By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 0 Comments
So, as it turned out, neither Ohio nor Florida really meant anything special last night. Their votes were only as important as anyone else’s, and that’s what we shouldn’t forget. Even though everyone was watching a dwindling number of “battlegrounds” last night, millions of Americans in places that didn’t matter still cast ballots. We might have assumed—rightly, it turns out—that we knew how they would collectively vote. But, just because we can, let’s spend a few minutes paying attention to their part of the world. Here’s what newspapers in places that didn’t matter last night were saying this morning. All front pages are courtesy the Newseum.
|Capital Journal — Pierre, South Dakota
What [the Founding Fathers] did understand very well was that they could set up a government based on unalienable rights that continually draws us back to our roots, in that radical sense. And the truly radical thing about America is that we can adjust; if we realize we have misunderstood freedom, we can extend the full rights of citizens to those we once left out. We trust you exercised your right to vote on Tuesday. America is still in need of such radicals, who continually go back to the root of things to protect what is good and to change what needs changing.
|The Chicago Sun-Times — Chicago, Illinois
If your man gets re-elected, we recently asked a top aide to President Barack Obama, how will he accomplish anything in the face of continued unyielding opposition from House Republicans?They’ll come around, the aide said, if only to save their own skins. Having failed in their most cherished goal, to make Obama a one-term president, they will warm to the art of compromise, fearing the wrath of the voters in 2014 if gridlock continues. They will discover their inner statesman.
As they say in church, let us pray.
|The Times-Picayune — New Orleans, Louisiana
To its credit, Louisiana’s delegation has worked across party lines to get funding for levees and restoration work. They have had some success — despite the recalcitrance of this Congress. For the good of the nation, that sort of cooperation needs to spread. President Obama must lead the way.
|Albany Times-Union — Albany, New York
Voters favored Mr. Obama’s more sober, responsible message that government can, as we’ve all seen, play a role in recovery, that people who can afford to pay more should do so for the good of the country, and that Social Security and Medicare are vital programs that should not be radically tinkered with. They agreed that we can end foreign conflicts and turn to nation building at home.So four more years it is. But please, not a rerun of the last four.
We hardly expect Republicans and Democrats to embrace each other in a post-election group hug. But we do expect them to do what Americans for generations have taught their children to do when a competition is finished: shake hands, get over it, and move on.
|Billings Gazette — Billings, Montana
The key word for businesses as well as individual taxpayers is “certainty”. This nation needs certainty. It needs leadership. The president is key, but he cannot get this job done alone. At least 60 senators and a majority of representatives must come together with a plan that averts the fiscal cliff and provides certainty to Americans and the world.
|Star Tribune — Minneapolis, Minnesota
Gone are 2008′s unrealistic hopes that Obama would usher in an era of bipartisan good feeling. What remained was voters’ sense that he sides with average Americans and is willing to employ the muscle of the federal government to improve their lives.The components of his victory included the slowly but steadily improving economy; his success in reviving the U.S. auto industry, especially in Ohio, and Hurricane Sandy’s harsh reminder that there are times when Americans need a robust federal government.
But while the wishful thinking of 2008 has evaporated, a realpolitik reality remains: Obama’s success — and the nation’s — in a second term will depends in large part on his ability to forge a bipartisan governing consensus.
|Idaho Statesman — Boise, Idaho
If there’s one point of consensus, one place where we can agree, it’s this: By Tuesday, this election season had gone on long enough.Perhaps there a few dissenters and holdouts — perhaps the same sort of people who yearn for a longer appointment at the dentist or a longer line at the grocery store. For most of us, though, the 2012 election will be not soon forgotten, but not much missed.
It was a long, cantankerous ride of an election. Costly and caustic, its tenor reflecting the tension of the times.
And reflecting our divisions.
|The Star-Ledger — Newark, New Jersey
At the start of his second term, Obama will face another round of daunting challenges, beginning with the urgent need for a deal on the national debt.Without an agreement, huge spending cuts and tax increases will take effect on Jan. 1, as agreed to during last year’s crisis over the debt ceiling. That would slam the brakes on this weak recovery, sending the nation back into recession.
The core political reality he faces is that no deal is possible without bipartisan agreement. And that has been hard to come by, given the intransigence of House Republicans the past two years.
|St. Louis Post-Dispatch — St. Louis, Missouri
[Missouri] voters sent a message loud and clear on Tuesday: They are happy in the middle.The two Democrats on the top of Missouri’s ticket, Mr. Nixon and U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, won by convincing margins even as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney easily won the state over President Barack Obama.
The Missouri that had been a national bellwether showed itself in its statewide election results, the presidential race aside. Moderation won over extremism. Messages that brought people together prevailed over those that divided.
|The Dallas Morning News — Dallas, Texas
Barack Obama blew past Mitt Romney last night in a presidential contest that shows Americans still prefer Democrats to handle social and economic issues. After surging in October, Romney lost in a blow to the GOP, which has more rethinking to do after losing a second straight presidential race.Still, the big story was Obama’s re-election victory, which looked easier than predicted from late polling with so many swing-state triumphs. Americans have given their young commander-in-chief the honor of leading them again, making him the third consecutive president to win a second term.
Second terms are often treacherous, something George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even Ronald Reagan learned. But no American, including those who supported Romney, can afford to see Obama fail. Our nation’s economic challenges are too great for partisan animosity to intervene more than they have already.
|San Francisco Chronicle — San Francisco, California
Voters again have put their faith in Obama to take on the challenges of our times, albeit with a tempered expectation of what might be possible. There were many good reasons to believe that he, more than Romney, has the leadership skills and priorities that are needed at this critical time. His first term accomplishments were achieved despite a determined effort by Republicans to stymie him at every turn.The onus is on Obama, as the freshly re-elected president, to take the lead in overcoming this polarization that seems to have turned almost everything into a partisan fight in Washington.
|The Arizona Republic — Phoenix, Arizona
At times it seemed the president was running against multiple opponents. He had highly partisan fights with Republican leaders in the House over the deficit, health-care reform, job creation and taxes.And, of course, Obama became the savior of Sesame Street, securing the airwaves for Big Bird.
The weak economic recovery, especially, seemed to continually drag on his re-election chances. Yet Obama successfully identified core constituencies that turned out in amazing numbers on Tuesday, while at the same time stigmatizing Romney as a rich elitist. Strategically, the president won out.
By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 7:54 AM - 0 Comments
You can bet that hundreds of newspapers across the United States knew that they’d all have the same headline above the fold this morning. Page designers everywhere did their best to stand out. Click on the red dots below to see what 50 newspapers in all 50 states had to say about last night’s election. All images came from the Newseum, an invaluable resource.
You can also click on the states themselves for a reminder of which nominee won, and by how much. Blue means Obama. Red means Romney. States with lighter shading were the infamous “battleground” states we heard so much about over the past weeks and months. As of 7:53 a.m., Florida was still too close to call. We’ll update it as soon as possible.
By macleans.ca - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 2:44 AM - 0 Comments
Transcript of the U.S. president’s victory speech
What follows is a transcript of U.S. President Barack Obama’s victory speech on Tuesday night in Chicago:
Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward.
It moves forward because of you. It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family, and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.
Tonight, in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come.
By The Canadian Press - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 2:23 AM - 0 Comments
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama avoided a pink slip Tuesday, marching to victory against his Republican challenger despite a slow-as-molasses economic recovery and a bitterly contested election that had the U.S. president’s supporters fearful he was doomed to the indignity of a single term.
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama avoided a pink slip Tuesday, marching to victory against his Republican challenger despite a slow-as-molasses economic recovery and a bitterly contested election that had the U.S. president’s supporters fearful he was doomed to the indignity of a single term.
Obama was declared the winner after several gut-wrenching hours that saw the president and his White House rival, Mitt Romney, spend election night much as they did their bruising, $2.6 billion campaign — in a tense nail-biter.
By macleans.ca - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 1:28 AM - 0 Comments
Transcript of the Republican nominee’s concession speech
Here’s what Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Tuesday night as he conceded defeat:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have just called President Obama to congratulate him on his victory. His supporters and his campaign also deserve congratulations.
His supporters and his campaign also deserve congratulations. I wish all of them well, but particularly the president, the first lady and their daughters.
This is a time of great challenges for America, and I pray that the president will be successful in guiding our nation.
By Lejla Sarcevic - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 10:12 PM - 0 Comments
If the Democrats win the state, it will be the result of community organization run on a state-side scale
In the increasingly narrow battlefield of American national politics, where voters in solidly red or blue states may never see a presidential contender, North Carolina is one of the swing-state prizes of the 2012 election.
Political gamesmanship has been rife: a couple of weeks ago it was widely reported that the Romney campaign had pulled staffers out of North Carolina, in order to redirect them to other swing states—most likely, Ohio. That turned out to mean approximately one campaign staffer. Next, Democratic strategist Paul Begala said quietly—except nothing is quiet in the age of YouTube, Twitter and Buzzfeed—that Obama HQ had conceded North Carolina. Pundits and pollsters were colouring the state pink. Relax, pack your bags everyone, there’s nothing more to see here, it’s time to head to Ohio.
Meanwhile, the Democrats were staffing 54 field offices and the Republicans 23, in an effort to capture 15 crucial electoral votes in a state Obama won by a mere 14,000 votes in 2008.
By Jaime Weinman - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 5:11 PM - 0 Comments
The interesting thing about this U.S. election’s impact on U.S. television is the fact that its had any impact at all. Remember all the references TV made to the election of 2004? No? That’s because there were hardly any. Even though it was a close, hard-fought election in a deeply divided country–just like this one–TV mostly stayed away from it. It was a very timid time for TV: networks were panicked by 9/11, by the FCC, by the shrinking audience (it’s still shrinking now, but they’re used to it).
And so open political references were almost taboo unless they were done obliquely, like Arrested Development‘s parallels between the Bluth and Bush families. The Simpsons famously never had a caricature of George W. Bush on the show, let alone John Kerry. South Park‘s election episode in 2004 portrayed the election allegorically as “a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich,” making the episode a perfect capsule of how mindless Trey Parker’s centrism was at the time.
Since then, there’s been something of a thaw in television, and while it’s hardly become daring or anything, there are a lot more direct references to this election than eight or even four years ago. At least three half-hour comedies have done episodes where characters argue over the election, and mention the candidates by name. The New Normal was the first, then came 30 Rock. Then came Tim Allen’s Last Man Standing, a show that I thought was developing into a pretty good innocuous family sitcom; Allen apparently didn’t think so, though, because the show is back this year retooled (at his behest) into an All in the Family imitator, and the season premiere was about Allen arguing with his daughters over the election, and he thinks Obama is from Kenya, and makes “community organizer” jokes, and the whole episode sounded like a couple of politically-opposed Twitter feeds mashed together into a script.
Well, most political arguments on scripted TV (or unscripted, for that matter) sound like Twitter feeds, since there’s no room for nuance or developed arguments, even assuming the writers have any on hand. Usually what happens is one character says something that’s a grotesque caricature of the Republican or Democratic position, and the other character either a) responds with an equally grotesque caricature of a reply, or b) is completely stopped in his tracks by the incredible all-consuming logic of an argument any real person could rebut in five seconds. This is why 30 Rock was the best of these three episodes: apart from having the funniest writers, it was intentionally silly and caricatured, and made the political arguments more about the characters’ personal issues.
But even if those other two shows were trying to be All in the Family and failing, the fact that they even tried is a sign that television has emerged a little bit from the defensive crouch of the ’00s. Of course there are other reasons why shows might choose not to deal with topical issues like elections, most obviously the fact that an election episode dates the show for all time. (However, I think producers are naive to believe that avoiding topical references will help them be “timeless” in syndication. I watched shows in the ’80s that mentioned the election without ever mentioning the candidates’ names, but they still had the hair, the clothes, and the brick cellphones, and nothing was going to keep them from becoming dated.) And, as noted, these issues are usually beyond what the show is capable of dealing with anyway. But all in all, it’s probably better to see shows deal with issues rather than avoid them, so I think I’m glad we live in an era when the words “Obama” and “Romney” are not among the seven words you can’t say on TV.
By Aaron Hutchins - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 12:12 PM - 0 Comments
Aaron Hutchins finds little patience for voters who can’t make up their minds
By Jaime Weinman - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 12:08 PM - 0 Comments
Union-bashing can win you votes, but only for certain unions
Most of the polls have been showing Obama with a lead in Ohio, the state that always seems to decide the U.S. presidential election, while the votes of New York or Texas are completely irrelevant. (God bless the electoral college.) The Romney campaign is naturally arguing that the polls are over-emphasizing Democratic turnout and that they will be able to turn out enough Republican voters to pull out a victory. But if Romney does wind up losing Ohio, it’ll be in large part because of his opposition to Obama’s bailout of the auto industry, which may have depressed his natural advantage among white working-class voters in Ohio.
If the state does wind up hinging on that, then it demonstrates something interesting about how to get ahead in elections: union-bashing can win you votes, but only for certain types of unions. Romney’s opposition to the bailout, like much conservative Republican opposition, was based on the notion that Obama had structured this bailout as a giveaway to the autoworker’s unions. If it had gone down differently, the auto companies might have restructured themselves with fewer commitments to unions, or even come back as non-union companies. As National Review puts it in an endorsement of Romney (which has surprisingly little that’s positive to say about Romney except that he’s not Obama), the auto companies would have been better off without the bailout because they “would have been freer from unaffordable commitments to unions.”
Distrust of unions is a pillar of classic, old-school, business-class Republicanism, so there’s nothing shocking or wrong about this. Back when unions were much more powerful in the U.S., Republicans sometimes had to be more union-friendly to win a majority; Richard Nixon appealed to union leaders and union members who were alienated by the McGovern Democrats’ stands on war and social issues (and what they saw as liberals’ contempt for hard-hat union types). But unions don’t have that kind of power these days, and in the South – the most reliably Republican area – they possess almost no power at all. So both on politics and on principle, it’s usually a sound idea for Republicans to take on unions.
If it turns out to have harmed Republicans this time, it might be because certain types of unions are still more popular than unions overall. And a lot more popular than public sector unions, which have become a very ripe and tempting target. Over in Wisconsin, Republican governor Scott Walker made it one of his main policy goals to remove collective bargaining rights for most public sector unions, and it worked: he easily won a recall election. Other governors, like Chris Christie, have made a lot of hay taking on teachers’ unions. Teachers’ unions are so unpopular that there was a whole Maggie Gyllenhaal/Viola Davis movie about how horrible teachers’ unions are. Whatever the merits of the attack, you just can’t lose politically by taking them on.
But it seems like it’s harder to get the same kind of traction when you call for lessened commitments to old-school private-sector unions, particularly the blue-collar kind. Romney and other Republicans were never able to make the United Auto Workers into a villain in the auto bailout story. Even though union power probably isn’t coming back, particularly in America, there’s still a certain affection for the old-style unions that made it possible for people to work a steady job and retire comfortably – the kind of thing that is more or less being relegated to the past, partly by choice, partly by changes. If Romney loses, it might be because he didn’t get the difference between taking on public-sector unions and taking on the unions that people still kind of like.
By Aaron Hutchins - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 5:55 AM - 0 Comments
Seems no matter the outcome of the U.S. election, people have plans to move
By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, October 15, 2012 at 5:00 AM - 0 Comments
Political junkies look to Brooklyn-based blogger who correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2008 election
When a string of new polls came out this week showing Mitt Romney making major gains on the heels of his aggressive debate performance against a subdued President Barack Obama, there was a sense of panic among the President’s supporters. “Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever?” fretted commentator Andrew Sullivan. “On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion.
Democrats mourned and Republicans gloated, but one voice stayed calm amidst the furor.
Nate Silver, a 34-year-old Brooklyn-based statistician and blogger who correctly predicted the results of 49 out of 50 states and every Senate race in the 2008 election, tried to cool emotions on Monday. “According to Twitter, Barack Obama went from a huge favorite at 1 p.m. to a huge underdog at 4 p.m.,” Silver tweeted. “Get a grip, people.”
Silver’s blog, FiveThirtyEight.com (named for the number of electors in the U.S. Electoral College system that technically elects presidents), was licensed by the New York Times after his 2008 success. In a post on Sunday, he counselled caution in over-interpreting the latest polls: “Polling data is often very noisy, and not all polls use equally rigorous methodology. But the polls, as a whole, remain consistent with the idea that they may end up settling where they were before the conventions, with Mr. Obama ahead by about two points. Such an outcome would be in line with what history and the fundamentals of the economy would lead you to expect.”
By John Parisella - Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM - 0 Comments
It’s up to Biden to regain the advantage for the Democratic duo
Normally, the vice presidential debate is a secondary news event. After all, voters choose the top of the ticket on election day. Vice presidential nominees are mostly meant to balance the duo.
The only memorable vice presidential debate moment in recent memory occurred in 1988, when Democratic nominee Sen. Lloyd Bentsen delivered a masterful retort to Republican challenger Sen. Dan Quayle who had tried to equate his comparative young age of 42 with John F. Kennedy’s quest for the presidency at a similar age. Said Bentsen to Quayle: “I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Still, the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket lost the contest to the Bush-Quayle duo. So much for vice presidential debates and their impact on the election’s outcome.
This debate may be different, though. It is already creating more hype than usual in light of President Obama’s (under) performance on Oct. 3. Polls clearly indicate Americans think Romney won the first debate and that Obama’s advantage is narrowing . Some even have Romney in the lead.
By John Parisella - Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM - 0 Comments
Almost but not quite, argues John Parisella
A very difficult 10 days in the Romney campaign has brought forward criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. Nothing to fret about on the former, but when the harsh words come from the latter, it hurts big time. The attacks came from respected Republican columnists like the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan, who called the campaign “a rolling calamity,” and the New York Times’ David Brooks, who referred to Mitt Romney as Thurston Howell Romney, the prototype of a rich snob.
Clearly, Romney’s recent reference to the 47 per cent of the electorate “who don’t pay taxes and would never vote for me,” along with his mediocre performance around the attacks tied to the film “Innocence of Muslims,” made both the candidate and his campaign look dangerously incompetent. The “week from hell” ended with Romney divulging his 2010 tax returns, which only raised more questions and drew additional criticism from the right about the timing of the release.
All of this has given late night humorists a field-day of stand-up material. And though national polls still show a tight race, local ones indicate there’s a growing lead by Obama over Romney in swing states. With less than six weeks to go in the campaign, what we are witnessing is GOP grumblings threatening to blow an election Romney should have been able to win.
By Scott Feschuk - Friday, September 7, 2012 at 7:55 AM - 0 Comments
Accepting the I Killed Osama bin Laden Lifetime Achievement Award (and also, apparently, his party’s nomination for the U.S. presidency), Barack Obama delivered a speech that was… fine. It was good. I liked the ending, even if the whole “You did this, you were the change” felt a bit disingenuous and hyper-crafted to counter Republican attacks, disingenuous themselves, on Obama’s alleged claim to American entrepreneurs that, “You didn’t build this.”
That last sentence of mine was probably too long and a little confusing. Sorry about that.
Anyway, Obama’s speech will likely be the least remembered of the four major addresses to the Democratic National Convention. Bill Clinton’s was better. Michelle Obama’s was more striking and personal. And Joe Biden’s speech will be in the news for weeks to come as the world struggles to cope with the sudden shortage of Continue…
By Emma Teitel - Friday, September 7, 2012 at 6:09 AM - 0 Comments
Bill Clinton is a tough act to follow. Not only because he can talk policy without putting people to sleep, but because he’s the only Democrat with a sense of irony.
Just once, I wanted to hear someone at the convention last night get up and ditch the my-mama-was-a-one-legged-steel-worker routine. How great would it be had Wisconsin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin or Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, or token hot person Eva Longoria, greeted the crowd with a proud, “Hello my fellow Americans. My grandfather was a tax attorney,” or “Good evening friends. I come from a long line of Boca Raton oncologists.”
By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, September 7, 2012 at 4:27 AM - 0 Comments
President Barack Obama’s speech to the Democratic convention in Charlotte was not as emotionally captivating as Bill Clinton’s, nor as stirring as the speech Obama himself delivered at the 2008 convention in Denver, but it could prove to be an important manifesto for Democrats.
Yes, large tracts of his speech were bread-and-butter appeals to the middle class on such pocketbook issues as income-tax deductions for mortgage interest payments or student loans. And there was a laundry list of transactional appeals to every demographic sub-group of the Democratic coalition: Hispanics, women, young people, gays and lesbians, and unions.
By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, September 7, 2012 at 2:27 AM - 0 Comments
During the 2008 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton hammering candidate Barack Obama with a biting “3 a.m. phone call” TV ad suggesting the foreign policy novice couldn’t be trusted to keep the country safe. And after he beat Clinton, Obama once again had to overcome public reservations about his his inexperience on national security as he ran against the war hero, Republican candidate John McCain.
How the tables have turned.
By Scott Feschuk - Thursday, September 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM - 0 Comments
When I was a boy, my Dad took me to a Buffalo Sabres game and let me bring along a friend, Trevor, who at the time was passionate about two things in life: hockey and talking. The kid never shut up. He was fun and kind and smart but he stopped talking, at most, a few times an hour. It was like being friends with an eight-track tape.
The opponent on the ice at Memorial Auditorium that night was the Edmonton Oilers. Trevor was psyched. You could tell he was psyched because he said, “I’m so psyched!” about 10,000 times. He was going to see Wayne Gretzky! He couldn’t stop talking about it. He even talked through the national anthems.
When Gretzky climbed over the boards for his first shift, I experienced the strangest sensation. I couldn’t quite place it at first but then, suddenly, I realized: silence. Trevor had stopped talking. His eyes were on Gretzky. His lips were still. He was caught up in watching a master at work.
I thought back to that night as I closed my laptop around 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Bill Clinton was ambling – I believe that was an amble; it may have been a mosey – to the podium at the Democratic National Convention. It was time to shut my (electronic) mouth, time to turn away from Twitter. It was time to watch a Continue…
By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 10:19 PM - 0 Comments
I caught up with MP Gord Brown (Leeds-Grenville) and Treasury Board President Tony Clement (Parry Sound-Muskoka) watching speeches at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Brown has been at the DNC since Monday, Clement arrived Tuesday. They were both in Tampa last week.
What follows is a condensed transcript of our conversation.
By Scott Feschuk - Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:34 AM - 0 Comments
A running diary of the first day of the Democratic National Convention, being held in Charlotte, N.C.
5:03 p.m. ET We’re 30 seconds in and there hasn’t been a single joke yet about an empty chair or an invisible president. DO YOU GUYS WANT TO WIN THIS ELECTION OR WHAT?
5:07 Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, invites American voters to follow every single minute of the convention on their phones using the party’s mobile app. No one does this.
5:11 Wasserman Schultz goes on to promise that the next three days will be “the most open political convention in history.” So when Joe Biden takes the stage Thursday night in a bathrobe, holding a vodka cooler and a bowl of keys, you can look back on this remark and Continue…