How in God's name can a sane person not state unequivocally that water boarding is torture? Look who the moral relativists are now... Here is a simple truth: If we do not steadfastly reject the torture of human beings - however despicable - WE HAVE LOST THIS ALLEGED WAR. If Bush and crew are torturing and lying about it now - WE HAVE ALREADY LOST. What "they" want is to bury us in our own fear. If our "leaders" justify torture - WE HAVE LOST. Unlike any other society WE ARE OUR VALUES. That is what defines us. If we give them up WE HAVE LOST. If you cannot say that water boarding is torture you have no business being Attorney General. you are not even, in any real sense, an American.
A federal jury delivered a $2.9 million verdict Wednesday against the Phelps family of Topeka and their homophobeWestboro Baptist Church, a Kansas church that picketed the funeral of a Maryland Marine killed in an auto accident in Iraq last year.
It is believed to be the first individual lawsuit against the Phelps, who are infamous for picketing military and other funerals around the country. They do not contend that the dead soldiers are gay, but that their deaths are punishment by an angry God against the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.
A grieving father, Albert Snyder, sued for unspecified damages after members staged a demonstration at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.
Family and church members, under the leadership of Fred Phelps, Sr., routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."
Their actions have prompted several states to pass laws regarding funeral protests and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries.
Yes, after years and years with only one World Series they're the guy that calls you back after the first date.
What I most liked about this series was the Redsox were not arrogant. Up three games to none not once did they say something stupid like the guy from Cleveland who said, "The Champagne tastes just as good away as at home." Instead they consistently complemented the Rockies and said things like, "you don't eat your cake before your birthday."
Refreshing.
I'm reading Krugman's book (it's very good) and makes me realize it's not what's the matter with Kansas, it's what's the matter with the Democrats ad agency.
Universal Healthcare. Most Americans want it. We're not afraid that we're going to slide down a slippery slope to Communism if we can all see a physician. Truman had the best chance of pushing it through but the AMA and the Southerners were against it because they might have to desegregate their hospitals.
But we, the average people, want it. Have any of the Republicans pushed forward a plan for it? No. Why then would anyone vote Republican?
Minimum wage. It matters because when the minimum goes up so does the middle. Obviously this helps us. Republicans fight it, Democrats make it happen.
Global Warming. Andrew Sullivan was on Real Time and bitched about Hillary not doing enough about Global Warming. First off Andrew, welcome to the reality based community, but as a conservative, tell me one Republican running who has even a position on Global Warming that involves doing something.
Taxes. Oh, the joy of lower taxes. But we in the bottom 90% don't enjoy lower taxes. And still the Republicans manage to make this a populist issue. Baloney. It's not for us. It's for corporations and the impossibly wealthy.
Why then can't the Democrats hire a fabulous marketing team to get the message across? We're for you making more money, we're for social programs that make your life better, we're for Universal Healthcare which will enable you to switch jobs even with a pre-existing condition, we want everyone to pay taxes, we want to save you, and the world, from Global Warming.
It just seems so obvious that if you make people understand who will actually work for them we can all win.
This is simple - Ron Paul is ACTUALLY A CONSERVATIVE. Now there are many ways to define "conservative" after 7 years of W destroying the nation with his borrow and spend policies. I mean conservative here in the Barry Goldwater sense. I am voting for Hillary. Period. BUT - personally the libertarians appeal to me "on paper" - but in a real first world democracy they simply makes no sense. Big business CANNOT be trusted to act in the proper manner without regulation. They prove this over and over again. Enron is a recent example. A freely elected government must lay down legal and regulatory markers to control the rapacious greed of many corporations. And a "strict" interpretation of the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. No one has the unimpeded right to "bear arms" in our country. Go attempt to purchase a bunker buster bomb on the black market and see if the court will agree with your right to bear those arms. What arms one can bear is the debate. Not the right to bear them. That said - Ron Paul as the GOP nominee vs any Democrat would prompt a real debate next Fall. I like him. The other GOPs run the gamut from buffoon, to greaseball and back again. Hillary will bury all of them.
Read a post by by John Ridley at the Huffington post about the Ellen Iggy Doggy Drama. Read it here. He hammers the "dramatists" in this story. Many of the initial responses to his post were vitriolic, more than a few referenced slavery - as if it was in some way comparable with animal "rights". I was so disgusted I posted this:
This post is spot on. The perversion of morality by the alleged "animal lovers" is gross behind reason. Far from "compassion" it is disgusting in its lack of compassion. They try to elevate animals to justify their own lack of regard for humans. Dogs are simple and demand little. People are complex and hard to understand. People take effort. They demand THOUGHT. The argument these animal nuts make is finally an anti-intellectual cover. It is finally LAZY. The attempt to equate dog cruelty to human slavery is repellent. It boggles the mind that many of these posters would call themselves "liberal". But the Ellen story tells us much about who we are now: a nation of spoiled brats. Or overfed buffoons - take your pick. I doubt Iraqis or most Africans or Central American peasants spend a lot of time elevating their animals to human status. There was a time not so long ago in this country when starving children warranted a War on Poverty. Now a major problem of the underclass in America is diabetes. A real Depression or famine would end all chatter about the Iggys for good. and forever. I love my 2 dogs. But if I had to choose between saving them in a fire (which are currently ravaging my state) or a person i loathed - I would chose the person. This is moral clarity. Equating the story of a dog to slavery is moral depravity.
The GOP is sort of like Notre Dame this season. Trying to cling to some faded glory and hope that it makes a difference. It doesn't. The train wreck that is GOP rule is almost complete. When oil goes over 100 bucks and the economy recesses for a while - the GOP destruction of the last 7 years will be complete.
These GOP bozos run the gamut from phony to freak, and back to phony again. Mitt Romney and Rudy G. both governed to the LEFT of Hillary Clinton when they had power- total fakes. Fred T. is what - gonna wander in to the oval office on days he feels like? McCain WAS a conservative, until he sold his soul to the bush family - frankly - except Ron Paul - none of the GOPs are conservatives anymore. They are big Government control nuts - like Cheney. The alleged "Conservative" base in the GOP is not at all conservative. It is mean and scared.
Lordy, imagine what Eisenhower and Lincoln must think of their party now.
Entering the Tough Oil Era The New Energy Pessimism By Michael T. Klare When "peak oil" theory was first widely publicized in such path breaking books as Kenneth Deffeyes' Hubbert's Peak (2001), Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over (2002), David Goodstein's Out of Gas (2004), and Paul Robert's The End of Oil (2004), energy industry officials and their government associates largely ridiculed the notion. An imminent peak -- and subsequent decline -- in global petroleum output was derided as crackpot science with little geological foundation. "Based on [our] analysis," the U.S. Department of Energy confidently asserted in 2004, "[we] would expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the beginning of the 21st century."
Recently, however, a spate of high-level government and industry reports have begun to suggest that the original peak-oil theorists were far closer to the grim reality of global-oil availability than industry analysts were willing to admit. Industry optimism regarding long-term energy-supply prospects, these official reports indicate, has now given way to a deep-seated pessimism, even in the biggest of Big Oil corporate headquarters.
The change in outlook is perhaps best suggested by a July 27 article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, "Oil Profits Show Sign of Aging." Although reporting staggering second-quarter profits for oil giants Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell -- $10.3 billion for the former, $8.7 billion for the latter -- the Journal sadly noted that investors are bracing for disappointing results in future quarters as the cost of new production rises and output at older fields declines. "All the oil companies are struggling to grow production," explained Peter Hitchens, an analyst at the Teather and Greenwood brokerage house. "[Yet] it's becoming more and more difficult to bring projects in on time and on budget."
To appreciate the nature of Big Oil's dilemma, peak-oil theory must be briefly revisited. As originally formulated by petroleum geologist M. King Hubbert in the 1950s, the concept holds that worldwide oil production will rise until approximately half of the world's original petroleum inheritance has been exhausted; once this point is reached, daily output will hit a peak and begin an irreversible decline. Hubbert's successors, including professor emeritus Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton, contend that we have now consumed just about half the original supply and so are at, or very near, the peak-production moment predicted by Hubbert.
Since the concept burst into public consciousness several years ago, its proponents and critics have largely argued over whether or not we have reached maximum worldwide petroleum output. In a way, this is a moot argument, because the numbers involved in conventional oil output have increasingly been obscured by oil derived from "unconventional" sources -- deep-offshore fields, tar sands, and natural-gas liquids, for example -- that are being blended into petroleum feedstocks used to make gasoline and other fuels. In recent years, this has made the calculation of petroleum supplies ever more complicated. As a result, it may be years more before we can be certain of the exact timing of the global peak-oil moment.
On Tap: The Tough-Oil Era
There is, however, a second aspect to peak-oil theory, which is no less relevant when it comes to the global-supply picture -- one that is far easier to detect and assess today. Peak-oil theorists have long contended that the first half of the world's oil to be extracted and consumed will be the easy half. They are referring, of course, to the oil that's found on shore or near to shore; oil close to the surface and concentrated in large reservoirs; oil produced in friendly, safe, and welcoming places.
The other half -- what (if they are right) is left of the world's petroleum supply -- is the tough oil. They mean oil that's buried far offshore or deep underground; oil scattered in small, hard-to-find reservoirs; oil that must be obtained from unfriendly, politically dangerous, or hazardous places. An oil investor's eye-view of our energy planet today quickly reveals that we already seem to be entering the tough-oil era. This explains the growing pessimism among industry analysts as well as certain changes in behavior in the energy marketplace.
In but one sign of the new reality, the price of benchmark U.S. light, sweet crude oil for next-month delivery soared to new highs on July 31, topping the previous record for intraday trading of $77.03 per barrel set in July 2006. Some observers are predicting that a price of $80 per barrel is just around the corner; while John Kildruff, a perfectly sober analyst at futures broker Man Financial, told Bloomberg.com, "We're only a headline of significance away from $100 oil." New disruptions in Nigerian or Iraqi supplies, or a U.S. military strike against Iran, he explained, could trigger such a price increase in the energy equivalent of a nano-second.
A signal of another sort was provided by the government of Kazakhstan in oil-rich Central Asia on August 7. It warned the private operators of the giant offshore Kashagan oil project -- in the Kazakh sector of the Caspian Sea -- to cut costs and speed the onset of production or face a possible government takeover. In an interview, Prime Minister Karim Masimov said threateningly: "We are very disappointed with the execution of this project. If the operator can't resolve these problems, then we don't exclude their possible replacement."
Kashagan, it must be borne in mind, is not just any oil project: it is the largest field to be developed anywhere in the world since the discovery of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay some 40 years ago. With estimated oil reserves of 9-13 billion barrels, it is crucial to the hopes of its principal developers -- Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Total (of France), and Eni (of Italy) -- to increase their output in the years ahead. Consistent with the "tough oil" aspect of peak-oil theory, Kashagan is, however, proving dauntingly difficult to turn into a successful font of petroleum. The oil reservoir itself is buried beneath high-pressure strata of gas, making its extraction exceedingly tricky, and it contains abnormally high levels of deadly hydrogen sulfide; moreover, the entire field is located in a shallow area of the Caspian Sea that freezes over for five months of the year and is the breeding ground for rare seals and beluga sturgeon.
As a result of these and other problems, the Kashagan operating consortium has seen the price-tag for launching the project nearly double -- from $10 billion to $19 billion -- and has postponed the onset of initial production from 2005 to 2010, infuriating the Kazakh government, which had hoped to be earning billions of dollars in taxes and royalties by now.
A Demanding World
And then there are those reports from high-level agencies and organizations on the global energy picture, all coming to the same basic conclusion: Whether or not the peak in world oil output is at hand, the future of the global oil supply in a world of endlessly growing demand appears grim.
The first of these recent warnings, entitled the "Medium-Term Oil Market Report," was released on July 8 by the International Energy Agency (IEA), an arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the club of major industrial powers. Although filled with statistics and technical analyses, the report, assessing the global oil supply-and-demand equation through 2012, seemed to leak anxiety and came to a distinctly worrisome conclusion: Because world oil demand is likely to keep rising at a rapid tempo and the development of new oil fields is not expected to keep pace, significant shortfalls are likely to emerge within the next five years.
The IEA report predicts that world economic activity will grow by an average of 4.5% per year during this period -- driven largely by unbridled growth in China, India, and other Asian dynamos. Global oil demand will rise, it predicts, by about 2.2% per year, pushing world oil consumption from an estimated 86.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 95.8 million barrels by 2012. With luck and substantial new investment, the global oil industry may be able to increase output sufficiently to satisfy this higher level of demand -- but, if so, just barely. Beyond 2012, the production outlook appears far grimmer. And keep in mind, this is the best-case scenario.
Underlying the report's conclusions are a number of specific fears. Despite rising fuel prices, neither the mature consumers of the OECD countries, nor newly affluent consumers in the developing world are likely to significantly curb their appetite for petroleum. "Demand is growing, and as people become accustomed to higher prices, they are starting to return to their previous trends of high consumption," was the way Lawrence Eagles, an oil expert at the IEA, summed the situation up. This is clearly evident in the United States, where record-high gasoline prices have not stopped drivers from filling up their tanks and driving record distances.
In addition, oil output in the United States and most other non-members of the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC) has peaked, or is about to do so, which means that the net contribution of non-OPEC suppliers will only diminish between now and 2012. That, in turn, means that the burden of providing the required additional oil will have to fall on the OPEC countries, most of which are located in unstable areas of the Middle East and Africa.
The numbers are actually staggering. Just to satisfy a demand for an extra 10 million or so barrels per day between now and 2012, two million barrels per day in new oil would have to be added to global stocks yearly. But even this calculation is misleading, as Eagles of the IEA made clear. In fact, the world would initially need "more than 3 million barrels per day of new oil each year [just] to offset the falling production in the mature fields outside of OPEC" -- and that's before you even get near that additional two million barrels.
In other words, what's actually needed is five million barrels of new oil each year, a truly daunting challenge since almost all of this oil will have to be found in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Angola, Libya, Nigeria, Venezuela, and one or two other countries. These are not places that exactly inspire investor confidence of a sort that could attract the many billions of dollars needed to ramp up production enough to satisfy global requirements.
Read between the lines and one quickly perceives a worst-case scenario in which the necessary investment is not forthcoming; OPEC production does not grow by five million barrels per day year after year; ethanol and other substitute-fuel production, along with alternate fuels of various sorts, do not grow fast enough to fill the gap; and, in the not-too-distant future, a substantial shortage of oil leads to a global economic meltdown.
The Missing Trillions
A very similar prognosis emerges from a careful reading of "Facing the Hard Truths About Energy," the second major report to be released in July. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Petroleum Council (NPC), an oil-industrial association, this report encapsulated the view of both industry officials and academic analysts. It was widely praised for providing a "balanced" approach to the energy dilemma. It called for both increased fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and increased oil and gas drilling on federal lands. Contributing to the buzz around its release was the identity of the report's principal sponsor, former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond. Having previously expressed skepticism about global warming, he now embraced the report's call for the taking of significant steps to curb carbon-dioxide emissions.
Like the IEA report, the NPC study does claim that -- with the perfect mix of policies and an adequate level of investment -- the energy industry would be capable of satisfying oil and gas demand for some years to come. "Fortunately, the world is not running out of energy resources," the report bravely asserts. Read deep into the report, though, and these optimistic words begin to dissolve as its emphasis switches to the growing difficulties (and costs) of extracting oil and gas from less-than-favorable locations and the geopolitical risks associated with a growing global reliance on potentially hostile, unstable suppliers.
Again, the numbers involved are staggering. According to the NPC, an estimated $20 trillion in new investment (that's trillion, not billion) will be needed between now and 2030 to ensure sufficient energy for anticipated demand. This works out to "$3,000 per person alive today" in a world in which a good half of humanity earns substantially less than that each year.
These funds, which can only come from those of us in the wealthier countries, will be needed, the council notes, in "building new, multi-billion-dollar oil platforms in water thousands of feet deep, laying pipelines in difficult terrain and across country borders, expanding refineries, constructing vessels and terminals to ship and store liquefied natural gas, building railroads to transport coal and biomass, and stringing new high-voltage transmission lines from remote wind farms." Adding to the magnitude of this challenge, "future projects are likely to be more complex and remote, resulting in higher costs per unit of energy produced." Again, think tough oil.
The report then notes the obvious: "A stable and attractive investment climate will be necessary to attract adequate capital for evolution and expansion of the energy infrastructure." And this is where any astute observer should begin to get truly alarmed; for, as the study itself notes, no such climate can be expected. As the center of gravity of world oil production shifts decisively to OPEC suppliers and to state-centric energy producers like Russia, geopolitical rather than market factors will come to dominate the energy industry and a whole new set of instabilities will characterize the oil trade.
"These shifts pose profound implications for U.S. interests, strategies, and policy-making," the report states. "Many of the expected changes could heighten risks to U.S. energy security in a world where U.S. influence is likely to decline as economic power shifts to other nations. In years to come, security threats to the world's main sources of oil and natural gas may worsen."
Read from this perspective, the recent reports from pillars of the Big- Oil/wealthy-nation establishment suggest that the basic logic of peak-oil theory is on the mark and hard times are ahead when it comes to global oil-and-gas sufficiency. Both reports claim that with just the right menu of corrective policies and an unrealistic streak of pure luck -- as in no set of major Katrina-like hurricanes barreling into oil fields or refineries, no new wars in Middle Eastern oil producing areas, no political collapse in Nigeria -- we can somehow stagger through to 2012 and maybe just beyond without a global economic meltdown. But in an era of tough oil, the odds tip toward tough luck as well. Buckle your seatbelt. Fill up that gas tank soon. The future is likely to be a bumpy ride toward cliff's edge.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum. His newest book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, will be published in the spring of 2008 by Metropolitan Books.
Below is something my friend Jay posted on a local news station's website. He says it more clearly and politely than I would have or could have, and I agree with him totally. I must make one comment though : The psychological well-being of two little girls was damaged by the two crazy ladies from Mutts and Moms in Pasadena. They entered Ellen's hairdresser's home under false pretenses. Legal action against these nuts should be looked into. It is time to take to task people who insist on valuing animals OVER people. The rest I leave to Jay:
The Ellen Degeneres doggie drama has illuminated an odd trend in our culture that I've been noticing for quite some time.
A few years ago, a pair of friends -- both childless women, either in abusive relationships or single -- started 'rescuing' dogs.
The term 'rescue' seemed immediately odd to me. The dogs weren't saved from burning buildings or wrestled from the grips of a dogfighting ring. They were simply homeless and my friends were facilitating their adoption into a better circumstance for the animals. Great! I love dogs to distraction. But... rescue? No, not really. Not at all.
Some time later I was in the market for a dog and came across a pair of 'rescue' organizations. The women that I dealt with at both places, one on a sidewalk in Studio City, the other near the Los Feliz fountain, were lovely -- until they started asking questions. They became so insultingly scrutinizing of my character and private life that it was unnerving - and I have nothing substantial to hide. I chose to use a pound for my adoption instead. The women running these organizations seemed disturbed to me. It was uncomfortable to come face to face with people who are playing out other issues in their lives in such a transparent and self congratulatory way.
In watching the Ellen vs. Crazy Pet Ladies drama unfold, I'm seeing in the exact same traits on display that led me away from 'rescue' organizations. Why are the people who run these organizations usually (in my experience, ALWAYS) childless, emotionally driven women and why are they so bizarrely controlling over other human beings? I suspect that there's some untreated mental illness at play with these not-so-well meaning ladies.
The single most patriotic thing any of us can do on a daily basis is conserve energy and reduce our consumption of oil.
Bush/Cheney created the Iraq war to grab one of the last remaining big oil patches on earth. THE SLOW STEADY DECLINE IN WORLD OIL PRODUCTION HAS BEGUN.
Elections take way to long in the U.S. Florida and Michigan Democrats have made a ruckus recently by moving their primaries into January. Frankly, I support them. It is ridiculous that New Hampshire and Iowa go first every four years. Why?Who died and made these two small states king?Everyone assumes it has always been this way. Bullshit. This mythology about Iowa and N.H. going first did not spring up until the 70s. Iowa and N.H. are not demographically representative of this country - even less so of the Democratic party. N.H. in particular is petulant about its "first in the nation primary." Screw them. Why shouldn't Florida go first? Or California? or Alaska? or anyone else? The system needs to upended - because it needs to be changed. It is simple: 1. There is no reason why every four years the initial primaries and caucuses can't rotate from region to region. Pacific Coast 2012, New England 2016 etc etc. 2. No one should be voting until June of the election year. Period.
James Carville's famous campaign laser beam "It's the economy, stupid" should be revised and updated in 2008 to say "It's the oil, stupid." But no campaign manager will insist their candidate run on an essentially apocalyptic platform - saying repeatedly to all of us - "cheap oil is now gone. Forever. Adjust now, or else. " But one should.
Oil cost $20 a barrel in 2001. 6 years later it costs $80.
That would be a price increase of 300 percent.
The problem is simple and painful. There is a limited amount of oil left in the ground. The demand for it is higher than ever before. The U.S. attempted to seize control over a large part of the remaining oil . We will get a return on our investment - eventually - sometime after we stop blathering about democracy, fall back into our "enduring bases" and the tribal wars we incited subside. (We may have to neuter Iran to speed this process.) But it won't be enough - and the price we will have paid for the oil will have been extraordinary. And the oil endowment of Iraq will only keep us in strip malls, petro fertilizer, and SUVs very briefly. The housing market is one of many canaries in the coal mine. The ever falling dollar (propped up a bit, ironically, because oil is traded in U.S. dollars) is another. Drive time is almost over. Cheney must have figured this out at some point while ruining Haliburton in the 90's. (He has since made good.) The visionary nuclear engineer Jimmy Carter saw it coming 30 years ago. The difference between Cheney and Carter? Carter believed the American Republic could survive if we adjusted our way of living. Cheney does not care about the American Republic. He may care about the American economy. Or the American upper classes. Or the oil business. Freedom, the founders, and liberty are not high on his list. THE SINGLE MOST PEACEFUL AND PATRIOTIC THING ANY AMERICAN CAN DO NOW IS COME TO GRIPS WITH THE VULNERABILITY OF THE OIL SOCIETY WE HAVE CREATED SINCE WE WON WORLD WAR 2 -and prepare for what comes next. Go here for a primer.
He recalled receiving a phone call in 1972 from his campaign manager, someone named Gary Hart, saying he'd come upon a bright, young man in Arkansas named Bill Clinton who had a hardworking friend named Hillary Rodham and they both were going to work Texas for McGovern.
I walked in to Barnes and Noble yesterday and the first book I saw was Ann Coulter's newest, If Democrats had any Brains they'd be Republicans. I turned it over and went to the manager and told her I found it disgusting that she needs to disparage over half the population. The manager was very nice but said that during the campaign season Republicans will complain about Democratic books and Democrats will complain about Republican books. We happened to be standing next to Jimmy Carter's new book. I asked her what any Republican could find offensive in the title. Or Bill Clinton's new book, Giving. How is that offensive?
Then later that evening Larry Craig said he wasn't going to resign from the Senate. Yes, he said he would, but now he's not. And I thought, Ms. Coulter accuses the left of being stupid?
Maybe speaking to the manager won't change anything, maybe the email I sent to my representative asking for Rush Limbaugh to be removed from AFN won't do anything. But we've got to stand up. And the more of us who stand up the better.
I am not a Vet but I really want a face to face with Rush to take him down. I am spoiling for it. Meet me anywhere Rush - except your show - neutral ground - I will bury you.
I'll tell it to your "face", Rush. Contact me. I''ll tell you what a cowardly punk you are. It is time for real Americans to shove you and your tired anti-American crap to the curb. go for it you drug addled prick. Stop hiding behind Matt Drudge and your psycho radio show. I am aching to dress you down. Loser. Let's take off the gloves, punk. You are a draft dodging punk.
We liberals need to take another look at President Eisenhower. Sadly - GOPs never hearken back to this President - who believed in a limited executive and the middle way.
