to dhermesc. I think he was referring to Ron Reagan who spoke at this year's DNC and not Ronald Reagan.(Dude, he's on your side!)

Thu Sep 2 2004 3:53 PM

evil conservative666:

If you're right, sorry dhermesc. I have to kinda agree with you, as much as it hurts me to say anything bad about a Reagan. Guess it's time to go home from work and get some sleep, that was kind of an obvious one to miss.

Thu Sep 2 2004 4:05 PM


Vee Cee - you are correct. The only thing that makes Ronnie Jr. famous is his daddy - after that he has -0- accomplishments of his own. I guess he can say he gave a key note address at the democratic convention in 2004 now.

Fri Sep 3 2004 6:13 AM

Tom from Madison:

Zell and his new-found right-wing buds are working themselves into a lather about a lot of out-of-context senate votes. I'll add my voice to those who point out that both Bush 41 and Dick Cheney called for many of the reductions in defense spending that Kerry voted for.

The idea that Kerry is weak on defense and won't fight terror because he supported post-cold war reductions in defense spending is a canard. Nobody on the right is discussing how we will pay for the CURRENT UNSUSTAINABLE LEVELS of defense spending.

Bush 41 secured a lot of financial help from allies before going to war in Iraq. Bush 43 is borrowing the money for his war. Future generations will be paying for what Halliburton is overcharging now.

The problem is Bush's FUZZY MATH and his refusal to be responsible with our money. We all need to think about the debt we're leaving our kids & grandkids.

Fri Sep 3 2004 7:29 AM

Vee Cee:

Dhermesc - I only corrected evil conservative666, because I knew he misunderstood your post. But as for my political beliefs, I stand way, way left and am proud to be a liberal. Zell's speech may well be remembered for a long time, and Ron's may not - but as far as I am concerned I have a lot more respect for the educated opinions of Ron than the vitriol of a person well below par in mental acumen.

Fri Sep 3 2004 7:39 AM

Right Wing Robby:

I really have a hard time drawing a comparison between Ron's and Zell's speech. Ron while on the democratic side, has a particular agenda; stem cell research. While Zell's agenda was to get Bush elected. Not to mention that but Ron has always been a democrat, no? I don’t think he crossed an isle to make that speech. Presidents Reagan’s daughter even appeared in Playboy and never leaned to the right.

I found Ron's speech a little strange. He kept invoking the name of his father in speech as well as in name, yet his father would have definitely voted for Bush. I guess that’s the whole point about him being there in the first place.

Tom: You’re right. Bush's father did get other countries to foot more of the bill in the Gulf war. Any person with half a brain knows that war was justified. Saddam invaded another country, we kicked him out. But if that is the case, and Kerry is strong on defense, why did he vote against the war? And why did he vote for this one?

One thing is for sure, If Kerry had it his way, we would be in less debt then we are now, exactly 87 billion less.

Fri Sep 3 2004 8:03 AM

Tom from Madison:

Robby - $87 Billion is just the beginning of what this war is costing. We're racking up more and more debt and increasing the likelihood of incurring future debt every day.

Whether "war is justified" is one question. Whether it is wise is another question. How it is waged is another. War is too serious an undertaking to immediately decide to have one just because it is justified.

Whether THIS war is helping the US in the broader war on terror is still another question. We might have taken time to build a broader coalition that included active participation by other Arab countries. Had we done that earlier, anti-American sentiment in Iraq wouldn't be so energized and focused. Fewer Americans and Iraqis would be dead.

President Bush has not been effective at building international support--for anything, but especially for this war.

Fri Sep 3 2004 8:33 AM


Right Wing Robby doesn't seem to have much to say about the Kerry votes for cuts proposed by Cheney. Is cutting the military only a bad thing when it seems like a democrat is doing it? It's good to see the double-standard is firmly in place.

Fri Sep 3 2004 8:40 AM


I don't understand Ronnie Jrs fastination with stem cell research:

.... Washington Post correspondent Rick Weiss, reporting that while useful abstract information might be gleaned about Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research, 'stem cell experts confess . . . that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit.'"

So much for Jr's "educated" view. By the way did he ever graduate from college? As stated, his greeatest achievement is having a famous father, beyond that he's a middle aged white guy still living off his mom.

As I've posted before, there is nothing stopping private research using stem cells- the ban only effects federal funding. If stem cell research is so promising why is government funding needed? Isn't this just another form of corporate welfare to those evil drug companies?

Fri Sep 3 2004 8:46 AM

Vee Cee:

I see the Yale education has not done GWB a lot of good...he still misunderestimates and strategerizes.

Fri Sep 3 2004 8:59 AM

Vee Cee:

.... the ban only effects federal funding ...

I am concerned because that's MY money and I have a say in how my money should be used. I would rather have that money used for stem cell research than for funding faith-based organizations run by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. And I WILL do everything I can to make sure the office of the President is manned by someone who is more likely to believe in what I do.

Fri Sep 3 2004 9:14 AM


Simple question, if stem cell research is so promising why are federal funds needed? New drugs and medical procedures are developed all the time without government assistance - why would this be so differant?

Fri Sep 3 2004 9:24 AM

Right Wing Robby:


I can point to instances of cuts by more than just Cheney. Even Rumsfeld has cuts on his record. Its not individual cuts that are the concern, its the pattern over the course many decades dating back to the 70's.

But it sill stands. I don't see anyone disputing Kerry's votes on the military.

So lets review again.

Kerry voted against Desert Storm despite unanimous approval by that organization he holds so dear - the UN. He also voted for raising US funding of the UN by 800%.

He has voted against the production of virtually every weapons system and platform that makes ours the strongest military on earth.

He has voted time and time again against pay raises for military personnel, while he is the richest man in the Senate.

After the first World Trade Center attack, he proposed $45 billion cuts in defense and intelligence.

He has vehemently criticized the Bush administration for not getting countries like France and Germany "onboard" in our removal of Saddam.

He has railed against the Patriot act even though he voted for it and it has been an effective tool in our war against terrorism.

Forget Vietnam for a second. Forget the Swift Boat Vets. Forget him slandering fellow vets as war criminals. Forget for a moment that he renounced the US government, renounced the US military, and he renounced and threw away the very medals he now claims to be so proud of.

Its the pattern over time which defines the man, not individual select instances.

Fri Sep 3 2004 9:37 AM

Vee Cee:

It is as much about the source of funds for research as it is about the reasons cited for banning federal funds by the bird brains in power. It is about religion taking a prominent role in politics. It is about the ridiculous idea that using embryonic stem cells for research is akin to murder. It is about appointing a Council of Bioethics and subsequently removing from the council William May, professor of ethics and Elizabeth Blackburn, biologist - both outspoken advocates of stem cell research - and replacing them with Benjamin Carson, Diana Schaub and Peter Lawler - all three of whom are more than ready to parrot the administration's line.

Fri Sep 3 2004 9:49 AM

Paul E. Walnuts:

You know what? I don’t give a rats ass about stem cell research for the most part. That’s not to say that I’m not in favor of federal funding for medical research because I am. I think every dollar we are blasting away in Iraq would be better spent using it for medical research to give us better and longer lives. But my point is it’s not a BIG issue for me. As to other issues; I’m actually in favor of lower taxes and shrinking government, limiting their power and scope. I’m also in favor of opening up ANWAR for drilling – shit, I’d put a rig on Martha’s Vineyard if I thought it would bring gas prices back to $25/brl. I am adamantly against gun control and believe firmly in the 2nd amendment. I don’t really care all that much one way another about gay marriage, leaving it up to the states to decide is OK with me – I’m certainly not for a constitutional amendment. So why am I voting for the democrats? Because I firmly believe that the policies of the current administration are wrong regarding the 1) The economy & healthcare, 2) Civil Liberties, 3) International policy – specifically Iraq and the Middle East.

The economy is headed in the wrong direction regarding big corporations. The way they treat the workers and even the small investors for that matter is to benefit very few at the tippy-top and at the expense of everyone else. I’ve worked all my life and have seen a continued rollback of workers rights. Top-level management can run the company into the ground, ruin lives and careers and come out still on top with their golden parachutes. The top 1% is set for life. As are their children. The rest of us toil and slave and play by the rules and we get it up the ass. Examples of the current administration adding to this problem are the recent OT laws overhaul, corporate welfare as in the case of the airline bailouts (and now their talking about reneging on pensions) and their lack of action in the recent Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, etc scandals. I had 3 times the amount in my 401k when Clinton was in office and actually saw a potential for advancement, not now. If the federal government doesn’t fund schools, infrastructure, research and the like it is left to the local governments who, guess what, raise property taxes. My payroll tax is about the same; maybe 1.5% lower than it was 4 years ago. My property tax is up 30% in 3 years. My healthcare premiums have doubled in the last 3 years. The amount my prescription drug benefit payments have increased is also about 30%. I could go on. I blame this on the policies of the current administration.

Civil Liberties. To be brief, I don’t agree with the police state society. Not to slam Texas, but just look at the criminal justice system there, we are headed in that direction and I don’t like it. Ashcroft has been quoted as saying that you can legislate morality. When we talk about family values, I ask, who’s family? The Christian right? Well, I’m a Christian, but I believe God should be left out of the government. I lived in a dry county in KY a couple of years back and man let me tell you, those people would have come into my bedroom to check if my wife and I do it doggy style if they could. The war on drugs is a joke. Drugs are a social/medial problem. Not something for law enforcement. Our prisons are overflowing and they cost a LOT. And it just keeps a whole segment of society down and from contributing.

Iraq was a mistake. It will divide this country and bleed us of our children (I’m not sending my kids – are you?), our national wealth and our international good will. We have created a generation of hatred toward the US. I’m actually scared to travel abroad now. I wasn’t 3 years ago. In order to deal with terrorism we need to address the causes sooner or later. After 9-11 I would have given carte blache to the government to go after those bastards. Afghanistan was done right, I give Bush that. But Iraq was/is pointless.

Fri Sep 3 2004 10:23 AM

Johnny Utah:

"Simple question, if stem cell research is so promising why are federal funds needed? New drugs and medical procedures are developed all the time without government assistance - why would this be so differant?"

You're right. That was a simple question. It's pretty obvious you don't have experience with science and federal funding. I don't believe there are ANY new drugs or medical procedures that didn't get some sort of federal money.

Fri Sep 3 2004 11:05 AM


But yet you still don't have an answer.

Fri Sep 3 2004 11:15 AM

Johnny Utah:

Why do pink elephants fly faster than purple monkeys?

Why does moon cheese age better than Wisconsin cheddar?

If stem cell research is so promising why are federal funds needed?

If Godzilla is so dangerous, why don't we have a contingency plan for his attack?

If Einstein was so smart, how come he's dead?

There are just some questions we may never have the answer to.

Fri Sep 3 2004 11:31 AM

Jim Gilliam:

There's a great book on this general topic -- "The $800 Million Pill." It's basic premise is that government funding has accomplished all the significant breakthroughs in drug research, and the corporations simply refine those breakthroughs into various mass-marketed forms. They have developed no significant breakthroughs themselves, since they're all focused on things like making a better version of Viagra.

Legitimate pursuits, but it's obvious we still need government-funded research to solve the complicated problems that don't have a huge potential consumer base.

Fri Sep 3 2004 11:44 AM

Jim Gilliam:

I forgot one thing.. it also points out that breakthroughs happens when someone is just obsessed about solving the problem, and not so much a desire for profits. The whole passion beats money thing.

Fri Sep 3 2004 11:47 AM


Right Wing Robby,

So it's a pattern of behavior that dictates the mans qualifications? Okay, I don't disagree with that ideology, but let's spread it around shall we. Bush was a cocaine addict and an alcoholic. From what I hear he doesn't use coke or alchohol anymore, but by your reasoning shouldn't we base his current fitness for leadership on his chemical dependence? His pattern of behavior has established reckless disregard for himself and for others around him - at least that's how I define drunk driving. So is it any surprise that he would rush us into a war without fully thinking through the consequences and the aftermath? I don't think so. I think it's easy for a man who has never had to fight to make other people do it for him.

I do think Bush was right to blaze a fiery trail into Afghanistan after 9/11, that was a no brainer. But I think when bin Laden evaporated, Bush needed a tangible target and what better target than Saddam. An now when everything at home is suffering we're billowing billions of dollars into Iraq. I agree 100% that we need to be protected from terrorists, but if we're not careful, there won't be anything to protect. Millions of people at home are without jobs, healthcare and good education and Haliburton is raking it in.

Do me a favor instead of attacking Kerry and other democrats, explain to me what Bush has done that makes him worthy of another shot at it. I'd really like to know.

You know what real base difference between republicans and democrats is, when you boil it all down. Republicans all tow the party line, they are of one mind, one thought, one position. They do not differ, there is no descent. It's damn near Orwellian. Where as democrats feel free to disagree with each other. I guess that's the weakness of the democratic party - freedom of thought.

Fri Sep 3 2004 12:04 PM


Couple other questions we get no answers for:

How does four months equal two tours of duty?

Why does calling servicemen rapist, murders, and mutilitators make them angry?

What was Kerry told (or told to do) in his secret meetings with representatives from North Vietnamese in Paris in 1970?

Why can Kerry not remember where he was during moments seared in his mind?

Why can Kerry not remember a VVAW meeting with that discussed murdering US Senators (but admits that if the FBI can prove he wasthere he must have been)?

Why do some senators not bother to vote?

Why do democrats have so much trouble giving straight answers?

Fri Sep 3 2004 12:10 PM


Yo Walnuts,

I'm not saying I'm with you 100% on everything you say (the great thing about the country is I don't have to be), but I must say you're good at saying it. Well done.

Fri Sep 3 2004 12:12 PM


Why do republicans ignore real social issues facing real Americans here today?

Fri Sep 3 2004 12:14 PM


How does a dentist appointment prove that you served in the National Guard?

Fri Sep 3 2004 12:15 PM

Right Wing Robby:

No, you shouldnt judge Bush's leadership by one period in his past. Which is exactly why Kerry shouldnt be elected because of 4 months of service. Again, it the pattern of behavior over decades, not specific instances.

The question is, if Kerry's record is at all good in any way, dont you think he might mention it at some point?

The funniest part of the whole Haliburton argument is that Haliburton has been the single largest government oil contractor for decades. Bill Clinton gave Haliburton more contracts than any previous administration. Bush has not enlarged those arrangements at all.

The choice this November isnt between Bush and anyone else. Its between Bush and Kerry.

There are very few unscripted moments in a Presidents life. The reaction to the worst attack in Unites States History was one of them. It was a chance to see who he was and what he was made of. I, like most of the country, liked what we saw.

But what accomplishments? Read this if you wish.

Fri Sep 3 2004 12:37 PM


You like to talk record. What is Bush's record? What is so impressive about his record? I already asked you to tell me what he did that was so great and you have evaded that altogether, instead following the republican mantra - 9/11 is all we need to think about.

You have directed me to a rightwing ultra conservative website for support of Bush's "accomplishments", most of which is straight opinion - where the hell is the record of him restoring honor to the presidency stored? If Bush bought a soda there would be line in there about how he has taken it upon himself to stimulate the economy.

What I see in that list is mainly efforts he has undertaken to limit freedoms, reverse legislation designed to protect the world and the environmentment and line his own pockets and those of his rich cohorts.

Oh, and this really get's me. God belongs and houses of worship and in our hearts and minds if we so choose, NOT in the White House.

I guess this is just proving my description of republicans.

Fri Sep 3 2004 12:56 PM


These are listed on a website as the basics of the Republican party:

Equal Justice - so long as you are not a CEO or an "enemy combatant"

Freedom of Speech - so long as you don't say anything about the government, 'cause that makes you a traitor

Limited Government Power - except for the Attorney general

Private Property Rights - as long as you can afford it

Religious Tolerance - as long as it's Jerry Fallwell's Christian god, all other need not apply.

Respect for Women - but not their right to choose

Rule of Law - or whatever we change it to.

Notice they have singled out Women for respect, but no one else. Sorry minorities, you're on your own.

Fri Sep 3 2004 1:08 PM


This is lovely, from Jim's link in the article:

From a time machine, Zell Miller himself criticizes his speech. Here's what he had to say in 2001: "John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington....John has worked to strengthen our military."

Fri Sep 3 2004 1:16 PM


and zig-zag-zell voted in synch with kerry.

if kerry has no credibiloity, then so too miller and so too cheney etc.

the standard by which kerry is branded is not being applied fairly or equally across the board.

Sun Sep 5 2004 1:37 AM


"You're right. That was a simple question. It's pretty obvious you don't have experience with science and federal funding. I don't believe there are ANY new drugs or medical procedures that didn't get some sort of federal money"

Somebody better call Jerry Lewis up and tell him to fill out a grant form so he can quit working on Labor Day.

Wed Sep 8 2004 7:58 AM

Johnny Utah:

"MDA National Chairman Jerry Lewis, who testified before a Senate subcommittee in February about the need for greater federal expenditure on MD research, said the new bill would "lay the groundwork for Congress to authorize much-needed funding for muscular dystrophy research."

Thu Sep 9 2004 3:51 PM

Johan Sundberg (SE):

Any grammatical and spelling errors is here after known as "3 in the morning errors" and should in no way be held accountable for the Authors abilities in the english language, direct or indirect.

>But what accomplishments? Read this if you wish.

Anyone else notice the 1st point under environment, killed the Kyoto treaty. (see BBC News, 2003 for basic info on the Kyoto treaty) Now can someone please tell me how this is a good thing? (sarcastic comment: Here I am sitting in my apartment actually thinking that letting out polution in the air is a bad thing, how could i have been so missinformed? Thanks you biased webpage for clearing this misconception).

Worth noting is that I actually thought that some of the things written here was meant to be sarcastic and/or anti-bush (which im not totally convinced yet that it isnt), since some comments written is about as strange as (pathetic attempt on making a funny comment) taking your swing chair for a walk on a sunday morning. Violating old agreements (ABM), undermining the UN, banning abortions (in some aspects, with more to come by the looks of it) and alienating from the rest of the world (especially the Germans and French). All this is not really seem as things to brag about from my perspective, a perspective that i share with alot (and increasing) of others around the world i might add.

- Johan, Umeĺ Sweden

BBC News (2003). What is the Kyoto treaty? [Electronic version]. Retrieved Sep 11 2004 from

Sat Sep 11 2004 6:26 PM


"Feb. 27 appearance by MDA National Chairman Jerry Lewis before a Senate subcommittee asking the federal government to become more aggressively involved in muscular dystrophy research. The MDA advocacy effort is the first time in the Association's 50-year history that it's urged federal funding to help in the search for cures for muscular dystrophy. MDA proposes that NIH award more funding directly to researchers, not to the Association."

WOW, a project as visible as MDA has operated 50 years without federal funding!!!!

Mon Sep 13 2004 8:19 AM


who is this zell person you speak of whats going on on this web site

Sun Oct 10 2004 9:37 PM


hi i would like to no this zell person who where and what are you all talking about please email me i think it its amzaing some has the same name as me what is she or he about im a 17 yr girl zellie mae wb and tell who this person is

Sun Oct 10 2004 9:40 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart