"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson (appears in the Jefferson Memorial)

raineylogo1

The national political circus – already disappointing and embarrassing – has moved to South Carolina. For reasons far beyond understanding, that’s the home of the dirtiest, most lie-filled, underhanded, just plain contemptible campaigning in the entire country. Disappointment and embarrassment readings are being raised – or deeply lowered – to a whole new level. Both national parties are to blame. Neither seems able to rise above the South Carolina political garbage. Or, willing to.

But, even before entering the fray in the Palmetto State, the entire campaign has been soiled from the get-go. It’s gone on so long we’ve long-ago lost our revulsion at some of the tactics and wild claims, surrendering to the oft-repeated words, “Well, that’s just how it is.”

One of the most repeated statements swirling in this flotsam is we’re “angry.” We’re “mad” government seems unresponsive to our national needs. We’re “out-of-patience” with politicians who seem responsive only to the rich – who won’t work on our concerns like infrastructure, jobs, climate change, immigration, clean water, ending spending on useless wars and seriously addressing gun problems killing our kids. We’re nationally pissed and don’t mind shouting it at the top of our lungs.

I can accept all that – can definitely participate in such discussions with my own loud, angry voice. “Mad as Hell,” the man said. Me, too!

But what makes absolutely no sense is the accompanying demand that the next president and the next congress be people with absolutely no political backgrounds – no prior service in elective politics – no understanding of how to work the levers of government or how to make the attached machinery work the way it must – work the way we want it to. Primary election results, so far, seem to be saying just that. If any candidate is sullied with requisite experience to be effective, that person has been soundly rejected. Right, Jeb? Right, Chris? Right, Martin?

Suppose a doctor concluded your physical exam by saying, “You have a serious, life-threatening medical condition.” What would be your reaction? Tell the doctor he/she was wrong? Insist on having a plumber review the paperwork? Submit to a new physical exam conducted by a shoe salesman? Or, given the seriousness of the situation, would you seek a second opinion by a medical specialist familiar with your problem? Put me down in that last category.

Suppose you wanted to fly to the other side of the country. Would you absolutely insist the pilot be someone who’d never flown before? Would you ask a municipal worker, afraid of heights, to fly the plane? Would you select “Hope-This-Works” airline over, say, Delta? Or, would you want someone in the cockpit with a bit of grey hair and a few thousand hours as “pilot-in-command?” You know which one I’d want.

Why has the demand for lack of experience been written into political job descriptions for candidates? Why are political aspirants suddenly being subjected to tests eliminating expertise? Would these same people swap plumbers for physicians – shoe salesmen for seasoned pilots? Me thinks not.

While the fault in this loud demand for a commander-in-chief with no previous qualifications lies mostly with the ignorant voices, it also goes beyond that. To me, the blame sits squarely with the major national political parties – both of ‘em. They’ve failed to recruit, groom and put forward legitimate candidates acceptable to a wide range of voters. Especially at the presidential and congressional levels.

The dugout bench in both their ballparks seem woefully slim. There are no second, third or fourth tiers of qualified and experienced “candidates-in-waiting.” Statehouses – normally the “farm clubs” for political newcomers – apparently are not being searched for men and women effective at their jobs. State legislatures and county courthouses apparently haven’t been closely examined to find new voices closest to the people. If they have, I’m not seeing the names or hearing new, impressive voices.

After the 2008 and 2012 elections, Republican professionals paid big bucks for outside advice on how to become more relevant, more responsive to a fast-changing electorate. They paid the bucks, gave the findings some lip service and promptly seemed to have dropped the whole thing in the round file. Democrats, with less fanfare, had retreats and outside examinations for the same purpose. Again, whatever was discussed was ignored.

More than anything else, the failure of both parties to regain some sort of relevance has produced the Trumps, Cruzes, Carsons, a retreaded Clinton and a qualified but unheard of O’Malley.

Big money – big, BIG money – has replaced the roles previously occupied by national political parties. Trump’s willingness to spend whatever it takes, the Koch’s with their ALEC and hundreds of millions to spend, Adelson’s casino-backed billions funding empty suits and hollow voices – these are the driving forces of our national political affairs. Not experiencd political professionals.

Both parties need rebuilding. Both need new and better leadership at the staff and professional levels. Both need to retake control from the moneyed class and keep it.

There’s one shared reason why Reagan, Johnson, Dole, Ford, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Truman, Humphries, Hatfield, Hatfield, Church, Goldwater, Dirksen, Foley, Rockefeller and other national political icons were successful. While each came to the job with different perspectives, they all came with experience. Years and years of it.

It’s not just meaningless – and too often mindless – words pouring out of supremely unqualified candidates we need to ignore. It’s this “angry” demand for political inexperience. Look what it’s produced so far.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

mckeelogo1

One age-old rule of politics, when looking for issues to run on, is never rip the scab off of a loser from an earlier time. Donald Trump, of course, is rewriting all the rules, including this one.

The Donald has dragged up waterboarding, saying that not only will he bring it back into use, but that he will double down and authorize much worse. He doesn’t say what “worse” is, but promises it will be terrible. No one will be able to withstand it, but that is OK because “they deserve it anyway.” In a few key venues, the media’s hair is on fire and the cognoscenti are piling on. But their uproar does not seem to be collecting any steam.

There should be no room for political grandstanding here, and the outrage growing at Trump’s remarks ought to be overwhelming. Torture is morally, legally and rationally wrong. The morality and legality issues have been thoroughly litigated elsewhere. The only conceivable avenue for discussion here is on rationalization – if necessary to save lives, can torture, even though wrong, be justified? Can the illegality and immorality of this tool be rationalized away if it will make the world safer?

In a word, the answer is “no” – not “no” as an alternative response to a legitimate option, not “no” as one answer to an acceptable political question, but “no” because the underlying premise of the entire issue is demonstrably false.

Torture is not designed to get at the truth. Torture is designed to get an answer the interrogator wants. As has been repeatedly established in history, there is no assurance, and no way to gain assurance, that what is revealed under torture will be the truth. Today, every country that recognizes due process of law refuses to accept confessions extracted under torture. The problem compounds in military intelligence, where false information can be more dangerous that no information at all. Given the high degree of probability that information produced by these methods will not be true or reliable, and given the absence of any accurate basis upon which to determine what is and what is not reliable, torture is useless as an intelligence tool.

This conclusion was reinforced in December of 2014, when a Senate select committee on intelligence issued a declassified summary of a 6,700 page report on the CIA interrogation program in Iraq. According to the report, none of the information produced by any of the harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, used by the CIA throughout the period of the Iraq war was of any use. None of it.

Finally, waterboarding is torture. There is no basis to keep this question open to debate. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damages, and death. The immediate effect of waterboarding is a gag reflex that shuts off breathing and creates a sensation of drowning. The gagging can trigger vomiting, which may then be inhaled. Death from aspirated vomit is a significant risk.

Following World War II, Japanese officers were prosecuted for waterboarding prisoners of war. Some were hanged. When it was first revealed that the United States was waterboarding al Qaeda suspects during the Iraq war era, the country was appalled. President Bush initially tried to contend that waterboarding was not torture, but faced with overwhelming revulsion from all corners, he was forced to concede. He finally signed an executive order banning its use in 2006. Waterboarding was declared torture under international law by a United Nations Convention against Torture, which was then confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008. The international ban is absolute and without exceptions. President Obama has consistently declared waterboarding to be torture, and continued the executive order banning it in 2009.

Trump’s promises are pointing the United States directly into the international criminal courts at The Hague. The entire world may well be aghast at this hyperbolic, unfocused wall of doubletalk as Trump continues to try to dismantle the aura of international good will Obama has spent the last seven years rebuilding. Nobody knows what to do with any of this stuff, and nobody knows what’s coming next.

This brings to mind the ancient Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times.

Share on Facebook

McKee

My books and I will be traveling around southern Idaho this week. Today, two events you might consider dropping by if you’re in the area:

At Pocatello, I’ll have a book giveaway and signing at 12:30 pm at Coho the Smart Bar, located new Idaho at 4th and Terry.

At Idaho Falls, I’ll be doing something similar at 5 pm at the Villa Coffeehouse, downtown at 344 Park Ave., just off Broadway, between Capitol and Shoup.

Tomorrow, I’ll be on KLIX-AM in Twin Falls – doing the program in studio this time – and then at noon I’ll be doing giveaway/signing at the new Twin Falls Visitor Center, on the canyon rim.

Share on Facebook

events

I’m on the road around southern Idaho this week – visiting Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Twin Falls, Boise, Nampa and other assorted locations. The occasion is showing (and giving away some free copies) of the book Crossing the Snake, which is a compilation of my Idaho columns.

Part of the idea too is setting down in places where newspapers are running the column, giving readers a chanc to converse. And me a chance to listen.

Reports from the road will be forthcoming. – rs

Share on Facebook

Idaho Stapilus

stapiluslogo1

The New Hampshire presidential primary seems to have set the shape of the Republican contest for some time to come, bringing into focus some questions awaiting Idaho’s Republicans. And for Idaho’s many establishment Republicans, those may be eerie questions.

This year’s Republican nomination battle is far more splintered in Idaho than it has been for many years. Four years ago, the establishment was solidly behind Mitt Romney, and until he dropped out in 2008 he had strong backing then as well. George W. Bush had the Idaho establishment firmly in his corner the two elections before that.

Idaho’s three-term governor, C.L. “Butch” Otter, and its longest-serving members of Congress, Senator Mike Crapo and Representative Mike Simpson, seem to have stayed out of the fracas so far. Maybe they were uncertain how the field would play out and how Idaho would react. Or they may have observed what happened to other endorsees. Senator Rand Paul, backed by Representative Raul Labrador, has dropped out. And Senator Marco Rubio, backed by Senator Jim Risch, Controller Brandon Woolf and Idaho Falls businessman Frank VanderSloot (a veteran of the Romney campaigns), only days ago seemed ascendant but had the daylights kicked out of him in New Hampshire, and his campaign’s future is highly uncertain.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, backed by former Idaho Governor and Senator Dirk Kempthone, lives to fight another day, but right now seems a long shot for the nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich, backed by Idaho legislators Marv Hagedorn and Robert Anderst, did well taking second place in New Hampshire (after barely registering in Iowa), but he invested almost everything he had – time, money, people – into that state, and has scarcely any campaign organization or built-in support in the states yet to vote.

Just two Republican candidates actually seem well positioned for the race to come: Texas Senator Ted Cruz and businessman Donald Trump. Cruz has a couple of fairly well-known Idaho Republicans backing him, Treasurer Ron Crane and former state Republican Chair Norm Semanko, but if there’s wider support it isn’t yet very visible. As for Trump, I’m not sure who his highest-profile Idaho backers would be. There’s a Facebook page called “Idaho for Donald Trump 2016” with 860 likes, but hardly any local content – almost all of it is reposts of national material. And yet statistically, Trump probably has a significant number of Gem State supporters.

Who will Idaho Republicans support for president, assuming – and this is looking actually more likely than not right now – the race is still competitive by the time Idahoans get to vote on it?

I read a fascinating analysis (wish I could recall where I saw it) drawing a structural distinction between the Trump and Cruz campaigns, and implicitly the difference between those two and a “conventional mainstream” campaign (like a Bush or Rubio, assuming one of them survives to the later stages). It goes something like this:

Trump supporters are mainly individualists, drawn to the campaign person by person or family by family, and are numerous but for the most part not well organized into groups. Cruz’ people by contrast tend to be organized, some in ideologically-based organizations (like the various conservative groups that have splintered the Kootenai County Republican factions), others tied to evangelical or other churches, still others linked to other kinds of organizations – groups with strong ideological or religious drives which have not been satisfied with the national Republican Party (which Cruz calls the “cartel”). Cruz has carefully reached out to these groups around the country, and won support from many of them. Then there’s the mainstreamers, who would be those most traditionally tied to Republican party organizations and officials.

What makes the Idaho analysis so hard is this: The first two groups, which clearly exist in substantial ways in Idaho, have not in the past played a large role in selecting the state’s presidential nomination choices. This year, those individualized dissidents and the dissatisfied small groups, who in the past often seem to have taken their lead from the party organization, appear much less likely to do that, and may go their own way – which might translate to substantial votes for Trump and Cruz, as in many other states.

Right now, the Idaho Republican establishment may have reason to be as spooked as the national Republican establishment is.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Stapilus

mckeelogo1

In a stump speech full of hyperbole, mistakes and pants-on-fire lies, Donald Trump routinely blasts Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) as a complete disaster, a trainwreck, and a total failure. He lists no specifics but only generalities, claiming he will replace every bit of Obamacare with something “terrific.” But he won’t say what his replacement plan is, other than it will provide broader coverage to more people at less cost than the present law.

In his rant against the present act ignores all of the evidence that it is working as planned – bringing affordable insurance to millions, allowing people to change jobs without losing their insurance to pre-existing condition exclusions, relieving the unfortunate who have encountered catastrophic health situations from worry over caps and limits of coverage, and providing assurance to most of us who obtain coverage through their workplaces by eliminating the risk of sudden cancellations, and guaranteeing consistency, certainty, reliability and permanency.

In countless ways, the ACA has made the health insurance coverage that is presently available from private carriers financially safer, more certain, less arbitrary, and more reliable, with better claims procedures, more resources allocated to claims, and better and more consistent processes for the adjudication of disputes than ever before.

Trump also ignores that fact that the ACA is fundamentally a Republican program – hatched from research by the Heritage Foundation created for Nixon in the 1970’s, and formed after the Massachusetts plan sponsored by Mitt Romney during his term as governor there. It has worked successfully in Massachusetts ever since – a point that Romney completely tried to ignore during the 2012 campaigns, and the Republicans continue to ignore to this day.

The only specific aspect of the ACA that Trump points to as indicative of its failure is the rising costs of current coverage, in terms of higher premiums, higher deductibles and higher co-pay. However, Trump fails to recognize that costs and premiums have gone up less under the ACA than they were predicted to increase without the ACA. More important, Trump ignores the fact that the federal law has nothing to do with the premiums, deductibles or co-pays under any of the private insurance plans being offered.

Even here, Trump badly exaggerates the situation, claiming insurance premiums have skyrocketed by almost 50%. While there are a few pockets with significant increases, the overall average increase in premiums has been under 7.5% per annum – which is high, given our low inflation rate, but nowhere near the disaster Trump predicts, and less than economists predicted for insurance premiums before the ACA was enacted

Trumps’ tactics are proving to be an interesting campaign device, because all this is irrelevant if Trump should deliver on his plan – to replace Obamacare with something better. He won’t talk specifics, but the only plan out there that has ever been presented that will provide broader coverage to more people at less cost is single payer, government administered, tax financed, universal health insurance in the manner of Medicare for all – which Donald Trump advocated at one time, which is a keystone of Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and which is exactly what is presently offered by every other country in the industrialized world.

Bring it on!

Share on Facebook

McKee

The first question asked of the two Democratic presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, was one they probably haven’t heard much, and didn’t handle well. They ought to think about it and deliver a more meaningful answer later on. Doing that could serve not only themselves but both parties a useful service.

And the same ought to go to Republicans at their next debate.

That first question on Thursday night, asked by the moderators from PBS, was about a subject Republicans often discuss: How big should government be? Is it too big? If it is, what steps should be taken to reduce its size?

That’s not a top-level question for all Americans, but it long has been central for a large number, including many Republicans. The idea that government is way too big, to the point of crisis levels, has been an article of faith among many Republicans for decades; listen to any of the Republican presidential debates and you won’t wait long to hear it referenced in some manner. But there’s a disconnect here. Democrats aren’t arguing that government should be bigger; they simply don’t address the subject at all. Which leaves them open and politically vulnerable on a subject they could readily address.

How might they do so? If I were Clinton or Sanders, I might say something to the effect: Government is very big, yes, and where we can find waste or efficiencies we should eliminate unneeded spending. (Sanders did say that much, and Clinton alluded to it.) But they also could say that the central question, one Republicans dislike addressing, is: What should government do? Government should be big enough to do what we want it to do, and no larger, and no smaller, either. The debate ought to be over what government should, or should not, do.

The effect of that would be to join the argument of the two parties. Republicans would have a response to that sort of response, and that’s fine. At least then the two parties would be talking with, not past, each other. We’d be having the same conversation. – rs

Share on Facebook

First Take

trahantlogo1

Indian Country is a key voting bloc in the Democrat’s campaign to win more House seats. Sort of.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is focusing on 19 seats that the party thinks it can win from Republicans, labeled as the “Red to Blue” campaign. Three of those seats have a significant number of Native American voters.

This is good news for Democrats who are competing in these districts because it should mean there will at least be seed money from a national network of donors.

The most important seat on the Democrats’ list is Montana where Denise Juneau is challenging Rep. Ryan Zinke. Montana is an ideal state for a Democratic pickup. Montana’s demographics are changing and there will be a lot of ballot and fundraising chaos should the Republicans nominate Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. And, Native Americans already have a good turnout track record during presidential years.

Another House seat on this list is Nevada’s 4th district where former Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, Walker River Paiute, is a candidate. (He still must win a primary.) This district is almost 15 percent Native American.

DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujan, a New Mexico Democrat, told Politico that “House Democrats are on an offensive and will pick up these seats in 2016, and these effective, hardworking and diverse candidates are the foundation of our success this year.”

In a normal election cycle, a focus on two seats with Native candidates would be a good thing as part of a diversity foundation.

But this year I think Democrats could do more. A lot more. There are congressional districts that could get a huge boost from a strong Native American candidate. One of the best things that the Liberal Party did in its sweep of Canada’s election was recruit strong Aboriginal candidates. (If you want to see how powerful that was in one picture, check Adam Scotti’s official picture of Justin Trudeau asking Jody Wilson-Raybould to be the nation’s Attorney General.)

Where this DCCC list most conflicts with the principle of diversity is Arizona 1st congressional district. (Even though it’s already represented by a Democrat, the seat is still a target because it’s expected to be so close). This district is the most Native in the country — more than 22 percent and growing — and it’s time for Native representation. One. Who. Can. Win. The Democrats should be recruiting star candidates from tribal government, academia, or business. In an election cycle where outsiders are being rewarded by voters, this is a “ya’ think?” moment.

Instead Democrats have chosen Tom O’Halleran, a former Republican legislator, turned Democrat. Wonderful. That should excite folks across Indian Country.

Two other districts with Native candidates are not on the list. Probably because they are considered long shots at this point. True. But this will not be a normal election year.

Those districts are Washington’s 5th district where former Colville Chairman Joe Pakootas is running again; and Arizona’s 2nd district where Victoria Steele, a Seneca, is polling well but lacks money. Both Steele and Pakootas face primary challengers.

I would add one more seat to any target list: Alaska. Rep. Don Young is vulnerable even if that doesn’t show up in polling. And, like Arizona 1st, it’s time for an Alaska Native to represent Alaska. Democrats should be relentless in their recruiting (and that actually should be easy) and make certain that any candidate has enough money to be competitive. There are so many talented Alaska Natives who could win. (Note to Democrats: Do I need to put a list together for you? Or will you do your homework yourself?) It’s time.

The DCCC says this is only the first list. There will be more down the road. The sooner the better.

In case you are counting: There is a total of six seats where American Indian and Alaska Native voters could make a difference. When the goal is to win 30 seats, that’s not bad.

There has never been an election with more opportunity for Indian Country. Why? Because we are the ultimate outsiders. And in 2016 that’s the winning hand.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Share on Facebook

Trahant

carlsonlogo1

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appears to be on the cusp of sinking the vaunted, well-financed and well-staffed Clinton election machine. It’s a notion the vast majority of the political punditry class, and the political cognoscenti (Especially those inside the beltway) thought to be absolutely unimaginable.

One could hear it anywhere – some version of the “Democrats will never nominate one who calls himself a “progressive socialist.” Well, Bernie just may surprise.

Listening to Bernie and Hillary the differences become more clear each time they debate or share a platform: one speaks with an undeniable sincerity, the other sounds like an automaton – a flat-sounding almost plaintive voice.

It reminds one of that great scene in the classic movie 2001 where the onboard computer has tried to kill Dave, the astronaut who has gone outside the spacecraft to make a repair. The computer, named Hal, is trying to reason with Dave.

“Dave, listen to me. I suppose you are upset with me. And you have a right to be. But the mission must go on. Dave, talk to me Dave,” Hal pleads.

Just as many Democratic voters in New Hampshire, as well as across the nation, have stopped listening to Hillary Clinton’s plea to support her historic quest to be the first woman elected president, Dave does not listen. He relentlessly goes into the computer’s “brain” and turns Hal off. Hal’s credibility and trustworthiness gone – as is Hillary’s.

Bernie clearly speaks with more passion than Hillary. He has stayed on message relentlessly while Hillary has bounced between various messages. He’s following the KISS formula and it’s resonating. He is absolutely correct in pointing out that the top 1/10th of 1 percent, the wealthiest, have been and are subsidized by the middle class.

What’s worst, they brag about their status.

There are numerous stories of extraordinarily wealthy individuals boasting about paying no taxes.

Readers are invited to read New York Times tax writer’s David Cay Johnston’s fine books which document in painful detail the many ways the average American subsidizes the wealthy. Read Perfectly Legal or No Free Lunch or Read the Fine Print. If you’ve got a pulse, you’re spitting mad.

When Bernie makes it clear he has no SuperPAC, nor received any money from Wall Street, like the $17.2 million Hillary has received, more and more voters know what he is saying.

The great irony is that the oldest person in the race has so galvanized the nation’s under 45 years of age crowd, and especially those in college, that his plausibility of winning the nomination and the November election grows with each passing day.

National polls have him almost dead even with Hillary, within the margin of error. His campaign team thinks Bernie did actually win the total vote count in Iowa and also point to six Iowa precincts which supposedly were dead even where Hillary won the coin flip each time.

Conventional wisdom is that Bernie will clobber Hillary in New Hampshire, so watch for the spinmeisters and biased media to play down a Sanders victory. Candidly, many media scribes engage in the “expectation” game and then breathlessly proclaim how their pre-vote speculation did indeed happen. Of course there’s no one engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy.

Conventional wisdom says that South Carolina is Hillary’s firewall that will offset the midships blow she took in Iowa and the possibly 2:1 loss in New Hampshire. Much is made of the commanding lead she has among African-American voters there.

Bernie, however, is countering with the endorsement of one of the most influential NAACP leaders in modern times—Ben Jealous. Bernie has another gambit in his favor the media is ignoring—-there are many white Democratic voters who are strong supporters of gun rights.

Bernie voted against the Brady Bill five times and he’s never been a big anti-gun senator in part because there are several major job employing gun manufacturers in his state. Like rural states and rural areas across the nation, there are many gun owners. Thus, Bernie is not anathma to the National Rifle Association though his rating is now an “F” because the NRA perceives a major shift to the left and support for more gun controls. If Bernie pulls off the upset, however, and beats Hillary in South Carolina his momentum may be unstoppable.

As Bernie’s national surge continues look for Hillary to attack more and harder. If she gets too nasty, look for Bernie to play the Walmart card.

It could unfold as follows: “Madame Secretary, you say you will be a fighter for the average working person. However, you served on the Walmart board for six years, from 1986 to 1992.

“During that time did you ever fight for an increase in the minimum wage? The answer is no, isn’t it? Did you ever argue for equal pay for equal work? The answer is no, isn’t it? Did you ever argue for health benefits to be extended to the thousands of part-time Walmart workers? The answer is no, isn’t it? Did you ever in the confines of the board room argue for the right of Walmart employees to form a union? The answer is no, isn’t it?

“You tell folks to look at your record. Well I have, Mrs. Clinton, and the record belies your claims.”

Game, set, match. It’s all over.

Share on Facebook

Carlson