Grassroots Interviews with Shawnna Bolick

Shawnna Bolick is running for the Arizona House in Legislative District 11. The voters have some real choices in both the Senate and the House races. Do your homework! No conservative has any business voting for Driggs in the Senate race or Democrat Eric Meyer or “Republican” candidate Kate McGee in the House race. All three are participants in the liberal “Twelve in `10” fundraising event.

Shawnna Bolick interview

You can find the archive of our interviews on or find our group page on Facebook.


  1. So just to be clear, Bolick is one of these Republicans who declares themselves the only ‘real’ Republican, calls everyone else RINO and then damages the party in an attempt to get elected all based on who they associate with. Fine, now we know.

    Ronlad Reagan’s dinners and drinks with Tip O’Neil would have made him the biggest RINO in history.

    This is not the way to lead. Talk about yourself and not others. Win because you can lead, not because you gossip and call names to your opponents and because your husband knows people or you think you have the most artistic kids.

  2. nightcrawler says


    Before I start, may I compliment you on your new suit and video interview evolution. Thank you for that.

    This “liberal” fundraiser as you call is nothing more than big business identifying who they choose to support based on a candidate’s commerce and economic positions.

    Litmus test ideologues such as yourself have abandoned the business community. With the recent shut down of Clean Elections funds, the fiscal conservative hypocrisy holy water has run dry. No more do as I say not as I do.

    Perhaps Ms. Bolick should examine why she was not invited to attend the business fundraiser, is she a friend of business ? Or simply another songbird of platitudes.

  3. @Travis,
    The criticism of those participating in “Twelve in `10” should entirely be attributed to ME, NOT Shawnna. I alone brought up the issue and if you bother to WATCH the interview, you’ll see that Shawnna is graceful and says nothing more than she wouldn’t be helping raise money for Democrats.

    There’s a difference between being pro-business and being free market. Many businesses WANT big government, “pro-business” legislators that will cut them special tax breaks and subsidies at taxpayer expense. Any free marketeer should oppose these. Being pro-business also means head-hunting, or government tailoring the economy to fit business’ needs. That’s in essence command economy dealings. Free marketeers oppose command economies, don’t tolerate government trying to choose winners and losers, and favor the economy growing as it might without any direction or help whatsoever.

    If business thinks the Republicans have abandoned them, they’re wrong. Business is abandoning the free market for the hope of getting wealth redistributed in their direction at taxpayer expense. That’s reprehensible. If individuals would bother to understand the free market system, they would see that it is the best possible system, despite its flaws, for both businesses and the common man. Businesses want the government to protect them with tariffs and regulations to keep the current game players from failing at the expense of foreign competitors and new entrants. I oppose that system because it breeds laziness and kills competition. In other words, the pro-business types WANT the type of moral hazard that created and burst the housing bubble. I want business to remain innovative, flexible, and sharp. That’s why I support the free market and I do not support the big government pro-business types.

    Finally, I’ve attacked Clean Elections in just about every interview I’ve given. Have you been watching? I voted NO when it first came on the ballot and until Dean Martin started running for governor, I adamantly refused to give $5 to any candidate. Shawnna opposes Clean Elections too. The Goldwater institute has been set against Clean Elections as well. So, a good number of true conservatives have been opposed to the system since it’s inception. Include me in that number.

  4. Travis:

    A “gofer” should know that R.I.N.O.s don’t merely associate with Liberals, they, if in office advance liberal agendas while masking as Republicans.

    These types are invariably defended and advanced by yourself, Ann, LD17 and of course, “Yeah Right”!

    Even professional “ring bearers” should be aware of principles even if they avoid them like the plague!

  5. @Travis,
    To build on what Carlist has said, moderates lost us elections nationwide in 2006 and 2008. When we act like Democrats, the populace votes for the real deal, not Republicans. When we stick to our principles, when we provide stark differences between ourselves and Democrats, Republicans win big.

  6. TrueAZConservative says

    Yeah, and this year more than ever, it is important that we send the real conservatives to Congress as well. Particularly in CD3, where we are losing Shadegg. On a point that has just become relevant over the last day or two, Pamela Gorman as State Senator single-handedly blocked an increase to candidates funded by clean elections. In the 2009 session, there was an attempt to increase the amount of public funds that go to “clean” candidates. Crump, running in CD3, voted for the bill (HB2603/SB1087), Waring was a holdout on his vote until he knew it wouldn’t pass, and then saved-face by voting no. Gorman was the sole reason why that measure failed, and we have her to thank that millions more are not going out the door to politicians this election cycle. We need to send real conservatives like Gorman to Congress!

  7. nightcrawler says


    The “free marketeers” typically don’t raise money for like minded candidates. They would like to see them succeed or fail on their own accord. How ironic ?

    A truly free market system does not exist as long as there are national borders and governments. To bring your argument to its rightful conclusion, all borders, tariffs and customs laws would cease, cheap labor could flow naturally where it would be needed. Your suspicious anti-business rhetoric would make any Democrat proud. If you really want a 100% free market I suggest you learn to speak Chinese.

  8. Nightcrawler,
    You misunderstand me. I’m not anti-corporate like the Left. I want business to succeed and I don’t care how much profit they make (unlike Obama and the Left). I think regulation and taxation do nothing but kill our economy, but the Left embraces regulation and taxation as if it’s the answer to every ill. The only time I’m going to oppose business is when they ask the government to regulate in their favor, whether its tariffs, rules, protectionism, special perks or what have you.

    As for no borders, forget it. Not going to happen. There’s a Constitutional DUTY to protect the country. There are those out there who want to kill us and they’d be more than happy to not only kill us, but ensure that those left alive would have no free market. I’ll concede that truly free markets are pretty difficult to achieve, but I’m going to favor our markets being free as possible.

    If you want labor markets to be free, we need to start by killing the unions and eliminating the minimum wage. Those two issues alone are the major reasons why manufacturing has fled overseas.

  9. Mark Wiess says

    I have always considered Rep. Adam Driggs a solid conservative in my district, and have thought he did a good job. But I noted Marcus Kelley’s criticism on the posting above and then in the Bolick interview Kelley called him a liberal to moderate Republican with a very liberal voting record.

    Since I don’t follow all the votes down there at the Capitol, I checked the Pachyderm Coalition legislative rankings and Rep. Driggs is ranked as the 11th most conservative Republican out of 35 in the House of Representatives. That seems pretty like a really good voting record to me. That in not RINO material in my book. I think Kelley should do his homework before he criticizes conservatives or he will start to lose credibility with the solid following he is beginning to build. I have enjoyed watching his interviews, and have considered them informative, but a interviewer should work objectively to extract the candidates views without putting his own ideas into the script. Kelley is a lawyer, and it was like he was asking leading questions, trying to get Bolick to say something.

    Or is there an agenda we don’t know about? Is Kelley working or helping one of the other two candidates in the LD11 Senate race?

    I am still trying to figure out who I am voting for in CD3, and LD11 House and Senate, I don’t know enough about the candidates, but I do know Driggs is a pretty solid conservative from what I can tell.

  10. Mr. Wiess,
    I spend several hours each day doing research before my shows. I take exception to your charge that I should do my homework when you admit that you don’t watch the votes and you cite a single organization that rates our politicians and you cite only a single year. Pachyderm is not the ONLY organization out there that rates legislators and Driggs has been in the House since 2007. I use the Arizona 2010 Project, Goldwater, and Americans for Prosperity in addition to Pachyderm. I believe a composite of these scores gives a voter a good idea if a politician is moderate or conservative.

    Let’s go over Mr. Driggs scores since 2007 and test my statement that Mr. Driggs is a moderate or even a RINO, shall we?

    *the Arizona 2010 Project*
    The Project’s stated mission is to get conservatives elected. Driggs’ name does not appear in the list of candidates vetted. He didn’t even get a 0%. That tells me Driggs didn’t fill out the conservative survey. I’ve got to ask why. My guess? The conventional wisdom is that you don’t fill out a questionnaire unless you like the organization or you’re seeking their endorsement. That suggests to me that Driggs isn’t as conservative as he says he is. Could I be wrong? Absolutely.

    **2007 scores**
    *Goldwater Institute*
    In 2007, Mr. Driggs first year in the House, his overall score from Goldwater was an abysmal 45 or a D. Out of 33 Republican House members, 22 outscored Driggs. That puts him in the bottom third among Republicans. Is this the score of a conservative?

    His score from Goldwater on educational issues was a 73 or an A-. Only 7 legislators outscored him. Not too bad.

    Driggs earned a 53 or a C from Goldwater on constitutional government issues. 22 Legislators outscored him. Again, he wound up in the bottom third. Again, I ask, Is this the score of a conservative?

    For voting to regulate the economy, Driggs earned an F+ or a 38. Driggs tied with notorious liberal Republicans Nelson, Konopnicki, Reagan, and even tied with Democrat Ben Miranda. Do conservatives tie with Democrats? For voting to regulate our economy?

    On taxes & budgeting, Driggs earned a 42 or a D-. 14 legislators outscored him. He finished about in the middle of the pack. Is that the score of a conservative?

    That I can tell, Pachyderm only links to 2010’s and 2009’s scores.

    *Americans for Prosperity*
    Driggs earned a 70. The best I can tell, that would have put him in the middle of the pack. I maintain that scoring in the middle of the pack is not conservative.

    **2008 Scores**
    *Goldwater Institute*
    Driggs’ overall score was a 66 or a B. 11 Legislators outscored him out of 33 Republicans in the House. Again, this puts him around the bottom of the top third of Republican legislators or the top of the middle third. A conservative would have scored better.

    On educational issues, he scored a 71 or an A-. 10 legislators outscored him. Again, middle of the pack among Republicans.

    On constitutional government issues, he scored an 81 or an A. Only 3 legislators outscored him. I’ve got to applaud him for that. But one or two good scores doesn’t make someone a conservative.

    For voting to regulate the economy, Driggs received a 47 or a D+. 16 legislators outscored him, so, again, he scored in the middle of the pack.

    On tax issues, Driggs received a 73 or an A-. Six legislators outscored him. Another good score, but he’s not consistently this good. Consistency should be the hallmark of a conservative.

    *Americans for Prosperity*
    In 2008, Driggs got his best score from AFP. He got a 79. Just perusing the scores from AFP in 2008, I see lots of 90’s and 80’s. At best, Driggs is in the middle of the pack.

    *Pachyderm Coalition*
    Mr. Wiess, you cited Pachyderm, but you do so selectively. For the 2009 general session, Pachyderm gave Driggs a 65.9 and rated him TWENTY EIGHTH of 35 Republican legislators as more conservative as Mr. Driggs. There’s no way that anyone can argue that score paints Driggs a conservative. Don’t make me cite the Special Session scores because it will only get uglier. No Republican scored well on those.

    *Americans for Prosperity*
    Driggs earned a 73 from AFP last year. He moved to the left according to AFP’s 2008 scores. 9 House Republicans outscored Driggs and if you include the Senate too, then 19 legislators outscored him. I’d rather he scored higher.

    Goldwater gave Driggs a 61 or a B-. 13 House Republicans outscored him. Again, middle of the pack as a Republican. A conservative would score at the top.

    Driggs got a 75 or an A- on educational issues. Sounds great, right? Did you know he scored as well as Michelle Reagan did? And did you know 26 of 35 Republican House members outscored him? He fell in the bottom third of Republican legislators. Is this the score of a conservative?

    On constitutional government issues, Driggs earned a 57 or a C+ from Goldwater. 13 legislators outscored him. Again, middle of the pack.

    For voting to regulate the economy, Driggs received a 54 or a C. 13 legislators outscore him. Middle of the pack.

    For his votes on taxation and the budget, Driggs earned a 69 or a B+. 13 House legislators scored higher than Driggs. Consistently, he’s in the middle of the pack.

    As you state, Driggs received a 63 and ranked 11th in the House among 35 Republicans. I’d argue that’s mediocre.

    The Goldwater Institute has not yet published their 2010 Report Card.

    AFP has not yet released scores for Arizona’s legislators for 2010.

    There are two nails in the coffin for Driggs in my mind. First, Driggs, in the Sixth special legislative session voted yes on SB 1001. That vote sent the Prop. 100 tax increase to the ballot. If you voted yes on SB 1001, you voted to increase our taxes, plain and simple. If I need to spell it out, I will. Driggs is directly responsible for the tax increase. Conservatives don’t raise taxes, especially in the middle of a recession.

    Second, Driggs is involved in the Twelve in `10 fundraising event. This group was promoted by former McCain staffer and notoriously liberal former legislator Deb Gullet. The event included Democrats. I find it reprehensible that Republicans would be helping Democrats fundraise. There are exactly ZERO conservatives on the list of legislators participating in this event. Fundraising for Democrats, flocking with notoriously liberal Republicans like Michelle Reagan, Bill Konopnicki and John Nelson is NOT the action of a conservative.

    Is there an agenda? Yes. I believe moderates and RINOs are responsible for Republican losses in 2006 and 2008. They are responsible for the Republicans losing the legislative majority in New Jersey more than 10 years ago. The RINO John McCain is responsible for the Republicans losing the White House in 2008. Moderates are the reason why some people say, “There’s not a lick of difference between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans.” When Republicans stick to their ideals, they win, and they win big. My agenda? Remove all moderates from office and party leadership positions. Moderates and RINOs are poison to the party.

    Do I have a horse in LD 11? Unequivocally, no. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a grand whopping total of 3 clients: Janet Contreras running for Congress in CD 4, Clark Silver running for the Senate in LD 12, and Jerry Walker running for the Maricopa County Community College Board.

    I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not a licensed, practicing attorney. I do have a law degree. Do I inject my own views into my shows? Absolutely. That’s the premise. Grassroots Interviews is a conservative show and I’m conducting these interviews to ensure that the viewers (and I) can figure out who the most conservative candidates are. I state this at the opening of EVERY show. So, the bias is open and notorious. Is Hannity biased? Is Rush? It’s nothing new.

    Even if I lead candidates, they have the God given ability to disagree with me. As for Shawnna, she’s a very sharp woman. She didn’t rise to the bait. I mentioned this above if you bothered to read my comments.

    I think I’ve proven that I do my homework and I think I’ve proven that Driggs generally falls in the middle of the pack of Republicans and often enough at the bottom of the Republican pack. He fundraises with Democrats and associates with notorious liberal Republicans. he voted to raise our taxes. To my mind, that makes him a moderate to RINO Republican. I stand by my statements against Driggs made in my show and I will continue to do so until he is defeated on August 24th. He is part of the problem. A conservative Republican beating him is the solution.

  11. Mark Wiess says

    Mr. Kelley:

    That is probably more info than I intended, and you are correct, I am not an expert and a professional legislature watcher. I also never intended to become a Driggs apologist. I have liked him and I think he does a good for LD11, but I mostly wrote because I just don’t think he is a liberal or has a liberal voting record as you stated. Again, I am not tracking all the votes.

    The one vote that I did track, and that was very important to me was the Sales Tax referral. I have known this from the day of the vote that Driggs voted against the Tax referral. The bill number is SCR1001, not SB1001, as you write. I know this because I emailed him, and I got an e-mail back. Your post made me go back and check, and sure enough, Driggs voted against SCR1001, which was Brewer’s tax referral. So he did not raise taxes and did keep his tax pledge.

    Again, I think I’ve waded in farther than I ever intended to on this issue, but I only think it is fair to Driggs that his vote against Prop 100 sales tax being sent to the ballot is accurately noted. And of course, to me it means he is conservative. Maybe that nail in the coffin should find some wiggle room.

    I did e-mail Driggs about the fundraising and I am awaiting a response.

  12. Mr. Wiess,
    I stand SOMEWHAT corrected, but I’m not entirely wrong. The short of it is that Driggs may have voted against the tax increase itself (SCR 1001), but he DID vote to send it to the ballot (SB 1001). I STILL assert that if Driggs were an anti-tax stalwart, he would have voted no on BOTH measures. I STILL stand by what I’ve said about Driggs because I think I’ve been saying all along that SB 1001 sent the tax increase to the ballot.

    I guess Driggs, a la John Kerry, voted against the tax increase before he voted for it.

  13. Mark Wiess says

    Mr. Kelley:
    You got it wrong again. SB1001 did not “send it to the ballot.” SCR1001 sent the sales tax to the ballot. Driggs voted NO on SCR1001. SB1001 authorized the special election to be held. It did not determine the precise content ballot measure. Based on what I know about Driggs so far, I bet there is a sound reason why he voted for SB1001, while opposing the tax referral, especially since it had 37 votes and didn’t need his vote to pass.

    I am amazed at the lengths you have gone to stick up for your erroneous accusations that Adam Driggs is a liberal. Why do you have such an ax to grind with him? When you wrongly made the John Kerry comparison, you completely lost all credibility. Your false cries are the exact reason why the Republicans have problems, they eat their own. I guess if a person doesn’t agree with you 100% of the time, they must be a RINO. Driggs deserves a lot more respect than that.

    How many legislator’s with a “very liberal voting record” would have a 100% Pro-life, pro-family voting record, an A rating with the NRA, and be listed as a “Friend of the Taxpayers”?

    I did some of my own research on Driggs and let me tell you what I found. He has a 100% pro-life rating and has always been endorsed by AZ right to life. He has a 100% voting record and A ranking with the NRA. He signed the No Tax pledge and kept it, when many conservatives in the legislature did not. He has always been a “Friend of the Taxpayer.”

    Your research consistently found that he was in the top ten ranked republicans in many categories, yet you continue to call him “mediocre at best.” The Republican legislature in Arizona is very conservative. They championed immigration bills, pro-second amendment bills, anti-universal healthcare legislation, tort reform, and made the largest cuts in history to the state budget. A middle of the pack Republican in the Arizona legislature is pretty conservative.

    I listened to one of your other interviews where you complimented the candidate because she had strong Arizona roots. The Driggs’ family has served Arizona for years, I remember when his father was Mayor. Driggs obviously has made a personal and family sacrifice to be in the legislature and his reward is to be completely mischaracterized by you. I believe we should be grateful to have someone as conservative as Driggs be elected in a moderate district like LD11. I remember when we had Deb Gullett and Steve May in this area. What a positive contrast in voting records he has with those two. My district is a Republican district that has elected Democrats the last two elections. Not even LD8 elects Democrats, but they elect pro-choice, pro-tax Republicans like Carolyn Allen.

    I read on another blog that Driggs’ opponent in the Senate race is a carpetbagger from Washington, D.C. who has raised most of his money from out of state. Sounds like a good Arizona grassroots candidate for me. Actually, it sounds like the next John McCain. Are you going to give him equal scrutiny? Only time will tell.

    Your misplaced venom has helped me dig a little deeper and learn even more about Adam Driggs. I have decided who I am going to vote for this year in the LD11 Senate race. I am voting for a pro-life, pro 2nd amendment, conservative candidate with a proven record: Adam Driggs.

  14. Mr. Wiess said:
    SB1001 did not “send it to the ballot.” SB1001 authorized the special election to be held.

    Your last post was less than respectful, Mr. Wiess, and you are a prime example of my assertion that civilized debate in this country is dead. There is no difference between “sending it to the ballot” and “authorizing the special election to be held”. And you criticize me for losing credibility? My philosophy professor at the U of A once told me that sometimes you just have to laugh at some arguments.

    I’ve said before why I have an axe to grind with Mr. Driggs, but I guess you’re the type of individual who must read arguments multiple times before it sinks in, so, I’ll state it again: his scores from multiple conservative rating organizations are lackluster, he fundraises for Democrats and he didn’t vote to stop the special election for Prop. 100.

    If the Republicans have problems, it is because of moderates. Did the Republicans lose in 2006 and 2008 because they were too conservative? Did Reagan win all but one state in the Electoral College by campaigning as a moderate? Did the Republicans lose the majority in New Jersey for being too conservative? Moderates are a poison. If we want to regain the majority and MAINTAIN it, we simply must not deviate from conservative principles. If we eat our own, it is for our own good. The failed moderate “Big Tent” philosophy has proven to cost us elections.

    As for Driggs 100% pro-Life, and pro-Second Amendment stances, I applaud him, just like I did TWICE above!

    Cut & paste:
    On constitutional government issues, he scored an 81 or an A. Only 3 legislators outscored him. I’ve got to applaud him for that. But one or two good scores doesn’t make someone a conservative.

    On tax issues, Driggs received a 73 or an A-. Six legislators outscored him. Another good score, but he’s not consistently this good. Consistency should be the hallmark of a conservative.

    I’m not 100% critical of Driggs, I’m willing to applaud him when he does well, but your darned skippy that I’m going to criticize him for any leftward leanings. You, on the other hand, have yet to OPENLY acknowledge that he has any deficiencies and as I will develop below, you are very selective about the evidence you present. Who is more honest and transparent here?

    Driggs signed a no tax pledge? Nice. Too bad he authorized SPENDING for a $9 million special election for a tax increase. Those pledges have PLENTY of wiggle room, just read ATR’s criteria for what is and isn’t a tax increase. I’m not impressed.

    As for AFP’s “Friend of the Taxpayer” moniker, there’s TWO ranks above “Friend”. There’s “Champion” and “Hero of the Taxpayer” as well. Again, Driggs doesn’t rank at the top of the pack and you quote things selectively. Again, I have to take exception to your statement that you call MY credibility into question when you are less than fully transparent. I disclosed my clients. I said what my agenda is. I’ve been 100% honest.

    Let’s look at Pachyderm too, because one score alone isn’t a good indicator. Pachyderm calls Driggs a mere “Republican” in both 2009 and 2010 rather than a “Reagan Republican” or a “Pro-Freedom Republican”. In 2009, he was the lowest scoring “Republican” and was almost classified as a “Big-Government Republican”. He was outscored by Michelle Reagan, a notorious moderate. Again, Driggs fails to score near the top, he’s in the middle of the pack, and there’s plenty of room for him to move to the right.

    My research consistently found he was in the top 10? No, it didn’t. It consistently found he scored in the middle third of Republicans. There are some exceptions where he scores both higher and lower than the middle third, but mostly he’s there. There’s room for improvement.

    It’s nice that the legislature is relatively conservative and it’s nice that they’ve championed “immigration bills, pro-second amendment bills, anti-universal healthcare legislation, tort reform”. Be that as it may, there’s no guarantee that Driggs voted for all these measures. You’d have to go over every one of his votes to find out and that’s pretty time consuming. If Driggs is consistently outscored, there is certainly room for improvement. He must be dropping the ball SOMEWHERE along the line. I’ll respectfully disagree that middle of the pack in this legislature makes someone “pretty conservative”. I’d say Pachyderm and AFP agree since they didn’t give him their highest rankings…nor their second highest, but their THIRD.

    I’ve started using Twitter quite a bit, and I found it quite interesting that I’m not the only one to consider Mr. Driggs a moderate. Now, admittedly, Constantine Querard has a horse or horses somewhere in LD 11. I don’t remember who or which race, but he sent this tweet:

    Will Driggs, Crandall, et al be honest about their “moderate middle” ideology? No chance. Driggs running as “A Consistent Conservative” 1:49 AM Jun 16th via web

    I feel somewhat vindicated that I’m not the only one to call out Driggs as a moderate.

    As for having a long family history of service, I couldn’t care less. I care what the INDIVIDUAL does. McCain’s father and grandfathers had illustrious careers too, but McCain himself is an abomination. I’m glad Driggs has deep roots. It’s important to understand Arizona’s culture.

    If Driggs is man enough to weather my show, I’ll point out his long family history in Arizona and I’ll compliment him on it. Mr. Driggs has been extended an invitation to come on the show at least once, possibly twice, but he has yet to accept the offer. If he comes on the show, I’ll be respectful, and I’ll ask him about my concerns and I’ll give him all the time in the world to explain himself in his own words. I’ll wager he’s too scared to face me. If I’m wrong, I’ll compliment him on air and it will be immortalized in our archive.

    I’m glad LD 11 has gotten rid of the likes of Deb Gullet and Steve May…but then why is Driggs associating with Deb Gullet, the very person you bash, in this Twelve in `10 fundraiser? Don’t you see an inconsistency in your own statements? One minute you bash Gullet, then give Driggs a pass for associating with her. Apparently, that doesn’t bother you and it’s OK for Republicans to help Democrats raise money. We simply must part ways here. Is Driggs an improvement over Gullet, I would assume so. Can LD 11 do better still? Absolutely.

    If Driggs has a carpetbagger opponent, would you please disclose to me which one? If and or when that individual comes on the show, I’d like to develop that line of questioning. Yes, I will give that individual some serious scrutiny on the issues you raise. I want to discuss anything that the voters should know about.

    You stated in your previous post that you didn’t set out to become a Driggs apologist, but that’s what you’ve become. You state that you’re surprised at the lengths to which I’ve gone to defend my statements about Driggs. And I couldn’t say the same about the lengths you’ve gone to defend him? You’ve drunk the Driggs Kool-Aid and no amount of logic or reason will convince you otherwise. Granted, that’s your right.

Leave a Reply