Open Thread: Have TV Debates Adversely Changed the GOP Race?
After the debate tomorrow night, the crop of current GOP presidential candidates will have participated in four nationally televised debates in just over one month, attracting record audiences and affecting poll numbers drastically each time.
According to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Fred Barnes, the increased number of debates has had a major impact on the race, giving also-rans free publicity with no incentive to drop out and allowing the media to pit the candidates against each other, giving Obama a free pass.
Do you think Republicans have given the media too much power by hosting so many debates? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
The first problem Barnes acknowledges is that the debates have allowed the media to shift the campaign narrative to discussing "arguments over issues spawned by the debates themselves," rather than discussing arguments against the current administration's policies.
Gov. Rick Perry's policy of offering instate tuition at Texas colleges for illegal immigrants, and his effort to require 12-year-old girls to be inoculated against HPV virus, became prominent issues once he was pelted with questions about them in the debates. When Mr. Romney attacked Mr. Perry's position on Social Security, it emerged as a front-burner issue. Mr. Perry gave the issue a news hook by calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme."
While Mr. Romney's record in Massachusetts was always going to be a major issue, the debates have made it more so. The same is the case with Mr. Perry's opposition to erecting a fence across the U.S. border with Mexico.
The debates have also been a prime opportunity for the media to pit Republicans against each other by encouraging conflict between the candidates, instead of against President Obama:
By focusing heavily on Mr. Romney and Mr. Perry, the three debates in September heightened the impression, if not the reality, of a two-man contest for the GOP nomination. Time after time, questioners raised an issue with one of them, then turned to the other for a response. Mr. Romney provoked spirited clashes by challenging Mr. Perry's stances on Social Security, immigration and the Texas economy.
During the Sept. 7 MSNBC debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., Mr. Perry said Democratic Gov. Michael Dukakis "created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt." Mr. Romney fired back: "Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, governor." He was referring to Mr. Bush's time at Texas governor from 1995 to 2001.
Mr. Romney asked Mr. Perry at the Sept. 12 CNN debate in Tampa, Fla., if he believed Social Security should be turned over to the states. "I think we ought to have a conversation," Mr. Perry responded, trying to brush the issue aside. "We're having that right now, governor," Mr. Romney replied. "We're running for president."
In combination, the debates often end up giving Obama a free pass because the media has turned the candidates against each other's policies instead of against Obama's policies. It also allows "...Mr. Obama's strategists [to] get an early glimpse of the vulnerabilities of the Republican candidates, their strengths and weaknesses on issues, and the attacks used most effectively against them."
Do you think Republicans have given the media too much power by hosting so many presidential debates?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
These aren't debates. They are sound-bite sessions.
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 9:50am.
What they need to do is gather around a big table for two - maybe three hours, sans moderator, and just have at it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Good morning Dave
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:00am.
Can't have that. Too much truth would come to light. We have to remain mushrooms, in the dark being fed bull.......
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
coco,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:05am.
Exactly.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave, that's what I would
Submitted by celator on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:39am.
Dave, that's what I would like to see also. Currently, the media treats what could be a decent debate like show business. There are too many gotcha questions, and not nearly enough questions with substance and depth.
I've always thought that the best debate questions would be to ask the candidates their views and understanding of the Bill of Rights, i.e., "What is your understanding of the 2d Amendment?", that sort of thing.
Disagree
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 9:52am.
I don't care if they debate weekly from now until the Convention; we should not nominate someone that hasn't been fully vetted. This will toughen our candidate and hopefully reveal all of his or her dirty laundry before an October surprise could hand the keys back to O. Let 'em speak.
media power in debates?
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:01am.
"Do you think Republicans have given the media too much power by hosting so many presidential debates?"
No offense to the NB staff but we would be fooling ourselves if we thought that the debate process influences to any noticeable amount the media meme on the GOP field. The only difference between having and not having the debates with reference to the media is the timing of the 'news' stories.
The media will be coming after the GOP presidential potentials with all the dirt they have from their careers - they will actually do the background checks on Republicans. Plus, like habitual gossipers, if there is no story to be found then we will get the usual 'what if', 'could be', 'so-and-so said, or they will simply make something up (isn't Rather on a post today?) and run the story anyway.
No, the debates are only for the people who want to see the differences in their options and not for the media because the only effect it may have is to decide when and in what way to attack but the attacks are still going to come.
You're making the wrong argument.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:08am.
we would be fooling ourselves if we thought that the debate process influences to any noticeable amount the media meme on the GOP field.
It's not a matter of "influencing" the meme; it's about providing them with countless opportunities to attack, in the guise of debate "analysis."
It's about their goading the candidates to attack each other, and the media forcing them to continually defend whatever they say in the debates, ad nauseam.
motherbelt,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:27am.
I understand what you are saying but do you really think that the Republican candidate is going to go unvetted by the media? The only possible amunition that is going to come out is a gaffe by a front runner or information about an also-ran that the media hasn't bothered to spend resources on destroying - Yet!
They know about RomneyCare and other liberal slants and how to use them. They know about Perry's Rock, border issue, pharmaceutical issues and how he caved to allow Islam influence in the Texas schools system and they will use each in their own time. Hermain Cain has years of speaking engagements and a radio show that they will sift through and find every syllable that can be used for attack. They know Ron Paul - been around a long time.
Debates rarely bring out anything new for the media when they have already done their research. That being said, the debate format is nearly useless. To borrow a little from the Catholics I would like to see all candidates write a set of goals and 'game plans' on 7-10 major issues and then have all the candidates locked in a room without any influence and debate themselves until they agree upon a unified message. When they come out of confinement the direction for the party is stated and each political hopeful presents their case on why they are the best person to take the party in the agreed direction. This would allow the voters to see who could lead by seeing how closely the agreed upon direction matches their previously stated goals and the agreement would be a promise by the party and not just an individual.
Also, if the party states they are going a direction the consituants don't want they will hear about rapidly.
That being said, the debate
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:36am.
That being said, the debate format is nearly useless.
I agree. I have thought debates were useless for years.
But now they are really counterproductive for Republicans. I know the media will go full metal jacket on any Republican candidate, even if they love him/her during the run-up (can you say John McCain?) But this just gives them way too much power in choosing the candidate (again, John McCain).
The debates always hurt the debaters.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:46am.
The nature of these debates is twofold. One is that it show the positions of a candidate and two that a candidate is better than the others with some amount of attack associated.
I think the other perhaps as important purpose of these debates which I have not seen mentioned is the skill and strength of the debater. Recall that McCain was a toothless lion and was taken apart in the debates. If you look like a fool in debate (as unfortunately Perry appears to be doing), that is how the voters will see you. We need someone that can kick some butt in debate.
At the moment the only Jedi Debaters I see are Herman and Newt.
okay mb,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:57am.
not to be adversarial but in what manner do you think that a Republican can put out their ideas in any format that would not be used by the media as an attacking point?
The candidates have to state their ideas to get votes (unless they are a socialist Democrat) and the media is going to attack in ideas presented whether it is debate, Facebook or mime. The only reason the debates give them power now is because that is what they have now. Remove the debates and they will have whatever medium comes out as a way of disseminating ideas. Like I said, I have no love for the debates and think they are nearly useless but berating the debates on a topic that really has no bearing on their effectiveness is useless.
The media will attack no matter what. Improving the debates or the process can not take into consideration that which the GOP has no control over. My mistake, I just though of one way to prevent the media from attacking - nominate candidates that are all left of President Obama. ;)
Agnostic, I think you make a
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 1:27pm.
Agnostic, I think you make a good point, and you're making me waver LOL
I still hate the let's-all-of-you-beat-up-on-each other thing, but you're probably right that there would be few other opportunities to contrast viewpoints.
And hobnolikee makes a good point: namely that it shows who's got the good and the skills to go the distance.
So I'm sort of agreeing, but I still think it's too many too soon. And they have to get a different (maybe less formal) format where they debate each other, not respond to questions from a (most likely biased) moderator.
And I didn't take the question as adversarial at all. It's nice to have a civilized discussion.
The Debates are Valuable
Submitted by NC Boy on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:01am.
Obama is going to spend a billion dollars to convince voters that the GOP candidate is all things bad. The GOP must find a candidate who can survive the worst anyone can throw at him or her. When the sport is mud wrestling, the sooner you get muddy, the sooner you can figure out how to win.
Kind of.
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:04am.
Establishment Republicans, just like Establishment Democrats are part of the Old Media cabal, so it is a shared power, not one transferred from one entity to another.
Dave has it exactly right in his point made. Ironic isn't it that those seeking to be leader of the free world are themselves led by a moderator.
The American people are being had. Again. Still.
There is not one "declared candidate" who is truly fit to serve in the Oval Office who would gain approval from
George Washington. If we are to put America on the same path his leadership put us on, then we must reject all those who aim to take us elsewhere.
So long as we stand down and pick from those choices that Old Media allows us to pick from, nothing will get better, things will only continue to spiral downward and Old Media, along with the parties, will continue to destroy everything this nation was built upon - first and foremost Individual Liberty.
We should be electing individuals who will defend the republican form of government from their elected positions. Promoting the Republican Party is not defending the republican form of government, plain and simple.
Ok. But back down here in the real world we must deal with
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:38am.
the facts. These are the candidates. There probably will not be any new candidates appearing. So we need to stand behind all of them and when one is picked stand behind that person and get him/her elected. Or might as well just jump off that cliff we're heading off and avoid the rush.
If we could just get
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 12:03pm.
the idiots on the states' Republican Committees to stop the "me first, me first" crap with the ever-moving-forward elections.
The seance
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:58am.
Next time you hold that seance with George Washington, as you are apparently his medium, ask him what he thinks of the modern world and its many inventions and innovations sometime. Also, get his take on an America that extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, not just to the Mississippi River like in his day.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Moved
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:05am.
Moved
No
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:10am.
At least it doesn't seem that way at the moment.
Cain leads by 20 points. Twenty!
Sounds like everything is going fine (so far).
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I wish there was less
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:20am.
I wish there was less infighting and more on what they would do. I think that this process does vet a candidate pretty good. I pray we will come up with the right one. Beat Obama with a Cain.
Obama's deplorable attack on religious freedom
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:29am.
I'd like to bring up two articles that caught my eye over the weekend, which disturbed me.
The first one, by Elizabeth Scalia, AKA The Anchoress: Legislating the Constitution Down deals with the fact that
the government is getting ready to press ahead with policies intended—note the word, intended—to intrude upon one of the fundamental rights on which the nation was built: the freedom of religion.
Under the 2010 health care law colloquially known as “Obamacare,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human services is determinedly plowing forward with its so-called “contraceptive mandate”—all private health plans are to cover contraception and sterilization as “preventive services” for women, and the mandate includes individuals and groups with moral or religious objections.
But this one had me even more disgusted.
The President of the United States responds "Darn Tooting! (what a time to put that "g" at the end, huh?) in praising the legislation.
Bantering with the audience at a fundraiser in St. Louis yesterday, President Barack Obama bragged about a new regulation, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has denounced as an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”
"Darn right!" an audience member at the fundraiser shouted as Obama described the regulation.
“Darn tooting!” Obama said back.
Shameful.
MB,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:37am.
Here is a couple more for you
Regulated hiring at religious organizations
More of the same - but notice how the wording is used and seems to be opening the possibility of government intrusion to more than just workers rights. You can almost see the demand of unionization allowances and diversity allowances.
I saw this and I couldn't believe it
Submitted by kata on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 11:44am.
It makes me sick to see his regulatory agencies crap all over the bill of rights. This is just another horrible example.
LESS Romney and Perry
Submitted by ThinkingintheUSA on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:38am.
I love the idea of the debates. I am tired of it being couched as a 2 man race. I do NOT trust either Romney or Perry. Why would I want to replace this failed presidency with Obama-lite??
And if we didn’t have these debates…
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:39am.
...The nomination race would be between the “Old Guard Republican” and the [until nominated] “Media Darling” candidates. We would not be hearing from the likes of Herman Cain, or Newt, or Michelle Bachman, etc.
I agree with BK above, let’s have more debates… But I also somewhat agree with the others here who are disgusted with the media trying to make the debates into a political “America’s Got Talent.”
So, I would like to see more debate, but for the life of me I can’t figure-out why the RNC feels they have to involve every leftist media organization in the contest… pick one (Fox News would be my choice) and “vet the moderators” for fairness and historical neutrality.
- Grump :o)
Best speech Sarah Palin has ever given
Submitted by JamesPhilip on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:48am.
Since this site has chosen to ignore the speech Sarah Palin gave on Friday....
I submit a video you should watch. This is what I consider to be one of, if not the best, speech that Sarah Palin has ever given.
Question... after you watch it, do you really think any of the Republican candidates could or would be able to make a similar speech? That is why she is not running. She has a more important mission.... to attack the entire corrupt political system and to promote Conservative principles.
Sarah Palin Unshackled - Defending the Republic - http://tinyurl.com/6bdpfvz
This website is about
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 11:50am.
This website is about documenting and exposing media bias, not covering candidates and activists.
Even if they are people we really like.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Well, Free, this is an Open
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 1:41pm.
Well, Free, this is an Open Thread, and a lot of us post comments that are not related to bias
, BUT......repeatedly posting a link to the same site, which this guy had done in at least 6 comments (I stopped counting there) is considered spamming, and I hope the admins warn him.
Open Thread, not Open Website
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 2:43pm.
I didn't criticise him for being off-topic. I criticised his lack of understanding about this websites purpose.
And I doubt he'll get a warning from the admins. Unless he criticises RINO blogger Katheryn Jean Lopez, then the admins will say something, otherwise, not so likely.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Deja Vu
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 12:46pm.
Didn't you make this exact same post here yesterday? Have you and your fellow Palin cultists booked your Jonesboro trip yet?
Debates
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 10:55am.
The debates are one step short of being useless, if only because it allows the media to manipulate things further and allows people to focus on the shallow. But more are being held because primary season is being held so much earlier, not like the slow-dripping primaries of the past where, like in 1988, you could have a Super Tuesday, but by and large most states held theirs in ones and twos over a period of months. It was a slower process but candidates also had more time to screw up and also had more time to blossom/wilt under the media glare.
Now, because primaries are being held so early, I can see a point in the future where presidential campaigns begin the month the president is inaugurated, and the IA caucus and the NH primary are held the next month. But seriously, this is why, I think, we are seeing so many debates and so many events like this.
For me, I actually found it more useful back in the day to read the inserts in the local fish wraps provided by the League of Women Voters that broke down the issues and indicated how candidate thought about them, in summary. (I don't know if they still do this because I refuse to read the Leftist rag knows as the San Antonio Express-Snooze and especially not ANY newspaper published in Austin.)
What I think would be great is if, instead of debates, there were a series of one-on-one interviews where the interviewer asked the exact same questions of every candidate, allowing people to compare and contrast policy positions without the sideshows and circus atmosphere of the debate.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
^ this right here.
Submitted by kata on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 12:01pm.
I agree. The debates have become such a dog and pony show (glitz, gimmicks, hype, suped up graphics) coupled with the occassional split screen dog fight. It's entertainment for the masses and serves no purpose to inform voters much at all about what a candidate thinks. I had higher hopes for the Fox debate but the second the split screen went up I knew nothing had changed.
As Dave said, way up top, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 11:14am.
... these things aren't debates. They are just like Jersey Shore except the boobs aren't as big, and there is less sex.
The candidates need to take control of this process and themselves and remember who the enemy is. It is not anybody on the stage with them. It is OBAMA, and they need to remember that!
The winner of this primary will be the candidate who never forgets that. It was Herman Cain for a couple of debates, but then he started to get sucked into bitch fights with his fellow Republicans. If someone else doesn't just say it out loud, they may all lose. If that happens, this country is flocked for good.
These ARE NOT DEBATES. That means you don't have to refute what anyone else says. Just take your turn and say whatever the hell you want to to the audience. I'll swear the MSM wants it to turn into a shower room contest of who has the biggest, ah, ugh, ahhhh, bar of soap. Yeah!
disagree Newbubba
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 11:39am.
If you count the moderators and the pre/post debate talking heads you have more and bigger boobs than Hooters.
Well, I'm busted.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 3:36pm.
Maybe I should have said, "you got me," instead?
Anyway, you are 100% right, and I won't get into a tit for tat type of reply, but I do owe you a treat.
Here is the funniest thing I've seen in weeks, and I want to share it with you. This is how I can remain sane with all the crap that goes on in Washington. Enjoy, and I hope it doesn't offend. I still have tears in my eyes.
http://redux.com/stream/item/1126763/BABY-ELEPHANT-TRUNK-PENIS-BY-BUDDY-...
I'll tell you one thing.
Submitted by NeoKong on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 11:32am.
We have to stop letting flaming leftie media organizations run our debates. How can we protect the GOP brand when we let Obama's media drones edit our message....? This business where the candidates just throw themselves to the wolves again and again is madness. Why is it that the GOP and conservative organizations are not the ones controlling these debates....?
Democrats would never do what we do and made it very clear that Fox News will never ever be allowed near their presidential candidates but for some reason we let Brian Williams moderate one of ours.
While the LSM concentrates on
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 11:54am.
While the LSM concentrates on the Wall Street "protest" and the Republicans running for president many other things are happening. The Soyndra mess is getting a lot deeper as is operation Fast and Furious. Looks like Rep. Issa is going to call subpoena Holder to testify. This is going to set up an fight between Congress and the WH. Holder does not want to testify and Obama does not want him there either. It seems the LSM could care less about the late Friday's document drops by the WH. Hate to tell the LSM this but FOX News and other conservative news outlets are operating 24/7 and eating their lunch on many of the above issues.
One of the biggest stories is that HHS under the direction of "Bloody" Kathleen Sebilus is writing the rules for Obamacare. From what little information I have on this they are not being transparent but does that surprise anyone? So far the rule that would give the feds access to our health records has been written in 45 CFR part 153.
It's not the number of
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 12:54pm.
It's not the number of debates or the number of candidates included that's the problem it's the fact that the GOP is giving up the moderatorship of these debates to Obama supporting leftwing journolistas masquerading as "reporters".
@INFESTWALLSTREET
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 1:57pm.
Having established the legality of "targeting" Americans for fiery death...
Has the dear leader Obama drawn up contingency plans for a drone attack on Zuccotti Park, if the whole thing doesn't prove as popular as Democrats seem to think?...
GULF OF TONKIN people...
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Obama becoming isolated
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 1:58pm.
From the NY Post, via Drudge:
Aimless Obama Walks Alone
The reports are not good, disturbing even....[ ].....The gist is this: President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government. He talks mostly, and sometimes only, to friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett and to David Axelrod, his political strategist.
[ ]
The president’s workdays are said to end early, often at 4 p.m. He usually has dinner in the family residence with his wife and daughters, then retreats to a private office. One person said he takes a stack of briefing books. Others aren’t sure what he does.
IMO, this is a portrait of a man who knows he is in WAY over his head and is hiding from that knowledge. As Goodwin notes, the only time he seems animated is when he's on the [not-campaign] trail, in front of adoring crowds.
But then again, that's what he thought the presidency was...that and exciting trips on Air Force One for "date nights" in New York and Chicago.
When you've lost the Reverend
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 2:12pm.
When you've lost the Reverend Wright that's it!
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
History repeats
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 2:47pm.
Didn't the same thing happen to Hitler in that he grew increasingly isolated? And only talked to a very few people?
-Jon
Uh-Oh!
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 3:08pm.
<sarc>
Now you've done it! You compared the president to Hitler!!
No more Monday Night Football for you!
</sarc>
No, Model, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 3:48pm.
... Bambi is actually more like Mussolini than Hitler.
Hitler had a falling out with Uncle Joe, his ally, when Joe Boy wanted to go all the way commie, and forget that Fascist crap. Hitler decided he liked being a Fascist better because he got to maintain the facade of private industry still existing in Germany, even though he ran it. It kept the populace a little tamer.
I think Bambi thinks like Mussolini. He can keep Jeff in charge of GE and still tell him what to do! Same is true of the car companies, and our entire medical system is just around the corner! Is this a great plan or what? Even the dumb assed democrats in congress are buying his crap.
With any luck, America will wake up before it's too late, and Bambi could end up like Mussolini.
Well for sure
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 4:03pm.
Oblameyou certainly has perfected that "look down his nose" pose!
Mussi for sure
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 4:29pm.
Not to mention his predilection for trains, he kept pushing that high speed rail nonsense enough!
-Jon
Ann Barnhardt responds to death threat email from Islamic goon
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 5:17pm.
This is classic.
An excerpt from the 2nd of two emails she sent this camel-flea infested cult member:
I will NEVER, EVER, EVER submit to islam. I will fight islam with every fiber of my being for as long as I live because islam is pure satanic evil. If you are really serious about islam dominating the United States and the world, you are going to have to come through me. You are going to have to kill me. Good luck with that. And understand that if you or some of your musloid boyfriends do actually manage to kill me, The Final Crusade will officially commence five minutes later, and then, despite your genetic mental retardation, you will be made to understand with crystal clarity what the word “defeat” means. Either way, I win, so come and get it.
End of excerpt.
LOL - I think I'm in love. :-D
-Dave
Vote for the American in November