AUSTIN, TX -- While it isn't as buzzworthy as Al Gore's surprise appearance, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr dropped into the Netroots Nation conference today. I spotted him at a panel discussion on House and Senate races a few moments ago, where he had sat down quietly, accompanied by a couple of staffers. After about half an hour, Barr got up to leave, but one of the panelists was sharp enough to work Barr's name into the discussion and he turned around and waved to the audience to a mild round of applause.
What was Barr doing here? The conventional wisdom is that he might be trying to draw out some fundraising support. This is one place where you'll find quite a few maxed out ($2,300) Obama donors, and those people could plausibly contribute to Barr if they think his candidacy would help the Democrat. Barr is also attending the competing Right Online Summit, which is also in Austin tonight, and where interestingly enough he was invited to deliver a keynote speech.
I think it's equally likely, however, that Barr is here simply to get a sense for what makes the netroots tick. Whereas the Ron Paul campaign very much played off the netroots model of highly networked, online-based fundraising and activism, Barr has had less success in getting his candidacy to go viral.
I still find it unlikely that Barr is going to wind up with more than about 1.5 percent of the vote. But if he learns a couple of things, and begins to cultivate support from the right-leaning netroots (an intrinsically libertarianish demographic), his threshold might be higher than that.
7.19.2008
Bob Barr Meets The Netroots
@ 6:02 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments
Nate,
Given the fact that Barr is the only full-blown anti-immigrant candidate in the race, I think that his ceiling is much higher than 1.5%. I think that approximately 12% of the electorate is virulently anti-immigrant and that Barr has a good chance at getting up to 1/3 of that vote. So I would expect him to end up around 4%, with a ceiling of 8% in states such as Georgia (his home), the Carolinas, Iowa, Colorado and Arizona. If he hits those numbers, it would be very hard for Obama to lose.
That being said, I believe that Barr's anti-immigrant message is very dangerous and do not think it is a good idea for Obama supporters to send money to Barr. I think that fanning the anti-immigrant flames is FAR too dangerous to be worth the small marginal advantage from a more well-funded Barr.
Pollster.com has Barr at 2.6%. The combined total for third-party candidates is 6.8%. Even though Nader is showing 4.2%, Obama leads McCain by a wider margin (9.1%) in a four candidate race than he does with just two major candidates.
This should be the opening to discuss whether 3rd parties will impact on the outcome this time around or if we can expect their support to erode to insignificance as the election approaches.
DONATE TO OBAMA !
WE NEED YOU
ITS EASY TO DONATE ONLINE
DONATE NOW !
*** CLICK HERE ***
does anyone have any proof that a larger ground game makes a candidate more likely to win. (I know it does, what I'm asking is to what extent it helps...if there is any set sense of that )
Perhaps Barr thinks he can get some support from the netroots who are angry about FISA? Barr and the Libertarian Party are strongly opposed to government warrantless wiretapping and disaffected with Republican contempt for the rule of law.
There's a colossal different between opposing illegal immigration and being "anti-immigrant".
The Jul 16 Reuters/Zogby poll showed the Libertarian candidate at 3% with his strongest support coming from independents 7%, 8-29 young 8%, weekly Wal-Mart shoppers 7% and men 7%. I suspect this fits the profile for Ron Paul voters.
Yes, there is a huge difference between being anti-illegal immigration and anti-immigrant. Given that Barr has flyers stating that the threats of illegal immigration include "diseases borne by illegal immigrants," I think that we are well into anti-immigrant territory.
Hmm yes, it could be the FISA issue. Especially the netroots were critical of Obama´s move and Barr might try to collect a few of those. On the other hand, it will be tough for him to forge a coalition between those on the far left and disenchanted Republicans. One might say that both groups prefer a weak government, but that goes only so far on the left. And Nader is there to fill that gap to protect the rights of the individual against the free market. This year, any 3rd party attempt will probably fail to establish a clear anti-establishment agenda.
Yes, Netroots might be interested in Barr's position on surveillance. He does strongly advocate for both the constitution's 2nd (guns) and 4th (privacy) amendments.
Most Americans are anti-immigrant
Illegal or Legal
Americans don't like immigrants
Most Americans don't know that they are descendants of immigrants
did native Americans allow us to come in ?
NO
when Mexicans & other nationals just come in(Illegally) or with papers(Legally)
we don't like it
in 2007
1,052,415 became Legal Permanent Residents of USA
431,368 came from abroad(LEGALLY)
621,047 were already living in USA
(LEGAL)
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf
Many people are in the line for years to come here legally
Borders are BROKEN
lets hope that Mr OBAMA can fix ILLEGAL & LEGAL IMMIGRATION
"diseases borne by illegal immigrants,"
Why shouldn't that be a concern?
Shouldn´t Barr be for more immigration? After all, it would decrease wages and should make the american worker more competetive, either legal or illegal. (slightly ironic)
AZ+2, TX+2, FL+3 EV after new census. At the expense of MI, IL, NY, PA due to illegal immigrants being counted.
Thats from the Lou Dobbs show.
Please pass me the salt shaker in regards to those gains being wholly attributed to the counting of illegals and not just the normal sunbelt shift.
It seems to me that Libertarians should be pro-immigration. Immigration restrictions are just unnecessary govt meddling with people's free choice, no?
Also, I think in general giving support for tactical advantage to a candidate who's you don't want to win is both immoral and unwise (since there's no guarantee it will have the intended result).
Can't maxed out Obama voters give to the DNC?
""Immigration restrictions are just unnecessary govt meddling with people's free choice, no?""
So is cramming 4000 lb worth of people in an elevator with a capacity of 1000 lbs, no?
With regard to Barr as "anti-immigrant" as opposed to "anti-illegal immigration, here is a quote from a Barr fundraising letter:
"A lack of border security allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. We must be aggressive in securing our borders while also fighting the big-government “nanny state” that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity."
The Barr website also decries the fact that the Supreme Court has held that U.S. hospitals must provide emergency room care to illegal immigrants.
When you put together a description of illegal immigrants as "carriers of communicable diseases" with an attempt to ban hospitals from providing even triage to such people, it is very clear that Barr is anti-immigrant.
States where Barr is NOT on the ballot, and thus cannot influence the election (except through write-in vote) in the below-listed states. Zogby is the only polling firm reporting on a state level the support for Barr and Nader. The states listed below, thus, will contribute to the Barr numbers nationwide, but should not be included.
Alabama (Zogby shows up to 4% support for Barr)
Connecticut (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
Iowa (Zogby shows up to 8% support)
Kentucky (Zogby shows up to 3% support)
Maine (No Zogby poll)
Massachusetts (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
Minnesota (Zogby shows up to 8% support)
New Hampshire (Zogby shows up to 10% support)
New Jersey (Zogby shows up to 3% support)
New York (Zogby shows up to 4% support)
Ohio (Zogby shows up to 7% support)
Oklahoma (Zogby shows up to 9% support)
Pennsylvania (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
Rhode Island (No Zogby poll)
South Dakota (No Zogby poll)
Tennessee (Zogby shows up to 7% support)
Virginia (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
Washington state (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
West Virginia (No Zogby poll)
Really? The Lou Dobbs crowd is trolling it up in the comments at 538 now? Seriously? Gross. Did you bring PUMA with you?
If the people who support illegal immigration would offer up their SSN to an online database that immigrants could peruse to steal an identity, at least they'd be putting their money where their mouth is. Otherwise, all I see is hypocrisy.
Anonymous said...
If the people who support illegal immigration would offer up their SSN to an online database that immigrants could peruse to steal an identity, at least they'd be putting their money where their mouth is. Otherwise, all I see is hypocrisy.
... and if the people who oppose illegal immigration stopped buying fruit picked by illegal immigrants, stopped shopping at stores staffed by illegal immigrants and stopped hiring illegal imigrants to mow their lawns and look after their kids, then they'd be putting their money where their mouths were.
Zogby online Interactive polls are worthless and that is why RCP and electoral-vote.com don't count them at all. The Barr percentages in Zogby interactive are even more worthless than the other junk data because Ron Paul's and 2004 Howard Dean's strong internet presence shows how distorted internet political activity cab be.
Bob Barr (who, as Wonkette pointed out, looks like Jeremiah Wright's skinny brother) will get no more than 1.5% this November.
Conservatives will not vote for Bob Barr after learning about his flipflops that make Mitt Romney and Barack Obaam look steadfast.
Barr now opposes the war on drugs and the Patriot Act even though he was their strongest supporter in years past. He has also opposed Roe v. Wade, even though it was revealed that in 1982 he drove his second wife to a clinic to get an abortion that he paid for.
Google his name if you want to read a profile in hypocrisy.
No Libertarian has ever done better than 1.1% (Ed Clark in 1980). No other Libertarian has ever done better than 0.5%.
Nobody cares about Bob Barr and his wife. Nobody cares if he's a child-molesting tax evader. That's because he's not going to become president.
A vote for Bob Barr is a message that you consider the issues important that he considers important. That's it.
I posted this discussion of the effect of the Bush GOTV effort in 2004 but it was buried by the endless B.S. "McCain sucks!" "Obama's can't win!":
SHORT VERSION: Obama might add about 2%-3% on election day if his GOTV were as superior to the Republicans as Bush's was to Kerry. Bush added 11.5 million Republicans. Kerry added 8 million Democrats, so he lost ground.
However, Republicans are not as enthusiastic this time and evangelicals are especially not supporting McCain the way they did Bush. Will this make a difference? Who knows?
REPEAT POST: I found this discussion of Rasmussen's Voter ID filter from Mystery Pollster Mark Blumenthal back in 2006 that is very illuminating because it gives us some indication what margin a successful GOTV effort might make up in each battleground state.
Bush's GOTV efforts in 2004 were the best ever and produced 11,584,000 million more Bush voters than in 2000. Kerry of course increased the total of Democratic voters from 2000 by 8,285,000 million but still came up 3.55 million votes short.
Remember that right now the Rasmussen Party ID model is Dem. +9.7% and other pollsters have it around the same. Kerry had 89% support from Dems. and Bush got 93% of Reps., while Independents split 48 D- 47 R. Right now, Obama has less than 80% Dem. support in virtually every poll, which is why the race is close despite the Dem. party ID advantage. McCain has about 83% of Republicans, or about 10% off Bush’s 2004 final total which reflects his rallying the base, but this support is weak. Only 16% of McCain supporters in the latest CBS/NYT poll were “enthusiastic” about McCain and a little over ½ were “satisfied”, while 90% of Obama supporters were either “enthusiastic” or “satisfied.”]
"I originally asked Scott Rasmussen to explain his party weighting and likely voter selection procedure a few weeks before the 2004 election. Here is his verbatim answer:
‘Our base model is 35% R 39% D and 26% other. However, once the sample is weighted to that model, responses that indicate likelihood of turnout can adjust that a bit. As a practical matter, our samples never vary more than 2 percentage points from that base model (and rarely by that much).
‘We believe that Party ID is something like loyalty to a sports team. Although its intensity and enthusiasm may ebb and flow, the party ID stays with an individual and is not subject to whims of the moment. Obviously, there are some changes over time. Changes in the partisan make-up of the Electorate are more likely the result of turnout and enthusiasm rather than people changing their minds.’
‘A few months ago, I emailed Rasmussen with more questions and he further clarified their procedure. During 2004 Rasmussen always began with an initial screening question about voting history (that eliminated some self-described non-voters from the sample). He then weighted the initial sample so that partisanship was always 39% Democrat, 35% Republican and 26% with no party affiliation. Like a lot of other pollsters, Rasmussen tinkered with his likely voter "model," making it progressively tougher as the campaign progressed (adding other questions to the mix such as political interest). The different models allowed the ultimate party mix to vary from the initial weight target. As Rasmussen explains it:
‘By Election Day [2004], our baseline was still 35-39-26 but our Likely Voters sample had just over 36% R and just under 38% D. If we [had] adjusted to 37-37-26, we [would have] nailed the actual election results even more closely (our final projection before Election 2004 was within half a point of each candidate's actual total).
[HISTORICAL NOTE: The final turnout in 2004 was 37% Rep., 37% Dem. and 26% Ind. and Bush won by 2.8% or 3,555,000 votes and wound up with 276 EV to Kerry’s 252 EV. So, Rep. Party ID was up 2% over the model, and Dem. Party ID was down 2%. This cannot be explained by simple failure of Democrats to turnout, since 8,000,000 more Democrats voted in 2004 than in 2000. Instead, the difference is due entirely to Bush’s GOTV which drove 11.5 million more Bush-bots to the polls in 2004. ]
‘For 2005, we adopted the 37[D]-37[R]-26[R] copy and have held steady with it mainly to provide a solid trendline. I do not believe party affiliation changes much over time and that this is a preferable approach. I do not claim it to be perfect, merely a reasonable decision in an off-year.’
‘In other words, since February 2005, the Rasmussen daily tracking samples of adults have been weighted so that their party balance is 37% Republican, 37% Democrat and 26% with no party affiliation."
So, if Obama’s GOTV effort is as effective as advertised he might expect to add about a 2% margin. Even this will depend on whether McCain can duplicate the Bush GOTV model. Since a lot of that depended on Evangelicals, and since their leaders are largely sitting on the sidelines and being ignored by the McCain campaign, which is trying to attract more moderate voters and more traditional conservatives, it’s questionable whether the huge increase in Republican turnout we saw in 2004 can be duplicated.
Bush fatigue is another factor. There’s simply no way Republicans are as energized or enthusiastic about this election as the last one and they are not nearly as happy with McCain as a candidate than they were with Bush. 2004 may well present a high-water mark for Republican GOTV. It would be impossible McCain to improve on that performance, and it will be tough to equal.
Also, Hispanics are supporting Obama in larger numbers than Kerry, which is not surprising since the Republican party just spent much of the last 4 years demonizing them, and bitterly attacking anybody who marched in protest with a Mexican flag (not too many Republican critics of Irish Americans marching with an Irish Flag, Italian Americans marching with Italian flags, Polish Americans marching with Polish flags or Southerners waving Confederate flags, but then they are white, not brown, which is kind of the point.)
Nate is assuming that around 5% is the most that a GOTV effort can overcome, and that may have some empirical support. If Kerry hadn't made similar (but not as successful) efforts as Bush it's likely that Bush could have doubled his margin.
But, if BOTH candidates are making a major effort to register new voters and get them to the polls, then some of this effort cancels each other out. [More In Next Post]
P.S.: In fairness to Rasmussen he was talking about party ID being like loyalty to a sports team meaning that DURING an election it doesn't change much (IHO).
Obviously party ID has changed a LOT since 2004, all to the immense advantage of Democrats.
Thanks for the info Mike in MD, but do you know in how many of those states the ballot is finalized? I went to Giant today and there was someone outside collecting signatures to get Barr on the ballot in VA.
any good place to stay in east LA, CA ??
It's a lot simpler, really. He's a third party candidate who is going to receive virtually no press unless he does something interesting and unexpected, such as show up at Netroots Nation.
Mike in MD:
The only state in which we can be sure Barr won't be on the ballot is OK, which has notoriously strict anti-3rd party rules. Your list is already out of date - a judge ruled that Barr should be allowed on the ballot in Ohio, for example.
Mike in MD - Libertarians have been on 48-50 state ballots + DC every presidential election since 1988. Anon@10:40 is correct that Oklahoma is the only iffy state this year, though still possible. A lawsuit is pending. Nader will be on about 40 ballots, as he was in 2000 and 2004. See www.ballot-access.org for definitive information.
Last I checked Barr was official in 31 states. Most states are still allowing petitions, and the states Barr is not yet on are the ones with lower thresholds. They tackle the more difficult states first such as North Carolina, where 100,000 signatures were submitted in May.
The Republican state convention in Nevada has been canceled due to lack of interest.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/18/nevada-gop-cancels-convention-opts-for-conference-call/?mod=sphere_ts&mod=sphere_wd
Many Nevada Republicans support Ron Paul over McCain, and it will be interesting to see how much of that support transfers to Bob Barr (Barr has adopted many of Ron Paul's positions).
Ephus + others:
Barr is not party-line Libertarian on immigration but calling him anti-immigrant is a distortion. Here's his immigration page.
Ending government subsidies to non-citizens is the Libertarian platform on immigration (consistent with ending government subsidies to everybody). Barr's focus on border security and ending birthright citizenship is his own, but it's noteworthy that he wants to increase legal immigration and reduce the red tape. That is fundamentally at odds with an anti-immigration policy.
Here is WaPo's report on Barr's appearance.
AUSTIN -- A second surprise guest at Netroots Nation 2008 is generating hallway buzz: Bob Barr. Yep -- that Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, civil liberties advocate and former Georgia Republican representative.
Barr is in town as the featured draw at tonight's closing reception at the Right Online Summit of right-wing bloggers and online activists sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, also ongoing today in Austin.
A third-party political candidate, Barr's visit to the hallways of Netroots Nation to mingle with progressive bloggers -- he bought a ticket, just like any other attendee, says a convention source -- shows him trying to try to reach out to folks on both sides of the aisle.
If Clinton had managed to steal the nomination from Obama (something that technically still could happen) Bob Barr is who would get my vote.
Anonymous @10:40 PM:
The federal court ruling in Ohio is not yet final, as the state may or may not appeal. The judge put his order on hold for 10 days to allow the Secretay of State to seek an expedited appeal. Therefore it is a tentative ruling, subject to change at a future date.
Until a final decision is made by the state to not appeal, or a higher court makes a final ruling if the state does appeal, it is not a certainty that Barr will be on the ballot.
As of TODAY, Barr is NOT on the Ohio ballot. He might be on or before July 28, when the judge's stay expires, or even later if the state appeals, but as of TODAY, Barr is NOT on the Ohio ballot.
BTW - the standard in Ohio is receiving 5% of the votes cast in the last general election, or petitions with valid signatures of .5% or more of the number of ballots cast in the previous general election. The Libertarian Party didn't receive 5% of the votes in 2006, thus needed to go the petition route. In May, they turned in about 6,500 petition signatures, but needed about 20,000. On appeal, the state may be on safe ground on number of signatures needed, but deficient on when the signatures are due.
From Gallup's website
"These results are based on interviews conducted July 16-18. In Friday's report, Barack Obama's support fell out of the narrow 46%-48% range it had been in for the prior 18 reports, and remains outside that range today. However, Obama had a stronger night in Friday interviewing and could inch back into that range with another strong performance tonight."
Well, at least it's about a poll.
It would be logical for Barr to swing to the right. There are a lot of Republicans who are less than enthusiastic about McCain, especialy on illegal imigration.
Maybe it would be fun for Democrats to help him with signatures to get him on the ballot. Barr will split the Republican vote.
other than really liking guns, Barr isn't in line with the far right. Multiple marriages, libertarian approach on too many things, etc. He left congress because he was going to lose his primary - he isn't popular in GA or anywhere else, which is why he only shows up in on-line polls with anything over 1% and has no fundraising to speak of
Pollster is not over-weighting the tracking polls, and Obama is still going up. With all the issues, particularly with the Rasmussen tracker, I question its weighting.
Pollster Dates N/Pop McCain Obama Barr Nader Other Undecided Not Voting
ABC/Post 7/10-13/08 971 RV 39 49 2 5 3 2 1
Zogby/Reuters 7/9-13/08 1039 LV 36 46 3 3 0 12 -
CNN 6/26-29/08 906 RV 43 46 3 6 - 3 -
Times/Bloomberg 6/19-23/08 1115 RV 33 48 3 4 - 12 -
FOX 6/17-18/08 900 RV 39 42 2 4 - 14 -
Zogby/Reuters 6/12-14/08 1113 LV 40 45 3 3 - 10 -
CNN 6/4-5/08 921 RV 43 47 2 6 - 1 -
Zogby 5/15-18/08 1076 LV 37 47 3 4 - 10 -
Rasmussen 5/14-15/08 800 LV 38 42 6 4 - 11 -
Diageo/Hotline 4/30-5/3/08 803 RV 40 45 - 5 - 9 -
Zogby 4/10-12/08 1049 LV 42 44 2 3 - 9 -
Diageo/Hotline 3/28-31/08 799 RV 45 41 - 3 - 11 -
Zogby 3/13-14/08 1001 LV 44 39 - 5 - 11 -
Who are the crazy repubs and dems who claim the polls are way off for both candidates? They are very likely not off hugely for either, although you can argue the fringes.
Polls do get closer at election time, but the idea that a lead now is irrelevant is just stupid. To the repub guy above who thinks the lead now is irrelevant - if the lead now is irrelevant why have dems won a bunch of presidencies?
Barr showed himself to be particularly biased and a true nutball as he drove the Clinton impeachment. Barr might be relevant in a few statres, but alot will be close so he could still swing things in particularly libertarian states in the south and west.
Bob Barr actually lost his REP primary in 2002 and turned into a Libertarian after the voters of GA rejected him.
According to the Almanac of American politics back then, Barr had no friends. I wonder why.
With all the buzz here in Atlanta about Barr in the race taking votes from McCain in GA, I'm wondering if McKinny won't balance that out by taking votes from Obama.
Wish I was in Austin, I'm promising myself not to miss another one of these. Thanks for the report.
McKinney has already been arguing she's the only real AA in the race - she could pull more from BO than the msm has considered
Barr's web site claims he has raised less than $500,000 so far with a plan for $750,000 by August 1. Even if he can get another 750k each month until the election, he'll have only 3 million for the campaign much of which will have been spent on ballot access drives and lawsuits.
Even if he can increase his fund-raising by by a factor of 3 or 4, the resulting money will be a trivial expenditure in a national campaign. His only real shot for public exposure is free media time for a gaff, staged events or a meltdown by McCain.
The few polls that include Barr show that he does gain something on the immigration issue but his better shot is over surveillance since the Republican candidate is so closely tied to our national security and military-industrial regime. Obama didn't help himself here either with the FISA vote.
"AZ+2, TX+2, FL+3 EV after new census. At the expense of MI, IL, NY, PA due to illegal immigrants being counted."
I don't know, quite a lot of legals are moving into those first 3 states too, and the last 4 are growing very slowly (Michigan had a net loss of population last year.)
Ohio will also probably drop to 18 EVs but I hope they can only drop one to 19--it will be tough because they only gained ~4000 people each of the last 2 years, and may have a net population loss in '08 and/or '09 with the state economy sliding.
@AlexS:
Shouldn´t Barr be for more immigration? After all, it would decrease wages and should make the american worker more competetive, either legal or illegal. (slightly ironic)
Nothing ironic about it. Many Libertarians would argue that the only truly consistent position is open borders. I don't go quite that far, at least not overnight, but in general I think a permissive immigration policy is consistent with libertarian ideals.
I'm still planning to vote for Barr (unless my state is both close and likely to swing the election, which is pretty absurd) but I'm disappointed to hear about those flyers. Sounds like he's just trying to attract various anti-immigrant rabble, but I haven't seen them in context so I don't know.
OTOH, I think it's a consistent libertarian position to say that we can't accept immigration if it's only going to put more of a burden on the statist welfare system.
Are Bob Barr and Pual thinking about teaming up? I think they should. You can sign the petition at
http://www.BarrPaul08.com
or you can go to this site and participate in the polls and sign the petition
http://www.BarrRoot.com
the movement is growing, PUT PAUL ON THE TICKET!!! SAVE THE COUNTRY!!! YEAHH
Sweet Georgia Brown said that Bob Barr lost his republican primary in 2002 after the voters of Georgia rejected him. Somewhat true. They weren't on course to reject him two weeks before the election when a poll had him leading John Linder 45% to 42%. The Libertarian Party then started airing what the Washington DC's National Journal called "the most dramatic political ad of 2002". Barr lost the election 64% to 36%. He went from leading by 3 percentage points to losing by 28 percentage points. In that ad my dying wife identified herself as a multiple sclerosis patient who used marijuana as medicine and that Bob Barr wanted her in jail for using her medicine. "Why would you do that to me...Bob"? The voters of the 7th district of Georgia rejected his medical marijuana stance, not him in general.
He is said to have changed his mind on medical marijuana as a states' rights issue, but has thus far has failed to acknowledge that marijuana is good medicine for some sick and dying Americans. One can only wonder why, as it is an issue with 3 to 1 support at a minimum. If he has discovered that medical marijuana patients have been telling the truth all along, he should say so. Now THAT would get him some free press.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment