Candidate Allen Alley showcases governor poll

Press Release by Allen Alley for Governor

Who are you more likely to support, Chris Dudley or Allen Alley?

Allen Alley — 46
Chris Dudley — 20
Undecided — 34

As 2009 draws to a close, we are looking forward to a spirited debate about the direction of our great state next year. Over 100,000 Oregonians have lost their job over the last year, and we face an unemployment rate well above the national average. The lack of economic growth and unemployment is causing severe strains on families in every corner of the state. Growing the economy and putting people back to work is what this election is about. That’s why Allen, the only person running for Governor who has created jobs, is the right candidate at the right time.

Polling data: One of the Dudley campaign’s talking points is that he has high name awareness and, therefore, is far ahead of the rest of the field. Recent polling shows this to be overstated.
According to Moore Information*, Chris Dudley’s statewide hard name identification is 18%. So, over 8 in 10 Oregon voters say they have no opinion of him or have never heard of him. Chris Dudley does not have a name identification edge over Allen.

Allen’s background as a job creator is needed right now. Oregon primary voters understand that we need somebody who has strong real world experience but also knows his way around the Capitol.

Given that voters need more information about both candidates, when their relative backgrounds are described Republican primary voters express a clear preference for Alley:

I’m going to describe the qualifications of two people running for Governor:

Chris Dudley spent 16 years playing professional basketball, started a charitable foundation and is an investment advisor.

Allen Alley spent 30 years starting and running high technology companies, ran for state treasurer and served as a senior official in the governor’s office.

Who are you more likely to support, Chris Dudley or Allen Alley?

Allen Alley 46
Chris Dudley 20
Undecided 34

Voters understand that Oregon faces both systemic unemployment and underemployment as well as structural fiscal problems that will challenge our ability to generate economic growth. They want somebody who understands these issues, has the background to fix them, and is prepared to lead.

Past Performance

Among his Republican counterparts in the primary, Allen has the most impressive track record as a statewide candidate. In 2008, Allen’s first run for office, he outperformed the McCain ticket by 10 percentage points, won 9 of 11 newspaper endorsements, and garnered more Republican votes in Multnomah County than any other candidate in the history of Oregon. Despite his narrow loss, The Oregonian selected Allen as one of the “winners” of the 2008 election cycle for his strong run. If Allen can perform at that level in the worst political climate for Republicans, he is well positioned to win statewide next year.


This race is going to come down to creating jobs in Oregon and who has the experience and track record to deliver on that promise. Given his background as a job creator, understanding of the problems plaguing this state, and his electability, Allen is well positioned to deliver a Republican victory in November 2010.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 09:14 | Posted in Measure 37 | 53 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Very Bad News

    Shall we all face it. A RINO like Alley has about as much appeal to the general public as a wet blanket. The simple FACT that he worked for the current IDIOT IN THE GOVERNOR’S MANSION speaks volumes about his “ability” to lead the Oregon Republican Ticket in 2010.

    • Anonymous

      Okay, how in the world is Alley a Republican in Name Only? His economic views are exactly what Oregon needs.

      Sizemore isn’t viable.

      Dudley might be interesting, but there are too many unknowns. I won’t go for someone just because of celebrity cred…look how awful that turned out in California.

  • RINO?

    Very Bad News, I just dont understand what you are trying to say. You dont like that he worked for a Democrat Governor and got to hear everything they said? Dont you think that if he liked what he heard he would have just switched parties (like his opponent in the Treasurers race) an ran as a Dem to win? He obviously did not agree with what “the current IDIOT IN THE GOVERNOR’S MANSION” was saying, so he left.

  • Richard

    I am sick an tired of this. I would think the conservative movement would lean it lesson. A Rino is better than giving democrats a supper majority. Here is the kicker: I bet you all are going to say again we should let the democrats win so it could it be better tin 2012. Guess what, you all were saying the same thing in 2006, and 2008. Look where we are at now. It time to stop being idiots and do something other than listening to talk radio. If the conservative will not give us something better to vote for in May do be complaining what we got in November.

    (Conservative) Republication Intelligence, Not Obvious

    • Anonymous

      We have had a string of lousy candidates, both RINOS and not. The problem isn’t conservatism. The problem is a fundamental lack of GOP candidates with any gravitas and charm. The closest we’ve come is Kevin Mannix, and most of his career he was a democrat.

      • Richard

        There are two problem first the populism of low conservatism (think talk radio a la Lars, Rush, Taff with tea party grass roots, sans intellectual principals) scorched earth policy of shooting down any politician that does not meet their populist knee jerk ideas. At the same time real good and principal potential candidates (Qtub, Bill Whit, Goli Ameri, etc) left the state or went back to private business.

        To me the problem is not conservatism but irrational populism mixed with some conservative ideas.
        We need one in the spit of Goldwater and Buckley in the GOP.

        • Anonymous

          > real good and principal potential candidates (Qtub, Bill Whit, Goli Ameri, etc) left the state or
          > went back to private business

          See, now, *that*’s the real problem – anyone smart enough to do well in public office, is smart enough to stay out of it. Those who don’t figure that out in advance, find out the hard way and just leave. (You can add Jim Bunn, Brian Boquist, and any number of others to that list). If they don’t
          succumb to temptation, they get dragged through the mud by the criminal savages in the media.

          This is why Pope Gregory says “We must have the courage to seek public office” – (but he doesn’t tell us where to get *that* kind of courage, and religion alone certainly can’t provide it.)

          DemonRats, of curse, have no such issues – they’re already corrupt, without principle, and are right at home in the mud and filth of politics that conservatives find repulsive – and for them there’s no such thing as “temptation” – that would be “judgemental”, don’t you see, and they’re too “enlightened” for such considerations.

    • Anonymous

      Dude — Neither Mannix (2002) nor Saxton (2006) were conservative. Nor was Gordon Smith (1996, 2002, 2008). Dudley isn’t eaxctly a firebrand, either. What on earth are you talking about? The special election in New York?

      • eagle eye

        Mannix not conservative? What was not conservative about him? What and who is your idea of a conservative?

        • Anonymous

          Mannix is “conservative” on exactly one issue: abortion.

          Mannix was a solid democrat for years. When he ran for statewide office the first time, as a democrat, he drew a primary opponent (and lost the primary) solely because he is pro-life, and the democrats could not support a pro-life candidate for statewide office.

          After that, Mannix switched parties, where the evangelical wing of the GOP embraced him and kept his career as a perennial candidate alive despite not really being that conservative.

          If Mannix had been pro-choice, he would have been elected Attorney General and then Governor, as a democrat. Granted, he is pretty moderate and would have been better than Kulongoski – but he would still have been a democrat with a mostly big-government agenda. He still would have increased spending every biennium – not as much as Ted, but increased nonetheless. He just isn’t a real conservative, never has been, never will be.

          But he is good at faking it with Oregon Right to Life wrapped around his finger.

          • eagle eye

            Maybe he’s not conservative to you, but he’s about as conservative as anyone can get in Oregon and still have a decent shot at governor. He did the best of any Republican that I can remember since Atiyeh. Who else? Frohnmayer, Sizemore, Mannix, Saxton?

            Government spending will increase every biennium unless you eliminate population growth, inflation, and real economic growth. The only other way is to really cut the role of government. There is almost no desire to do this in Oregon. Like it or not, that’s how it is.

  • Hopeful

    The main goal is to wrestle the state of Oregon away from the clutches of the corrupt public employee unions and their liberal puppets. If the best we have to start with is a RINO than lets elect him / them. We will then be on the road to saving this state.

  • matthew vantress

    you know what kitzhaber and bradbury who have never ever done anything for the average private sector citizens during their time in office have about as much appeal to the public as a wet blanket.

  • Rick Hickey

    “LOST” over 100,000 jobs?

    Or, over 100,000 jobs were stolen by not really cheap Illegal aliens?

    Anyone running for CEO of Oregon should include the mandatory use of E-Verify for all employers. That would actually open up more than 100,000 jobs that Americans WILL do.

  • Mooo

    A poll released by Alley showing alley ahead!? Hahahahahaha Real reliable.

    If Alley is smart he will just step aside now and let Dudley win this big time! Aleey is nothing more then a demo disguised as a rino.

  • eagle eye

    Alley wants to get Oregon off of fossil fuels. Doesn’t sound promising, even for a RINO.

    • v person

      Why is wanting to wean Oregon away from fossil fuels a problem? Could a Republican be elected in Oregon running on an “I’m for fossil fuels” platform?

      • eagle eye

        A problem because fossil fuels are the energy source of the foreseeble future. He is basically running on the far-left green platform. If that’s the best the Republicans can do, they might as well hang it up.

        • v person

          Far left? Not according to most polls. Weaning off fossil fuels is a mainstream position, especially in Oregon.

          • eagle eye

            Yeah, sure. But when gas goes above $3.00 a gallon, they go crazy. If you want to believe your push-polls, go ahead.

          • v person

            I’m not talking about push polls. I’m talking every major poll on this subject.


            90% public support for government backing of wind & solar development. You don’t get to 90% with a push poll.

            Sure, people hate paying more for anything, including gas. But the reality is that the market drives gas prices and there is no way gas prices are going to go down and stay down. A battery driven car gets the equal of over 100 MPG anyway, so if price is the issue the solution may well be in beating a strategic retreat from fossil fuel.

            Anyway, the election is not going to be about 1 candidate promising lower fuel costs versus the other promising eternal renewable fuel bliss. Consider that in the last presidential election both candidates accepted global warming as fact and had cap and trade plans. The horse is well out of the barn on this, especially in Oregon.

            So back to square one. Do you really think the Republicans are better off running a candidate for governor of Oregon who is against transitioning away from fossil fuels? You normally seem pragmatic about these things.

          • Anonymous

            You also don’t get 90% support on virtually ANY policy. Hell, only 70% or so of the population believes we landed on the moon or that al-Qaeda was behind 9/11.

            You know what gets 90%? Mush, that’s what. 90% of the people might agree that cake is nice – but can you get 90% to agree on liking a particular type of cake? Not just flavor, but also size, shape, layers, frosting, etc?

            Sure, almost everybody will say “yeah, somebody should do something about this.” Or in this case, “yeah, the government should support wind and solar power.” But can you get 90% to agree that we should increase state personal income taxes an additional 1% and use the proceeds to subsidize private out-of-state companies that want to build large bird-killing wind power fans in protected areas of the state? Because for the government to “do something,” it has to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING, and once people look at what the SOMETHING actually is, opinions start to change.

            Without a solidly defined SOMETHING, any poll like this that gets 90% support means NOTHING.

            I’ll bet I can get 90% of the population to agree that “we need to do something to ensure violent criminals aren’t commiting more crimes with illegal firearms.” I certainly agree with that. You probably do as well. Now, good luck coming up with an actual PLAN for that that isn’t divisive.

            I can also get 90% of the people to agree that it would be a good thing if there were fewer abortions. Enjoy trying to sell a majority of the population on an actual plan to achieve that.

          • Anonymous

            “Consider that in the last presidential election both candidates accepted global warming as fact and had cap and trade plans.”

            You raise an interesting point. Perhaps had there been a viable alternative, a candidate who did NOT accept global warming as fact and rejected cap and trade plans might have won…

          • v person

            90% may be mush, but the question has been asked in a lot of ways. I agree that it only becomes operative once a cost is assigned. But in the case of the bill the House passed, a cost was estimated and it is well within the range people say they are willing to pay to solve the problem.

            You can nominate candidates who do a good job representing a strongly held minority opinion and maybe they can persuade the fence sitters, or you can nominate candidates who are within the mainstream of opinion and accept a compromise. In this case (energy policy) there is not much question as to where mainstream opinion is, and Alley seems to be there.

            As for the 08 presidential election, the Republicans started with 9 alternatives. The top 3 all were on record supporting policies to deal with global warming, albeit to varying degrees. The Democrats had 8 alternatives and all 8 were strongly supportive of these policies. I just think being anti alternative energy is a ticket to political Siberia these days, and most major politicians (Palin excluded) seem to agree.

          • Anonymous

            “The top 3 all were on record supporting policies to deal with global warming, albeit to varying degrees.”

            The top three being McCain (RINO), Huckabee (RINO) and Romney (not quite as RINO, but dubious at best).

            It’s no wonder the GOP got trounced. And before you try to say “well that’s who got nominated,” take a good look at that nomination process, where early support came from, how much money was spent and by whom, and what role the party “machine” insiders had in shaping the primary. Candidates with real conservative views like Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, etc., were hung out to dry by the party.

            And the party lost – big.

            Now there is a new party in town, the Tea Party. You can call us the lunatic fringe if you want, but guess what? When generic party surveys include “Tea Party” as an alternative to GOP and DNC, guess who comes in last place? The GOP. TEA PARTY beats GOP on a generic ballot. So who is the fringe? And if the GOP actually united with the Tea Party crowd instead of dismissing it, that would form a winning movement – because in these three-way polls, DNC only gets numbers in the mid 30’s.


  • capor

    If I had to vote today, Alley would be my choice. However, I do not trust him so far and am not real sure why. I don’t think he speaks directly to small business owners like me when he boasts of his successes in business. Are those businesses in Oregon? Are they still employing the numbers that he suggests he started? Has he had to guarntee a payroll from his pocket like I do?

    I would never vote for Chris Dudley based on “name recognition”. It is sad that his group thinks that is going to get him somewhere in this campaign. We defenitely need a CEO with a solid business success background. I guess I worry that Alley has been in the political machine long enough to have “blended” too much. I want a CEO to walk in to that Gov’s office with business mentality first, politics second.

    • Anonymous

      How about Lim for governor?

      • capor

        Not much spark or backing from the general Cons out there. How about Hanna?

        • Anonymous

          Given the current crop, if Hanna decided to run, he would have my enthusiastic support! Every announced candidate is a sure-fire loser.

    • Very Bad Man

      Speaking of business “success” Alley is a LOSER. His company Pixelworks is a few steps away from Bankruptcy. He left with a Golden Parachute just before the company’s sales went into the toilet.

  • Andrew

    There appears to be an * and an ** that never end up resulting in a footnote. What do we need to know about those items?

    I know Catalyst’s priority level on grammar, punctuation and style is, um, less than stellar, but come on.

  • Anonymous

    This is a poll where voters can choose between a RINO, and a taller RINO, or undecided… and a RINO wins the poll.


    This is like Obama running a poll on 2012 asking voters to choose:

    Who of the following would you like to win in 2012: Obama, Biden, or undecided.

    First of all, there are at least two actual candidates not included: Lim and Sizemore. Sizemore might actually garner high support if this poll is limited to likely GOP Primary voters. Second of all, there are other potential candidates who could really shake things up. There is an effort to draft Bruce Hanna. I believe if he entered this race, his leadership position in the legislature, along with his more conservative nature and good image, would make him a front runner. Also, at any moment, Greg Walden or Gordon Smith might decide to run.

    Hell, Kevin Mannix would probably win a primary if the only other candidates were Allen, Dudley, Lim and Sizemore. Note to Kevin: please don’t get any ideas!

    All told, this is a useless poll and a useless post.

  • Rob DeHarpport

    I want to here where they stand on 66& 67, PERS reform, school choice and cutting back state government. THEN I will choose. I heard Dudley whine about the tax measures costing 6000 guv jobs????? Is that what we want? Another Union puppet?

  • Rupert in Springfield

    You know, it is a little ridiculous to be going on about RINO’s when it comes to statewide office in Oregon.

    Oregon is a center left state. You think that you are going to get a conservative governor any time soon? Forget about it.

    You have a short spectrum in electability for statewide office in Oregon, it runs from Left Democrat to Moderate Republican. That means from Barney Frank to John McCain. Anyone holding out for a conservative governor is really dreaming.

    Frankly I would be more than happy with a moderate Republican who understood the simple concept that trying to tax Oregon into prosperity isn’t going to work. I know that is asking a lot because the majority of the business in Salem is figuring out new and inventive ways to tax the populace. However getting someone who had a clue economically would be nice.

    On the petty side, getting someone who didn’t look like the current mouth breathing “union say -> Teddy do “occupant of the office would be nice as well.

    • Anonymous

      Rupert, you’re kidding, right?

      Reagan won Oregon twice. McCain got clobbered. GWB – more conservative than McCain but still far more moderate than Reagan – lost twice.

      A real conservative CAN win here. The problem is, we haven’t had a conservative candidate in many years that wasn’t horribly flawed in other ways (think Sizemore).

      Another problem is that people confuse “social conservative” with “conservative.” There is a strong opposition to what you might call a religious-right social-conservative candidate in Oregon. If a conservative candidate makes things like abortion and gay marriage the center of the campaign, that candidate can win the GOP primary while losing the general election.

      We need a conservative who, sure is pro-life and all, but who instead focuses on issues many moderates can embrace, like smaller government, less taxation and fees, more personal liberty, etc. I think a Ron Paul type of conservative – one is more libertarian than Republican, one who may be socially conservative but who views that more as a way to live than as a function of government – could win BIG in Oregon.

      • Anonymous

        You’re both right and you’re both wrong. Winning elections is as much (maybe even more) a function of personality/perception as it is policy. It is the voters who are dedicated neither to the right nor the left that decide elections. Sway the middle to your favor and you’re golden. Reagan was as successful as he was, in my opinion, because he was so damn likable. Sad, but true; the social functioning of the world rarely transcends the maturity level of your average high school. Hence, the “cool kid” won the last national election, while the “old dude” lost. I’d be willing to wager my soul that the vast majority of voters (from both sides) could elucidate neither candidates political positions.

        Please forgive my lack of faith in the intellectual capabilities of the masses. I don’t mean to sound like an elitist, but, things are what they are.

        • Anonymous

          This is 13.1 again. I agree with you. I think we are both talking about the same things, but in different ways.

          Oregon’s conservative candidates of late have been fatally flawed in that people just didn’t LIKE them as people.

          This ties in with how the candidate presents conservative values. Social conservatism isn’t “cool.” Most people think sex, drugs, rock and roll, etc., are a vital part of life. A candidate can have strong views on these subjects, but if he pushes those views hard, he becomes disliked. You can have brilliant views on economic theory, public adminstration, tax policy, regulation, etc. But most voters will not really know or care. However, if you are the guy who says “let’s all save the Earth” you will probably resonate better with voters in Oregon than the guy who is known as the “God hates gays” candidate.

          • come again?

            Kulongowski is likable? Not even to liberals. And Kitzhaber…warm and fuzzy? Hardly.

            Its about policies and competence. Hard right conservative policies have no traction in the Oregon of today. Maybe they never did if you consider the types of Republicans who were successful in Oregon in the not too distant past: Hatfield, Packwood, McCall, and Atiyeh. When has Oregon ever elected a hard right conservative to statewide office?

            Either nominate moderates, likable or otherwise, or continue to waste your time and fury.

          • Anonymous

            Kulongoski’s confirmed status as a douchebag notwithstanding, I maintain that elections are driven not nearly as much by policy (and let’s not even talk about competence) as they should be. Generally speaking, people seem to have neither the time nor the interest to become well-informed of their political environment (if only economic policy were as interesting as Tiger Woods’ thirteenth mistress). I will concede though that this phenomenon is far less present on the local level than it is on the national, mainly because local elections are far easier for the indifferent to ignore (i.e. not participate in). Regardless, if memory serves, Ted won not on his own merits but rather on the combination of his familiarity to voters (paradoxically), the national political climate in ’06 (post Katrina the Bush administration’s failures brought the Republican party to its knees in terms of popularity), and Saxton’s lousy campaign management. Mr. Saxton was/is without a doubt more than competent as well as reasonably moderate policy-wise, he just wasn’t charismatic enough to overcome the above-mentioned political obstacles. Like you said, not even liberals like Kulongoski. My guess is that if Saxton had half the charm of Reagan, GWB, or Obama, Kulongoski would not have stood a chance (regardless of policy or actual competence).

          • Anonymous

            Kulongoski is more likeable than Ron Saxton.

            Kitzhaber is a very likeable fellow – and certainly more so than Bill Sizemore.

            Now consider Dave Frohnmayer. He is actually a really nice guy. But when he ran, he went out of his way to upset the religious right. So the reigious right ran a third party guy. Even though they knew they had no chance of doing anything but spoiling, they did this simply because they really didn’t like Frohnmayer as a person the way he was campaigning. If that election was about policy or competence or qualification, Frohnmayer would have walked all over Barbara Roberts. Instead, he really turned off about 15% of the population to the point they went out of their way to torpedo him.

          • come again?

            Think about the history here. Frohnmayer would have easily won but was derailed by the right because he was not “conservative” enough on abortion and gay rights. Saxton had to go much farther right than he was to get the nomination, and that probably cost him the general election. The only statewide Republicans elected in Oregon over the past 4 decades have been moderates. Oregon is farther left now than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Add in demographic changes ahead and it only gets worse, since older folks are more Republican and they are dying off, while younger folks are way more Democratic and they are ascending. If Republicans insist on being as conservative as their brethren in Alabama or Wyoming or Idaho, they are going to go the way of the dodo bird in Oregon politics. We will become like Vermont or Rhode Island. 1 party states, and that ain’t good.

            This isn’t ideology. Its reality.

          • Anonymous

            “This isn’t ideology. Its reality.”

            That’s exactly what we’re trying to say. Reality is a popularity contest. The far right’s sabotage of Frohnmayer aside, elections are won by the middle. The middle moves towards “likability”, not policy.

          • Anonymous

            You sort of have it. The problem is confusing popularity with ideology. Obama just won big on popularity. If it was on ideology, he would have lost. McCain is a real moderate. Obama is a far left partisan. After seeing how he governs, middle America – who voted for Obama – now does not like him.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Either nominate moderates, likable or otherwise, or continue to waste your time and fury.

            Id have to agree with Dean on this one.

            As far as governor goes, a liberal Democrat wins, a moderate Democrat wins, a moderate Republican wins and a Conservative will lose.

            That doesn’t mean I like it, it just is the reality of the leanings of both the press and the population in this state. Any conservative could say anything he wants on social issues, he will be painted as far right.

            Don’t believe me? Look at Bush, a moderate Republican by any stretch of the imagination. Yet he was constantly lumped in with “the far right” by any of my liberal friends I spoke to.

          • Anonymous

            “As far as governor goes, a liberal Democrat wins, a moderate Democrat wins, a moderate Republican wins and a Conservative will lose.”

            You’re right. A tea party conservative, no matter how charming, could never carry a gubernatorial election in Oregon. At least not for the foreseeable future.

          • v person

            “Don’t believe me? Look at Bush, a moderate Republican by any stretch of the imagination”

            So you are saying Bush was a liar, or the people who voted for him based on thinking he was the conservative he said he was were fools? Which is it?

          • Anonymous

            The closest we have come was with Mannix, who was more conservative than other failed candidates like Saxton and Frohnmayer. And Saxton, who is a bit more conservative than Frohnmayer, also did better than Frohnmayer. The more conservative we get, the better we do.

            Sizemore is the anomaly. He may be conservative, but he also has a lot of negatives dragging him down.

  • anonymous

    In the last statewide election I voted for Alley. I heard his debate over the community TV here in Salem that he participated in in Bend Oregon (League of W Voters) and found him to be knowledgable and responsible, good characteristics for a Govenor

  • Anonymous

    I couldn’t read this past v/dean’s
    “Why is wanting to wean Oregon away from fossil fuels a problem?”

    You really are this stupid aren’t you?

    “wean”? What a cozy word. It means impose punitive taxes and regulation which raises energy and other costs while accomplishing nothing but goverment expansion.

    Away from fossil fuels?

    Yeah sure. Let me guess. Who will decide if we’re away or not? Portland office of sustanable developent who cooks up studies that fabricate CO2 emissions reductions.

    All of your bromides are code for supporting left wing causes which ignore reality and consequences.

    You’re too much of a fool to understand it so I won’t bother wasting time with any other explanation. You never get anything.

  • tim jaffe

    do you support unborn voters being KILLED,a.k.a. abortion

  • Jeannie

    How about Chris Tefler??–she’d be great!!

  • Ron

    This abortion issue is too polarizing…..people have got to be a little more flexible on this issue. If that is you only litmus test the liberals will continue to win and you will get nothing of what you want.
    The republicans/tea party candidates must win this next cycle….look what the Democrat whores in DC are doing to us! No transparency… bipartisianship….no fiscal responsibility…sympathy for terrorists….fostering of class and racial hatred….THIS MUST BE STOPPED…’s 2010 OR NEVER!

  • Anonymous

    GET OUT!!!!!!!! RINO

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)