Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Gitmo argument is just what the doctor ordered
The Gitmo argument is just what we needed, and not because it hands the GOP a "wedge issue." For my money, the speech-exchange debate between Barack Obama and Dick Cheney in the last week has been outstanding, and exactly the sort of substantive, challenging, and important argument we need out of our national leaders regardless of the side that you are on. Whatever the partisans and the sound-biters might say about it, I think it was a great and all-too-rare moment in our recent national "conversation." We need more of it, not less, and if Cheney vs. Obama is the vehicle for it, so be it. Clearly the dynamic is better for all of us than "everybody against Bush," the sad pattern of the last few years.
29 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun May 24, 10:24:00 AM:
I agree.
I read it summarized like this.
The Obama administration release the part of the report which hurts us and helps the terrorists, and won't release the part that hurts the terrorists and helps us.
By 
SR, at
Sun May 24, 10:48:00 AM:
I say get Dick Cheney a heart transplant, and then let him go full out against Obama. Heck, he could make a trade. He already has enough stones to fortify the entire Republican party.
By , at
Sun May 24, 10:50:00 AM:
Republicans need to find a substantive way to engage the Democrats Those Republicans who in the future want to run for public office also have to find their voice in this or other arguments to come, Romney especially. He's been silent.
By , at
Sun May 24, 11:11:00 AM:
I disagree. Gitmo is feeding a fight among the Democrats, which Obama is handling so badly it's making Cheney look good. Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney is the face of everything that turns off 70% of the populace to the Republicans.
If we don't have a real terrorist attack in the next four years, Obama will say it's because he hit the big reset button. Will you give him the same credit you give Bush-Cheney today?
Link, over
By JPMcT, at
Sun May 24, 11:21:00 AM:
"If we don't have a real terrorist attack in the next four years...Will you give him the same credit you give Bush-Cheney today?"
Well, Anon, at the rate Obama is going...in another four years radical Islam won't have to attack us to achieve their goal of destrying "The Great Satan". Obama and the Democrat Congress will have done it for them.
....and, YES...I hope history gives them credit for it...if they aren't actually writing the history themselves at that point.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sun May 24, 11:44:00 AM:
Dick Cheney--a statesman? Henry Clay is rolling in his grave lol.
About these "detainees" and this so-called issue, I offer this quote: "[t]hey are no more dangerous and indeed less so on some levels, than incarcerated La Eme & MS-13 leaders, any number of Hannibal Lechter wannabees, Gangsta D/Crips/Bloods what the hell ever warlords, junior gangbangers who happened to knock over a bank and killed some people, redneck meth cookers and dealers, kingpin dopers, child kidnappers, Aryan nation chiefs, McVeigh types and other wingnut 'race war' criminals, the Unibomber and of course the remnants of the Cosa Nostra. Put them in solitary like Gotti was. Ramzi Usef, the '93 World Trade Center mastermind, molders in a fed supermax. The world didn't collapse for that. Israel's still safe despite it. Etc. Etc. On and on. Jeez. So why are we debating this, and why is Barack not saying this in plain English, over the muddle of Reid, and the shrieking, slight of hand propaganda of the rightwing? Well, yet again, he's too nice a guy, and presupposes that the majority of Americans can dicern chickenshit from chicken salad."
Next?
By , at
Sun May 24, 11:54:00 AM:
CC,
Obama--a stateman? Henry Clay must be rolling in his grave, lol. What, you don't like it when some-one insults your man? Really, puerile insults should be beneath you
You want to offer an attribution for your quote? Seeing it as a law enforcement issue is, frankly, wrongheaded. Law enforcement is local, where rules of evidence apply. Oddly enough, the US military, despite your wishes, are not trained in evidence gathering. The evidence against the Gitmo terrorists, while very real, does not stand up to the rules of evidence. By your standards, we would be compelled to let them all go. Perhaps a little shortsighted. I would urge you to think the issue through, rather than taking a quote at face value.
Tom
By , at
Sun May 24, 11:59:00 AM:
I agree with TH this was an excellent airing of the issues. I'm not sure that is what Obama was aiming for.
Also agree with Anon 10:50. Republicans need to man up, those who can. Palin shows signs her heart still beats.
At the end of the day, an excellent presentation by Cheney (and his daughter). It is insane how so many people have bought the canard that he is a thoughtless, heartless, evil man. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A tip of the hat to him. We can always use a few more with his courage and deep love of his country.
M.E.
By , at
Sun May 24, 11:59:00 AM:
To JPMcT
As I posted elsewhere here today, I have more hope in Democratic internecine warfare stopping Obama than I do in the Republicans.
To Chris Chambers
Obama committed to closing Gitmo to make himself look good ... over the objections of many in his own party who understood the complications. Not content with that, Obama made a huge issue over waterboarding -- just to grandstand. It backfired. Obama's arrogance will be his downfall -- he's his own worst enemy.
Link, over
By , at
Sun May 24, 12:47:00 PM:
I am new to this blog and it is very professionlly done.
However, what I don't understand is why we are exaulting about "wedge" issues or trying to build VP Cheney up to be a symbol of either heroism or villiany? Shouldn't we be making progress on finding solutions creatively? There seems to be almost a glee or gloating over creating wedges, and attacking Obama. We shouldn't forget that this was the strategy which likely lost us the White House in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if John McCain acknowledges so.
It's pretty clear that recruiting jihadists had been made easier by the presence of Guantanamo. We should address that sanely.
I have seen clips of even VP Cheney's daughter saying her father is going too far and hinting at fear mongering or defense of being prosecuted. Again this indicates this whole thing has gone too far. We should stop the attacks and come up with alternatives, and the Obama people should come up with realistic solutions. Perhaps I am old-fashioned but whether I like it or not he his now my President and I will not condone tearing the country apart because some of my friends & neighbors feel the need. This is true especially when there are so many basic life questions left to tackle (a few of which Republican Adminsitrations have exacerbated in my opinion). Housing, the budget, banking, transportation infrastructure, conservation of resources, technology and research issues.
By the way I am against mixing detainees with the "garden variety sociopaths" and gangsters in federal prisons because detainees might "evangelize" individuals who feel have nothing to loose. Nevertheless, conceptually at least there's some validity to the point that many of the detainees are no more dangerous than such cretins we currently house.
Thank you.
By VinceD, at
Sun May 24, 01:27:00 PM:
While we may be exaulting about "wedge" issues or trying to build VP Cheney up to be a symbol of either heroism or villiany, the point of this blog is that this is the type of public discourse that needs to be out there..
ON the "debate" itself, I think that Cheney came out looking more Presidential than Obama. Obama seemed to be on the defensive, justifying his actions and morals.
Cheney on the other hand spoke straightforward about protecting the country being the highest priority. Who cares what other countries think.
I will say though, that there's NO reason for terrorists to be jailed on the soil that i pay taxes for.
By SR, at
Sun May 24, 01:35:00 PM:
The point Expat Scot is that it is the President who is tearing the country apart no matter how touchy feeley he speaks. Obama and his cadre care only about the power they maintain to control how America and Americans behave. It is really not his job according to the Constitution, but rather it is his job to defend America while making sure Americans behave lawfully.
By , at
Sun May 24, 02:05:00 PM:
No one gives a damn about Gitmo, and more people care about or are "debating" Kris Allen winning American Idol. Count me in.
By , at
Sun May 24, 02:51:00 PM:
Mr. SR:
Perhaps I am missing that point, then, for I have not seen much in the way of discussions over alternatives, and more in the way of ad hominem attacks, and self-serving commentary on the President's and VP Cheney's differing speeches, depending on one's "side." I repeat that this is not only counterproductive but dangerous. I have long been a supporter of Senator McCain since I became an American citizen, and did so even when he was facing President (then Govenor) Bush in previous primary elections. I admired him for his thoughtfulness and was frightened that extremists in the party were cloaking him in 2008. I fear this now, and was dismayed at the treatment of General-Sectretary of State Powell recently. I had the pleasure of meeting him many times, and I believe his own respect and connection with the President is profound and sincere. I may not agree, but I respect such connections. I wish there would be such respect for connections here. The commentators on this blog simply do not exhibit the stances which are productive solutions for America.
I would like some feedback on this aspect, however. Although I continue to believe detainees should not be mixed with current federal prison populations, I do not think moving them from Guantanamo, which is not American soil presents a non-starter. I recall a story my father noted to me about German POWs--mostly downed Luftwaffe and captured navy personnel--kept on his home island without incident, and they endeared themselves to local farmers supplying the spot with produce. Only a few where what he reckoned to be "hardcore" Nazis or otherwise fanatical. I'm sure some Jews would disagree, but that seemed to be the verdict of population, and two or three of these fellows actually resettled there after the war rather than live in the Soviet zone. In America, mob mentality fostered concentration camps for Japanese American citizens. There was certainly no killing and starvation or disease, but a barbed wire compound and guards is still a means of brutality, racism and control. Still, nothing happened. This is all to say that nothing new is being proposed by locking these people up here. There are already terrorists behing bars in prisons. My quarrel is with the wholesale shipment and concentration of these people, see?
Finally, I am puzzled by the view of commentators of the President as "arrogant." He is a young man, confident, well spoken. I would say there are debatable policy questions and issues, but I do not understand "arrogance" as a primary bone of contention. By way of disclosure, my middle daughter currently dates an African American man who is a police officer in our township. He has spoken about this notion of confident, challenging blacks being perceived as "arrogant" much in the same way young women like my daughters are rebuked for assertiveness whilst males are congratulated.
I have always endeavoured to find all of the context on an issue. I am thankful to have access to individuals with different backgrounds and creeds--as with my daughter's friend! Likewise, I appreciate the views on this blog, and even most of the commentary. My point, therefore, is that we should all seek feedback and discourse with people whose views and backgrounds differ.
Thank you again.
By , at
Sun May 24, 03:47:00 PM:
I'm probably in the minority of people who post here who supported McCain in 2000, and again in 2008. McCain is one of our few patriots in Congress ... to me defined as someone who puts our collective interest before party or personal interest, and has the balls to take positions when they matter. I actually consider Dennis Kucinich to be one as well, though I'd expect I'd rarely agree with him. Compare the weasely Joe Biden -- a cheerleader for the Iraq invasion in 2002, who now swears he was against it all along.
I didn't think the 2000 election would matter much, but it did. I absolutely believe that we have done much better with eight years of McCain than eight years of Bush-Cheney. I'm convinced that Bush, Cheney and Rumseld led us into Iraq to further their own personal agendas -- I find it especially galling that these chicken hawks wrapped themselves in the flag to do so. But the real tragedy of Iraq was that it made Bush a weak President domestically. He had to buy the 2004 election, and so became fiscally profligate. It led to the corruption of the Republican party ... they're just more pigs at the trough.
Most of the posters here don't agree with what I just wrote -- I get shouted down here a lot. It doesn't matter what I think especially -- except that most Americans would agree with me on the following: that Bush-Cheney were awful ... so bad that they've ruined the Republican party brand name and led the Republicans into the political wilderness. I look at the posters here as a proxy for the Republican party -- they still relish a debate over whether waterboarding is torture and still want to believe Cheney is a wise old man.
Worse still, Bush-Cheney created a once in a century political dynamic that led to the election of Obama. When I call Obama "arrogant" it has no racial connotation. We've elected a guy who truly believes that he can "command and control" us into radical change ... but his ideas don't stand the test of reason. He's either deluded or worse. It will end badly.
Our real underlying problem is that neither of our two parties are truly representative anymore -- they're just intent on increasing the power of DC at the expense of the rest of us, and paying off narrow interests to stay in power. We're like California, writ large ... you can be rich and still go broke.
Link, over
By Kinuachdrach, at
Sun May 24, 04:36:00 PM:
"Worse still, Bush-Cheney created a once in a century political dynamic that led to the election of Obama."
That is simply wrong. What lead to the election of Obama was several generations of dumbed-down education and partisan control of the media -- resulting in about 1/3 of US citizens voting for a handsome man with a nice speaking voice, and a lot of unexamined baggage.
Obama is the symptom, not the problem.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun May 24, 04:44:00 PM:
To Expat Scot:
1. You said, "The commentators on this blog simply do not exhibit the stances which are productive solutions for America."
Now that's arrogance. As you remarked earlier, you are new to this blog. I would encourage you read all of this year's posts and some of the reactions from the regular commenters before you attack.
Some of the posts and comments on this blog will explain the differences between Gitmo prisoners and German POWs. This is a highly complex legal issue. You obviously haven't studied it in depth. Don't expect us to do your homework for you.
By the way, we would be happy to send the Gitmo prisoners to Scotland.
2. Many of the people here are successful business executives with international experience. Some of us manage professional African-Americans as well as other employees from around the world. We do deals with Arab, Kenyan, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Nigerian and other business people. We didn't just fall off a turnip truck in your township. We don't need a local lawman to define "arrogance" for us.
--
To Link:
Re: "I get shouted down here a lot"
Bull. You and I agree more often than not, so I watch carefully.
By Escort81, at
Sun May 24, 06:28:00 PM:
DEC -
As you remarked earlier, you are new to this blog. I would encourage you read all of this year's posts and some of the reactions from the regular commenters before you attack.I bet if you had been a high school teacher at some point in your career, you would have assigned a great deal of homework!
Welcome to Expat Scot.
By , at
Sun May 24, 08:36:00 PM:
To Kinuachdrach:
Obama did well with the two far ends of the educational spectrum. He won "no high school diploma" ... no surprise for a Democrat ... but did better with "college graduates" than past Democrats did ... and he killed with "graduate degrees." I expect he did as well with Princeton graduates -- to pick one elite college. This was a big part of Obama's winning margin. You can't say it's just "dumbed down" education.
Obama also did well with independents ... once again it was his winning margin. If McCain hadn't been at the top of the ticket, the numbers would have been worse. Recent Gallup polls show that Republicans have lost "Republican or lean Republican" by 2% to 8% with every single demographic they track ... except "go to Church regularly." What part of "Republicans are no longer a national party" don't you understand?
You can blame the media ... especially so ... they were awful. There was the usual leftist bias to their coverage ... but -- in addition -- many of our media elite believed they got rolled on Iraq and wanted payback -- places like the New York Times and Washington Post especially.
Obama needed the move-on.org anti-War crowd for his early success. By being the anti-Bush ... he outflanked Hillary. If he hadn't had this issue to run on, he'd have been left to audition as Hillary's VP ... with his eyes on 2020 ... and been pleased with the outcome.
But we are we are ... because of Bush-Cheney/Iraq ... we have Obama not Hillary.
To DEC:
When I've criticized Bush-Cheney/ Iraq here in the past, I 've been called names ... some even awful things. I've tried to stay away from this topic, not because of the name calling ... but because I don't want to be tiresome. This stuff should be old news ... but it keeps coming back ... because right and left enjoy it so ... and so it still frames the ongoing political debate, as I've feared it would.
TH and many others posters here defend the Bush-Cheney regime -- and lead with it ... so I feel I'm fighting that. I want to counter without being a dick ... and I mean to be forward looking. I'd rather no longer speak of it -- but so long as Cheney ... and Rush ... are the face of the Republicans, they're toast. Add Palin too, sadly.
I'm convinced Cheney is insane, which is why he's so effective a speaker ... but TH and others here say he's great ... go figure. Read what Cheney actually said -- it's illogical, however sincerely our ex-VP nutjob delivered it.
Happily, these last few weeks mean that Obama has learned that he can't use cheap tricks like "waterboarding" and "Gitmo" to score points like he did on the campaign trail ... he has to deal with the facts on the ground ... it's no longer campaign theater ... he's actually President ... he owns it.
Theory on Gitmo:
We needed Gitmo in 2002 - 2003 because we were dealing with hundreds and hundreds of these characters at the time -- we couldn't send them all to allies. This has become less of a problem ... we've instead been sending these characters to our allies ... who at our behest are doing far worse things than waterboarding. At a minimum, we're pumping them full of drugs to get them to talk-- Owsley don't know from the stuff we're using. Obama knows all about it ... in fact, as President he's actually authorizing it ... which makes his hypocrisy even worse.
What am I missing? -- we waterboarded three notorious guys years ago, and they're still breathing today. I have a Bronx hero cop in my family that has hung more guys by their ankles over the edge of buildings ... Wake up, it can be a hard world ...
Link. over
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun May 24, 09:05:00 PM:
Link: "I have a Bronx hero cop in my family that has hung more guys by their ankles over the edge of buildings ..."
When I was a newspaperman, I had an acquaintance in the Mafia who did that one time. He sneezed and dropped the guy.
By , at
Sun May 24, 09:38:00 PM:
The cops used two guys, as I heard it ... and never lost anyone ...
If you've ever seen Al Pacino's Sea of Love, the opening scene was real and my family guy's idea ... send postcards to everyone in the precinct with outstanding warrants ... to tell them they had a won a free turkey ... they just had to show up at the Kingsbridge Armory early Thanksgiving Day to pick it up ... lock the Armory doors, and read them their rights ....
Seriously, the Bronx of the late 1980s - early 1990s was bad. The apocryphal story was a young state prosecutor shot outside a bodega near the courthouse ... days were wasted running down leads from his cases .... until it was determined he was just another random victim.
The Bronx is now almost murder free ... it's all husbands killing wives, wives killing husbands ... as it should be.
Hard policing is why. It got so bad it was necessary.
Link, again
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun May 24, 11:28:00 PM:
Actually, Link, I've been surprised that you haven't gotten more heat. I am a libertarian Republican (early Reagan and Goldwater supporter), and I sure got a lot of heat here when I wanted Rumsfeld out.
By Gary Rosen, at
Mon May 25, 04:37:00 AM:
I hope you don't mind more criticism, Link, but I won't make it personal since I have respect for most of what you post here.
First, one can certainly make honorable criticism of the Iraq war, but how can you say "Bush, Cheney and Rumseld led us into Iraq to further their own personal agendas"? Right or wrong I believe they did what they honestly felt was best for the country. Calling them "chickenhawks" is the kind of slur you otherwise never stoop to.
Second, as far as the election goes it was decided the moment Hank Paulson said, "We need 700 BILLION dollars or the economy will go off the cliff". That won it for BO right there, not Palin, or Bush and Cheney, or the suspension of the McCain campaign. McCain was leading at that point in part because regardless of the unpopularity of the war he was clearly trusted more than BO on national security. And don't forget he first surged ahead after he chose Palin. Finally, speaking of "surges", it was the MSM's disgraceful failure to cover the success of the surge that would have preserved whatever residual antiwar resentment might have transferred onto McCain.
By , at
Mon May 25, 09:00:00 AM:
From Link on Iraq.
Criticize all you want.
For me, there's a strong case and a weak case against Bush & Co. Good historians will sort it out; what I write is opinion based on the facts I know and certainly open to criticism.
My weak case concludes that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, honestly made. Our leaders believed that 9/11 had to have had state sponsorship and Saddam was a likely suspect. There was "groupthink" by Bush & Co but it was based on Saddam's being a real threat, and one they knew too well. Saddam would pull off a WMD attack on US soil, if he could We also needed to send a kick-ass message to the Middle East ... Afghanistan alone wasn't enough.
My strong case says that we did Iraq to satisfy the personal agendas of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neo-cons. Before 9/11 happened, there was plenty of evidence that Saddam was in their sights ... so 9/11 was a pretext. WMD was also a pretext. Saddam was no threat to the domestic US. It was all unnecessary.
Bush 43 wanted to outdo Poppy 41 -- you don't need Freud to understand what landing the plane on the "Mission Accomplished" carrier" meant.
Cheney wanted a new Cold War to show our power. China wasn't ready yet -- "radical Islam" had to do.
Rumsfeld wanted a means to re-invent the military by demonstrating the effectiveness of an elite force of only 150,000. He won the war, but lost the occupation. We're stuck with the big ticket old line military.
The neo-cons worried about Israel's precarious long-term position and wanted a game changer. Israel is now in a worse position, with a resurgent Iran creating all sorts of trouble. Worse still for Israel is the prospect of a weakened US becoming more isolationist on the world stage.
In either case, the invasion was brilliantly executed but the occupation was botched. We needed far greater numbers, as Bush was told by the generals he ignored -- we should have had the surge from the beginning.
"Strong" vs "weak" goes to motivation -- it makes no difference to the conditions on the ground in Iraq -- but it does have political implications.
"Weak" suggests that 9/11 forced our Republican leaders into reactive decisions -- some good, some bad -- but all well intentioned. Bush & Co were looking out for us. Our federal government may be bumbling -- but it's well intentioned and a force for good.
"Strong" leads to the dark side. Unless you're connected, our national leaders don't give a rats ass about us -- we're just revenue cows to be milked, cannon fodder if needed. If that's too cynical, just imagine what's going on between Obama's jug ears right now.
I tell my kids that Iraq was a mistake, but no more than 20% of Vietnam and maybe less ... we can stand it. The real issue was the political dimension -- Iraq made Bush a weak President domestically -- which led to all sorts of troubles.
If Bush & Co had admitted that mistakes were made, I'd be more forgiving. But instead Cheney continues to conflate Iraq with "we kept you safe." Read his recent speech ... he says it was all part of a "comprehensive strategy" ... his way or the highway. Once again, Cheney drives most Americans nuts. As long as Cheney is the public face of the Republicans, we won't wake up to Obama until he's burned down the house. I'd go so far as to say that no Republican will get elected President unless he/she can politely admit that Bush & Co were first order fuck-ups.
On "Chickenhawks" It's an ugly slur, I'll stop using it.
By , at
Mon May 25, 09:03:00 AM:
Mr Rosen, we might agree on the 2008 election. McCain had to run the table, but he almost did.
Here's what I wrote to a friend the day after the election:
Once again, McCain becomes W's collateral damage. McCain could have been outstanding had he been elected in 2000 ... but in 2008 he was past his sell-by date. Because of his military background, McCain couldn't make a clean break with his commander-in-chief. Palin only made sense as McCain's VP pick if he used her to appease the Republican base so he could move to the middle. Steve Schmidt ... an ex-Bushie ... was the wrong campaign manager to lead that charge.
McCain was competitive until the financial meltdown ... any other available Republican nominee would not have been. Had Hillary been the nominee ... with the financial meltdown ... she would have won by over 10% and carried over 45 states.
McCain would have given us a divided government, which I thought would be the better alternative right now. My principal overriding concern continues to be the unbridled growth of our federal government. Both parties feed off this ... to our collective detriment. It's not just money ... the federal government is encroaching on our liberties.
The Republicans will likely blame McCain and not see that they've become a party in the wilderness. A party dominated by Rush and his ditto heads ... and the religious right ... is a permanent minority party.
Link, over
By , at
Mon May 25, 02:29:00 PM:
Interesting piece from Byron York, for those interested, which seems to definitively make the point that Newsweek did more for terrorist recruitment than anything the Bush administration ever did. Publishing the photos from Abu Ghraib was equally bad.
To expect that there will never be prisoner abuse in war is foolish. What matters most to American honor is not that the abuse occurred, but that the armed forces moved aggressively to deal with it.
What matters most to American safety is not that the media is aware of such abuses but that they act with discretion and forbearance in the pursuit of American self-interest and to further the success of the war effort.
The media wouldn't agree with me on that, since they have a predominantly lefty audience to whom they play, but in the case of Newsweek's manufacture and publishing of false Koran desecration stories the magazine committed an act of treason against the United States. The entire MSM is perilously close to also standing accused for their joyful fanning of the Abu Ghraib flames.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon May 25, 04:43:00 PM:
"Unless you're connected, our national leaders don't give a rats ass about us -- we're just revenue cows to be milked, cannon fodder if needed."
Then why do you give a shit about politics?
By , at
Mon May 25, 04:56:00 PM:
The future isn't written. I can't not care.
By , at
Tue May 26, 09:27:00 AM:
All this hanky wringing over Sen. McCain's failure to become president ignores one really obvious elephant in the room: politics is a competiton and he lost, twice. Getting to the game is commendable, certainly, but he did lose. It's old news and we need get busy and prepare now for the next election.
Since the Bush policies have left the GOP in a terrible political fix, Obama is free to busily undermine the economy, our national defense and our constitutional republic in pursuit of his collectivist dream, and we have an absolutely urgent need to focus on improving our chances in the next election. The good news is that the independent vote is bigger than ever before: fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense, McCain policies certainly, will be our only hope for gathering that vote in support of a renewal of America. Take satisfaction from the fact that McCain will have substantial input on the future of the party (various radio talkshow hosts notwithstanding), and as Bush has been repudiated by the GOP (and has become the Obama guiding light, oddly enough), and start donating money, and persuading friends and relatives to vote GOP.
