McCain kicking major ass

[Harlan Huckleby]

G.O.P. Voters, in Big Shift, Favor McCain Over His Rivals (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14poll.html)

I am amazed how far out ahead McCain has jumped in favorability ratings. He's gonna be tough to beat.
Huckabee also running strong.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/13/us/politics/0114-nat-webPOLL.gif

[The Leaper]

I am amazed how far out ahead McCain has jumped in favorability ratings. He's gonna be tough to beat.
Huckabee also running strong.

He's someone you can trust...and I think that will go a long way in this election. If you truly want change, you have to put someone in who you trust to actually MAKE the change. Democrats found that out the hard way in the 2006 election...lots of promises, little follow-through.

Clinton, Giuliani and Romney are candidates people really don't trust very much. Obama and Huckabee don't have the experience on the national stage to know if they are truly trustworthy. Only McCain is someone with a vast history of sticking to his guns, both on and off the political stage.

It will be an interesting race to follow once the Packers season is finished.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I hope Mitt Romney wins in Michigan, Fred Thompson wins in South Carolina, and Guiliani wins in Florida.

None of these scenarios are impossible, altho Thompson is a stretch.

The longer the republican race is a mess, the more I hear republicans say all their candidates are no damn good. Music to my ears.

[The Leaper]

I hope Mitt Romney wins in Michigan, Fred Thompson wins in South Carolina, and Guiliani wins in Florida.

Romney has to win in Michigan to gain momentum, or he is done.

Thompson...I just don't see how he wins any state outside of TN.

Giuliani needs to do more than win FL...he needs to win Florida convincingly.

By Feb 5, it will be a 3 horse race in the GOP...Huckabee and McCain I think are in it for the long haul, and Giuliani will be hoping for a Super Tuesday victory to stay in the game.

In the end, I think McCain is the likely winner. Giuliani and Romney supporters are more likely to side with McCain than Huckabee...IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree with your points.

Romney is leading all the polls in Michigan, he has a good shot.

I'm a little surprised that Thompson doesn't have more appeal. He's a conservative republican without any glaring vulnerabilities, I'd think the mainstream Rush Limbaugh types would rally around him as the least bad option. Not sure how he is polling in S.C., but he has placed his hopes on that state.

Looks like it will be McCain in the end.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Personally, I'm not enamored with any candidate on either side. Every one of these candidates has warts. Obama gives good speeches, and most Dems want him to win, but he's less than stellar in debates and he has little experience. Hilary is the great divider. Edwards is pathetic. None of the other Dem candidates are viable. Guliani did a good job as mayor of NYC, but I disagree with him on a lot of issues. Huckabee and Romney just haven't grabbed my attention. McCain might be the least worst candidate--because I feel I can trust him. None of the other Republican candidates are viable.

[The Leaper]

I'm a little surprised that Thompson doesn't have more appeal. He's a conservative republican without any glaring vulnerabilities, I'd think the mainstream Rush Limbaugh types would rally around him as the least bad option.

He's been incredibly boring for the most part, and waited way too long to get in the race.

Thompson's two strong points (old voters, evangelicals) were countered by McCain and Huckabee...who both have shown more energy and vitality to this point.

I think Thompson also finds it hard to connect with common Americans. He's a former actor and has a wife who is like 35 years younger than him. Most people can't identify with that.

Huckabee is a guy who used to be fat and has a wife who is exceedingly plain, but motherly. Most Americans can identify with that.

Limbaugh's crowd falls into 2 categories...business men (who probably are mostly in the Romney and Giuliani camp) or housewives (who are probably split between McCain, Huckabee and Thompson). The audience really isn't as conservative as most would think...many evangelicals think Limbaugh's act is too over the top at times, and that he has lost touch with the average American after years of hobnobbing with the elites.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Thompson's late entry didn't matter a bit. Hell, a candidate could practically enter the race NOW! Thompson started out with lots of support, but faded because of his lack of charisma. But I think he is under-rated, he's a smart guy, just a bit quiet. He did rip Huckabee a colorful new asshole at the last debate, I thought.

Don't know about Limbaugh's audience, but his message is the voice of the old guard republicans, especially upper income people. He attacks anybody who lacks ideological purity. He attacked McCain's character in 2000, now turns his guns on Huckabee. Seems like Limbaugh is quite out of step with the public this year.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I am amazed how far out ahead McCain has jumped in favorability ratings. He's gonna be tough to beat.
Huckabee also running strong.

He's someone you can trust...and I think that will go a long way in this election. If you truly want change, you have to put someone in who you trust to actually MAKE the change. Democrats found that out the hard way in the 2006 election...lots of promises, little follow-through.

Clinton, Giuliani and Romney are candidates people really don't trust very much. Obama and Huckabee don't have the experience on the national stage to know if they are truly trustworthy. Only McCain is someone with a vast history of sticking to his guns, both on and off the political stage.

It will be an interesting race to follow once the Packers season is finished.

Trust? How can we trust someone when you can't figure out what they stand for.

Good ol' Weathervane McCain.

1. 99 he was pro life, but wouldn't support a repeal of roe v wade.The new McCain completely disagrees with the old McCain.

2. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

3. McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course.

4. McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. Later abandoned his own legislation.

5. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

6. McCain has voted against a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but last fall, regarding his own state, he supported an Arizona referendum that would have banned gay marriage.

7. McCain in 2006 suggested that creationism was not a fit topic for the schoolroom: "I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not." But he suggested the opposite in 2005 ("all points of view should be presented"), and he was the keynote speaker at a confab sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a prominent creationism advocacy group.


How about some selected quotes:

WAR ON IRAQ

MCCAIN: I believe that success will be fairly easy. (9/24/2002, CNN)

MCCAIN: I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time. (9/29/2002, CNN)

MCCAIN: Easy.

Easy.

It was easy. (1/10/2007, MSNBC)

MCCAIN: The American people ... were led to believe that this would be some kind of a day at the beach which many of us, uh, fully understood from the very beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking. (8/22/2006, CNN)

MCCAIN: I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough. And those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I'm sorry they were mistaken. Maybe they didn't know what they were voting for. (1/4/2007, MSNBC)

GAY MARRIAGE

MCCAIN: Straight talk.

MATTHEWS: Should gay marriage be allowed? (10/18/2006, MSNBC Hardball)

MCCAIN: I think, I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing if you want to call it that. (10/18/2006, MSNBC Hardball)

MCCAIN: I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal. [BOOS] (10/18/2006, MSNBC Hardball)

STEPHANOPOULOUS: Are you against civil unions for gay couples?

MCCAIN: I am not. I believe, but they, that, that (11/19/2006, ABC News: This Week with George Stephanopoulos)

Oh, yeah. And a little thing called the keating 5.

McCain has sold his soul to win this election.

[The Leaper]

Trust? How can we trust someone when you can't figure out what they stand for.

It's all relative Bigguns.

Obviously, no one in politics is anywhere close to 100% trustworthy. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in politics.

Quotes also can be taken out of context. In terms of the Iraq war, the actual overthrow of Saddam's regime WAS easy. The hard part was going to be the rebuilding and reconstruction of a new government in a region that is unstable and hostile to democracy by and large. What was McCain actually referring to in his quotes? You need the whole context, not just some cut and paste job.

[MJZiggy]

It's all relative Bigguns.

Obviously, no one in politics is anywhere close to 100% trustworthy. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in politics.

I don't know. I'm well acquainted with the long-time former mayor of New Holstein and she is one of the most trustworthy people I know.

[The Leaper]

I don't know. I'm well acquainted with the long-time former mayor of New Holstein and she is one of the most trustworthy people I know.

I'm talking national politics.

Local politicians actually do their jobs most of the time, because they face their constituents every day. People who go to Washington lose touch very quickly.

[MJZiggy]

I don't know. I'm well acquainted with the long-time former mayor of New Holstein and she is one of the most trustworthy people I know.

I'm talking national politics.

Local politicians actually do their jobs most of the time, because they face their constituents every day. People who go to Washington lose touch very quickly.

I know. I'm just giving you shit.

[red]

i'm a dem and want obama to win it all, and i absolutely hate the right

but McCain is a republican i think i would be able to put up with. he seems like a stand up guy and someone who will not continue to embarrass this country

also, if we're going to be stuck in non stop wars, it wouldn't be bad to have a guy thats actually been in one and has a clue as to what's really going on over there

[Freak Out]

FUBAR. Tear it all down.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Trust? How can we trust someone when you can't figure out what they stand for.

It's all relative Bigguns.

Obviously, no one in politics is anywhere close to 100% trustworthy. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in politics.

Quotes also can be taken out of context. In terms of the Iraq war, the actual overthrow of Saddam's regime WAS easy. The hard part was going to be the rebuilding and reconstruction of a new government in a region that is unstable and hostile to democracy by and large. What was McCain actually referring to in his quotes? You need the whole context, not just some cut and paste job.

I live in AZ. Everybody here knows how much he has sold his soul and flip flopped.

War: Sorry, but he was squarely in the no problems after we win camp. McCain never was in the "what are we gonna do after Saddam is topped" camp.

You can't deny his reversals.

He is to me like the Bush 1 (calling out voodoo econ, etc.). I had enormous respect till they both let their fever for the presidency lead them down the rabbit hole.

[Harlan Huckleby]

War: Sorry, but he was squarely in the no problems after we win camp. McCain never was in the "what are we gonna do after Saddam is topped" camp.

Maybe so, but he was one of the very first politicians to say Rumsfeld was on the wrong track. BTW, the first person to call for Rumsfeld's resignation was Bill Kristol, evil neocon. (I am an evil neocon of storts myself.) The pro-war people were the first to recognize the incompetence of the post-war policies, they had more of a personal stake in the war's success.

As far as your list of McCain flip-flops, a number of them are exaggerations, ethanol and tax-cuts for instance. Lets say he has a nuanced position.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

War: Sorry, but he was squarely in the no problems after we win camp. McCain never was in the "what are we gonna do after Saddam is topped" camp.

Maybe so, but he was one of the very first politicians to say Rumsfeld was on the wrong track. BTW, the first person to call for Rumsfeld's resignation was Bill Kristol, evil neocon. (I am an evil neocon of storts myself.) The pro-war people were the first to recognize the incompetence of the post-war policies, they had more of a personal stake in the war's success.

As far as your list of McCain flip-flops, a number of them are exaggerations, ethanol and tax-cuts for instance. Lets say he has a nuanced position.

Rummy: True. Can't deny that.

Pro war: That is debatable. Plenty of against the war saw the problems right away, or predicted the inevitable problems.

The neo cons like Kristol had to blame Rummy. They had to blame execution instead of their general philosophy.

McCain: Nuanced. LOL. C'mon.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The neo cons like Kristol had to blame Rummy. They had to blame execution instead of their general philosophy.

But how can you blame their philosophy when the execution was so abysmal? Intervention in Yugolslavia, for instance, was a success, and can only be blamed for coming so late. Many of the same people against the war in Iraq were against that action. The neocons - especially Perle & Kristol - were on the right side of history in Yugolsavia.

I think best-case scenerio in Iraq would have still been a difficult transition, much more difficult than I and Kristol thought. We'd still need troops there today even if things had been managed properly.

My own position has evolved. I think if Iraq had been a success, it would have just led Bush to get us into a wider and more destructive war. I'm afraid the Iraq intervention was doomed because of our arrogant leadership and a lack of international support.

[hoosier]

The neo cons like Kristol had to blame Rummy. They had to blame execution instead of their general philosophy.

But how can you blame their philosophy when the execution was so abysmal? Intervention in Yugolslavia, for instance, was a success, and can only be blamed for coming so late. Many of the same people against the war in Iraq were against that action. The neocons - especially Perle & Kristol - were on the right side of history in Yugolsavia.


I think Tyrone is right. Blame the implementer so that the ideology being implemented can blend into today's conventional wisdom. In that sense you could say the neocons needed people like Rummy, Ashcroft and Gonzalez to become fall guys. Displace the focus from where it should be (on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the invasion, of the Patriot Act, etc.) and focus it purely on how these things have been carried out.

Although the point about how "dove" and "hawk" positions have become slippery during Clinton and Bush administrations is very interesting, the Yugoslavia analogy is baffling. So many differences...how would we even begin to compare with Iraq?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Tyrone is right. Blame the implementer so that the ideology being implemented can blend into today's conventional wisdom. In that sense you could say the neocons needed people like Rummy, Ashcroft and Gonzalez to become fall guys.

You and Tyrone are simply assuming that their ideology is wrong. If the ideology was wrong, then yes, you could say that Rummy et al are fall guys for a doomed ideology.

But we haven't even begun to discuss the merits of their ideology.


the Yugoslavia analogy is baffling. So many differences...how would we even begin to compare with Iraq?

the commonality is in the idealogy: that American military power should be used for promotion of democracy and human rights (with consideration for American interests.)

[hoosier]

I think Tyrone is right. Blame the implementer so that the ideology being implemented can blend into today's conventional wisdom. In that sense you could say the neocons needed people like Rummy, Ashcroft and Gonzalez to become fall guys.

You and Tyrone are simply assuming that their ideology is wrong. If the ideology was wrong, then yes, you could say that Rummy et al are fall guys for a doomed ideology.

But we haven't even begun to discuss the merits of their ideology.


You're right, I do assume it's wrong, but that's not the point I'm making here. My point is that the Bush doctrine makes a radical break with foreign policy principles that US administrations have upheld in name (not always in reality of course) since the early 19th century. The intention after 9/11 was to impose that kind of change without allowing any room for real debate--which should have happened whether the ideology was justified or not.

[hoosier]

the commonality is in the idealogy: that American military power should be used for promotion of democracy and human rights (with consideration for American interests.)

I don't see it that way. Iraq is different because it involves violation of the principle of state sovereignty in the absence of both international consensus and any evident threat posed by the "rogue state." Preventive war and unilateral violation of state sovereignty definitely don't apply to Yugoslavia.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think Tyrone is right. Blame the implementer so that the ideology being implemented can blend into today's conventional wisdom. In that sense you could say the neocons needed people like Rummy, Ashcroft and Gonzalez to become fall guys.

You and Tyrone are simply assuming that their ideology is wrong. If the ideology was wrong, then yes, you could say that Rummy et al are fall guys for a doomed ideology.

But we haven't even begun to discuss the merits of their ideology.


the Yugoslavia analogy is baffling. So many differences...how would we even begin to compare with Iraq?

the commonality is in the idealogy: that American military power should be used for promotion of democracy and human rights (with consideration for American interests.)

No, i'm not assuming the ideology is wrong. Regardless of ideology, who were they going to blame for the lack of success? The MSM? LOL

Yugo: You are really pushing it. I don't seem to recall democracy being the reason we went to Iraq. I recall something about a mushroom cloud, etc.

You are correct that if they were successful, Iran was next.

[Freak Out]

I think Tyrone is right. Blame the implementer so that the ideology being implemented can blend into today's conventional wisdom. In that sense you could say the neocons needed people like Rummy, Ashcroft and Gonzalez to become fall guys.

You and Tyrone are simply assuming that their ideology is wrong. If the ideology was wrong, then yes, you could say that Rummy et al are fall guys for a doomed ideology.

But we haven't even begun to discuss the merits of their ideology.


the Yugoslavia analogy is baffling. So many differences...how would we even begin to compare with Iraq?

the commonality is in the idealogy: that American military power should be used for promotion of democracy and human rights (with consideration for American interests.)

No, i'm not assuming the ideology is wrong. Regardless of ideology, who were they going to blame for the lack of success? The MSM? LOL

Yugo: You are really pushing it. I don't seem to recall democracy being the reason we went to Iraq. I recall something about a mushroom cloud, etc.

You are correct that if they were successful, Iran was next.

..and democracy was not the reason we went to and are still in the former Yugoslavia (Kosovo) if I remember correctly.....it was to prevent a possible genocide.

[Harlan Huckleby]

..and democracy was not the reason we went to and are still in the former Yugoslavia (Kosovo) if I remember correctly.....it was to prevent a possible genocide.

right. aggressive action in the name of human rights is a big part of the neocon ideology.

this word "neocon" is a brand name that has turned into "neo nazi" from misrepresentation. Much of their ideology has a great deal of appeal to a bleeding heart liberal such as myself. They are very different from, even opposed to isolationist conservatives and libertarians, or real politik hawks of the Henry Kissinger lineage.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No, i'm not assuming the ideology is wrong. Regardless of ideology, who were they going to blame for the lack of success? The MSM? LOL.

Does "MSM" have something to do with Bill Gates?

I think the war in Iraq was a mistake because it was under-resourced. I was naive about what was required. And no international support = no go. And I wouldn't support George Bush leading any such effort.

But do not be shocked if 10 or 12 years from now, this adventure is viewed as a great turning point in world history - for the better. If Iraq does become a stable state, and evolves into a democracy, that could have the transforming effect that the neocons originally crowed about. Compare this to the likely alternative: a brutal, dangerous dictatorship of Uday & Qusay Hussein. And sorry to sound cold, but the price of 6000 American lives will seem like a small war. (The suffering of Iraq people in this transition is more horrible, yes)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Iraq is different because it involves violation of the principle of state sovereignty in

Give me a break. The first Gulf War never really ended. Iraq was still patroled by U.S. aircraft, with periodic bombing. Hussein was NOT complying with weapons inspections, despite misinformation to the contrary, he only became cooperative after 100,000 U.S. troops were sitting in Kuwait. The country was under sanctions that Noam Chomsky claimed was killing 50,000 young children and babies every year.

This was not a normal, soveriegn state.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

..and democracy was not the reason we went to and are still in the former Yugoslavia (Kosovo) if I remember correctly.....it was to prevent a possible genocide.

right. aggressive action in the name of human rights is a big part of the neocon ideology.

this word "neocon" is a brand name that has turned into "neo nazi" from misrepresentation. Much of their ideology has a great deal of appeal to a bleeding heart liberal such as myself. They are very different from, even opposed to isolationist conservatives and libertarians, or real politik hawks of the Henry Kissinger lineage.

Human rights? LOL Where are they in africa? Actually, where are they in the U.S.? We here in maricopa county, under sheriff joe, have a jail that amnesty international has called out..not to mention guantanamo. Or our allies like the saudis.

They are only interested in out of the way countries that have special interest for our country.

MSM: Rush speak..mainstream media.

neocons: do you really believe in the project for the new american century?

[Harlan Huckleby]

They are only interested in out of the way countries that have special interest for our country.


There was no special American interest in Bosnia or Kosovo, other than a general desire for stability in Europe. The main thrust was moral, to stem genocide or violence.

You are right, though. They are not purely for humanitarian intervention, practical considerations are also weighed.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

They are only interested in out of the way countries that have special interest for our country.


There was no special American interest in Bosnia or Kosovo, other than a general desire for stability in Europe. The main thrust was moral, to stem genocide or violence.

You are right, though. They are not purely for humanitarian intervention, practical considerations are also weighed.

Um, we were talking about neo cons. Boz and Kosovo weren't neocon interventions.

Practical: Yeah, like a velvet hammer.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Um, we were talking about neo cons. Boz and Kosovo weren't neocon interventions.

HArd to say EXACTLY who the neocons are. They don't carry badges. Its a school of thought started by Bill Kristol's father back in the 60's. Irving Kristol was editor of a political journal. BTW, Irving Kristol was a patriotic leftist, a former marxist. Neocons believe in an activist foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights. People who are mentioned in this group come from both Democrat and Republican parties.

Bosnia & Kosovo interventions were most certainly promoted by neocons and their ideological allies. Richard Perle was the leading and loudest morale voice for stopping the genocide. Bill Kristol beat the drums on TV and in his magazine. John McCain & Joe Biden were the most vocal advocates in the Senate, McCain is pretty-much a neocon.


Practical: Yeah, like a velvet hammer.

By practical I mean they argue how American interests are enhanced by any intervention, that is a consideration.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Um, we were talking about neo cons. Boz and Kosovo weren't neocon interventions.

HArd to say EXACTLY who the neocons are. They don't carry badges. Its a school of thought started by Bill Kristol's father back in the 60's. Irving Kristol was editor of a political journal. BTW, Irving Kristol was a patriotic leftist, a former marxist. Neocons believe in an activist foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights. People who are mentioned in this group come from both Democrat and Republican parties.

Bosnia & Kosovo interventions were most certainly promoted by neocons and their ideological allies. Richard Perle was the leading and loudest morale voice for stopping the genocide. Bill Kristol beat the drums on TV and in his magazine. John McCain & Joe Biden were the most vocal advocates in the Senate, McCain is pretty-much a neocon.


Practical: Yeah, like a velvet hammer.

By practical I mean they argue how American interests are enhanced by any intervention, that is a consideration.

Our policy wasn't being driven by neo cons. Don't be ridiculous. While they may have been in favor, they weren't making policy.

McCain: He isn't close to being a neo con.

[hoosier]

Iraq is different because it involves violation of the principle of state sovereignty in

Give me a break. The first Gulf War never really ended. Iraq was still patroled by U.S. aircraft, with periodic bombing. Hussein was NOT complying with weapons inspections, despite misinformation to the contrary, he only became cooperative after 100,000 U.S. troops were sitting in Kuwait. The country was under sanctions that Noam Chomsky claimed was killing 50,000 young children and babies every year.

This was not a normal, soveriegn state.

The measures you mention--sanctions, troops on other side of border--imply sovereignty, even if its the questionable sovereignty of a rogue state. But then again, what state doesn't act like a rogue state from time to time? In any case, Bush's war is different from all other wars in that it tries to establish that merely potential threats (not actually existing threats) are a legitimate reason for invasion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Our policy wasn't being driven by neo cons. Don't be ridiculous. While they may have been in favor, they weren't making policy.

OK, ya. neocons had high positions in Bush administration - Wolfowitz, Perle.


McCain: He isn't close to being a neo con.

This word "neocon" really means two different things:

1) A Jewish conspiracy of men with dark hearts who want to make war in promotion of Isreali interests. I saw an outragous British documentary on the neocons (complete with ominous timpanis in background) that promoted this view. "The Project for New American Century", as you mentioned before, being the nerve center of their quest for world domination. The new Trilateral Commission. I take it you largely have accepted the Dangerous Bad Men theory.

2) "Neocon" refers to an intellectual stream of thought that combines liberal notions of democracy and human rights with ideas of American exceptionalism, and advocacy for the use of American military power for idealistic purposes. America as the shining beacon of democracy. It's been around for 40 years. People are "neocons" to various degrees. I am somewhat of a neocon, as is John McCain. Perle & Kristol are vocal and ideologically pure neocons.

I became impressed with the clarity with which the neocons addressed the situation in Yugoslavia. They recognized the moral imperative to intervene in a genocide a FULL TWO YEARS before the politicians were on the ball. And they pointed out the world-wide impact of forming a bond with and making a sacrifice for the Muslims of Bosnia. Not bad for a Jewish conspiracy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

In any case, Bush's war is different from all other wars in that it tries to establish that merely potential threats (not actually existing threats) are a legitimate reason for invasion.

I believe the Bush administration had convinced themselves that Iraq was a threat.

I was for the invasion because of the opportunity to rid the world of a very ugly and dangerous dynasty, with no end in sight for generations. I think now that I was wrong to support this, for 3 or 4 reasons.

The war has been a disaster. However, I see a very good chance of a positive outcome in the long term, 10-15 years, and history may be more kind than you can imagine right now.