11/28 GOP Debate Review: Romney Scores Big

Tonight, the Republican Presidential hopefuls gathered in front of a Florida crowd and answered questions from ordinary people via YouTube. With the Iowa caucus just a few weeks away, the candidates went all out to differentiate themselves from each other, and most of them were successful.

From the very opening of the debate, the fight was on between the two GOP frontrunners, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. It was in that opening exchange, on the topic of illegal immigration, that Romney got the upper hand and set the tone for the rest of the night. To put it simply, agree with him or not, Romney creamed Giuliani. From that point on, Giuliani was mostly on the defense for the rest of the night, while Romney was red-hot. Romney is often called a "flip-flopper", but tonight he actually appeared the most socially conservative candidate. While I might strongly disagree with Romney's positions, his statements tonight were right on point with the right wing of the GOP. Romney was unquestionably the winner of the debate and I am even more confident in my earlier prediction that Romney will be the Republican nominee.

Two other candidates who I thought had a great night were John McCain and Mike Huckabee. McCain gained major points in my view for standing up to the other candidates and the traditional Republican view that waterboarding is okay. McCain made it clear that waterboarding is indeed torture and is indeed illegal and indeed should never be practiced by the U.S. On that issue I have major respect for McCain. Huckabee, yet again, was the most charming candidate on the stage. He is consistently able to make his point and state his positions without appearing negative. He also had the best line of the night when he said that Jesus was too smart to get involved in politics.

As far as the losers, I would say that there were two big ones. The first loser was Sen. Fred Thompson. Thompson needed to re-establish his frontrunner status, but he utterly failed. I have yet to see Thompson come out firm on a single issue. His debate style is also lacking to say the least. Thompson has a problem with taking long, odd pauses during the middle of his responses or taking several seconds to stare into space while trying to think of a response. If anyone is wondering why Thompson is doing so poorly, just watch this debate and you'll quickly realize why.

The biggest loser of the night, however, was Rudy Giuliani. This was Rudy's worst debate performance. Romney completely destroyed Rudy during the immigration debate early on and also later when it came to Rudy's pro-gun control stances. With Romney gaining on Giuliani in Iowa, New Hampshire, and now leading in South Carolina, tonight was Rudy's chance to gain back some of that support. He didn't though. If anything, Rudy did more to lose support to Romney than he did to win it.

I am going to point out one thing that was said that I take absolute exception to. Duncan Hunter said that the majority of people who join the military are conservative. I take great exception to the claim that liberals don't stand up to serve their country. The fact is that the military is just as diverse as America is as a whole. To imply that liberals don't serve their country is disgraceful and frankly Rep. Hunter should apologize.

The tide is turning on the Republican side. I think in the coming weeks we're going to see the decline of Rudy and the rise of Romney. Romney will win Iowa, win New Hampshire, win South Carolina and then have enough momentum to propel himself through Florida and beyond.

Diplomacy: Democrats Force Realty On Bush

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a lecture at Kansas State University ,said that the U.S. must improve its diplomacy.  He is asking for an increase in not only his department's budget but also the State Department budget.  Gates said we must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military and that there is a need for dramatic increases in spending on the civilian instruments of national security.  That is an astounding statement coming from someone in this administration.  (Diplomacy has always been a part of Democratic administrations concerning national security.)

 

Gates pronouncements is an admission of Mr. Bush's failed foreign policy that has been based on the U.S.'s military might which led to the war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  The people realized long ago that diplomacy was abandoned by Mr. Bush.  Gates has followed the same path with the surge and continuation of the war in Iraq.  They are both trying now to salvage what is left of their reputations.  Gates wants more money for his department even as spending for his department is at record levels and that does not include the billions spent for the war.  That money could be better used for more important issues.  Diplomacy for one.

 

Mr. Gates supported the military option in Iraq over diplomacy.  We know from his and Bush's statements that they want a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.  Will they define that as military diplomacy?  The civilian instruments of national security would be a better choice.  The Democratic position on diplomacy through many past presidents have served our nation well and kept our country safe.  They answered the military call when it was necessary to protect our national interest but never was in fear of using diplomacy.  They also kept our country free of such a massive foreign terror attack as occurred on 9-11.

 

Mr. Bush's arrogance, reckless behavior and lack of true diplomacy lost him the moral mantle of world leadership that America was known to possess.  Diplomacy could have saved the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in the war in Iraq if Mr. Bush had used his responsibility as a leader with wisdom.  America's role in the world today has been tainted by the President's reckless behavior.  If he and Gates are ready to use diplomacy as an admission of their failure, let them start with Iraq and bring this war to an end with diplomacy.  It is not to late.

Rudy Giuliani----My Take

If there is only one person America should be fearful of having as its next President, it's Republican Rudy Giuliani. The term "Bush-Cheney lite" has been used often in this campaign, but let me assure you that Rudy is certainly not "Bush-Cheney lite". He is Bush-Cheney on steroids.

Rudy Giuliani is the most unqualified candidate to be President from either side of the isle. What exactly did this man do anyway? All he is known for is 9/11, but even that record is not as great as Rudy wants people to believe. Rudy wants to be seen as the hero of America; as "America's Mayor", but the fact is that Rudy is truly neither. If anything, Rudy can be blamed for some of the casualties on 9/11 for his failure to properly prepare for what many knew was an almost certain future attack. In 1994, it was determined that the FDNY's radios were faulty and failed to work properly under rough conditions. Knowing this problem and receiving many complaints from firefighters prior to 9/11, Rudy failed to equip the FDNY with working radios. Those brave first-responders were consequently unable to hear the call to evacuate the WTC and were buried under the rubble when the buildings collapsed. Rudy is also to blame for the illnesses of hundreds of 9/11 clean up workers who were not provided with the proper protective gear while working at Ground Zero. America's Mayor? The hero of 9/11? I think not.

And now that Rudy is running for President, he is looking to even further exploit his supposed heroism on 9/11 for political gain. If you ask me, it is absolutely sickening for Rudy to try to and succeed in making political gain off of the tragedy that was 9/11. Rudy Giuliani wasn't the hero. The first responders who went selflessly into harm's way to save lives are the heroes, as are those who stayed at Ground Zero searching for survivors. I even challenge the claim that Rudy is responsible for "uniting the city and the country on 9/11". Al Sharpton was absolutely correct when he said, "You didn't bring us together, our pain brought us together and our decency brought us together. We would have come together if Bozo was the mayor." The disgust for Rudy is even more evident when you go where people know him best-----New York City itself. Rudy can say what he wants, but the citizens of NYC, who were there pre-9/11, there on 9/11, and there today, want the country to know something---Rudy is a fraud: "Giuliani has exaggerated the role he played after the terrorist attacks, casting himself as a hero for political gain." Perhaps still what is the most disturbing fact is the personal gain that Rudy has earned from "cashing in" on his fame gained on 9/11. On 9/11, Rudy was worth about $2 million. But since that tragedy, Rudy is worth more than 30 times that amount with most of that money being made from speaking appearances concerning 9/11 as well as other 9/11 related events. Now maybe its just me, but if Rudy really cared about those affected by 9/11, wouldn't he have donated most of that money to the 9/11 relief fund or to the families who lost loved ones? But no, Rudy used and continues to use the tragedy of 9/11 for his own gain, thinking nothing of the people who were actually affected.

When you look at his foreign policy, Rudy is even more of a neoconservative warmonger than Bush and Cheney. Giuliani practically lights up whenever he is asked about Iran and gets to respond that he is ready to attack if necessary and that he would not talk to Irani leaders. The fact is though, that if you refuse to negotiate and talk with Iran, then you leave yourself no option but war. And to make Rudy's policy towards Iran even more radical, he has said that he is not sure if conventional weapons would be enough. I can understand saying that nothing should be taken off the table, but Rudy makes it sound as if he looks forward to getting his hands on the U.S.'s nukes and blowing Iran apart.

Giuliani has also been Bush's biggest supporter concerning the Iraq War. Just a few days ago, Rudy said that he thinks President Bush handled the war perfectly and that he would have acted the same way. To say that it was handled without a single flaw is ridiculous and outrageous. Even avid war supporters like John McCain have criticized Bush's handling of the war.

The final thing that irks me about Rudy is his sudden change of position on key issues. As Mayor, Rudy was an unequivocal pro-choice politician, but now that he is running for President, Giuliani says that he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court who would ultimately like to overturn Roe v. Wade. Giuliani can't have it both ways---he either supports a women's right to privacy or he doesn't. It's the same case with Rudy's immigration policy. While Mayor, he was a strong advocate for sanctuary cities, but now he says that he wants an immediate end to illegal immigration and wants harsh punishments for undocumented workers. Another perfect example of Rudy straddling the line is his stance on gun control. While Mayor he was strongly pro-gun control, but now he says that he fully supports every individual's right to own a weapon. As far as I'm concerned, this "wishy-washy" stance on issues is even worse and more annoying than Romney's flip-flopping. At least when you flip-flop you end up with just a single position, but Rudy is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

So if there ever was a candidate that Democrats, and for that matter sane Republicans, need to stand up to, its Rudy Giuliani. America doesn't need a President who uses tragic events for personal and political gain. America doesn't need a President who would rather nuke a country than negotiate for peace. America doesn't need a President who can't admit when he was wrong. America doesn't need Rudy Giuliani.

Photo credit: Phelan M Ebenhack/AP

New Reports Paint Bad Picture

There are two new reports out concerning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The war in Afghanistan is in its 6th year and the war in Iraq has been going on for almost 5 years and neither report paints a favorable picture.

 

The Washington Post reported that strategic goals that the Bush administration set out for 2007 in Afghanistan have not been met according to a White House assessment.  Individual battles with the Taliban have been successful, but the Taliban has had unchallenged expansion into new territory.  The U.S. military and intelligence have sharp differences as to where the war is going.

 

2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.  The U.S. and NATO forces clear an area out and hold on to it  for a while only for it to be taken back by the Taliban.  The war is being fought in no man's land.  The Reagan-Bush administration armed the Taliban to fight the Soviet occupation and now the Taliban is fighting the U.S. and NATO occupation.  After 6 years there is still no one who can tell the American people how the war will turn out and how many more Americans will lose their lives in an unstable country in an unstable part of the world.

 

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports Al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council, said that the U.S. has not backed up claims that Iran is fueling violence in Iraq.  Al-Hakim spent years in exile in Iran and is considered close to Iran's leaders.  Al-Hakim is also thought to be Iraq's most influential Shiite politician.

 

I wrote in several past commentaries that however and whenever this war ends, Iraq and Iran will be allies.  The Shiite majority in both countries will stand together.  It is past time to bring our troops home.  One more American death will be too many.  Saddam is long gone, there were no WMD, and we are not fighting the people who are responsible for the tragic events of 9-11.  The new leaders of Australia and Poland have it right.  Both parties in Congress have to get their act together and end the Iraq war as well as work on a solution for the growing violence in Afghanistan.

Ron Paul----My Take

Today, I continue the "My Take" series with a look at internet phenomenon, Ron Paul. Paul is a Texas Congressman and was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. Paul is currently running as a Republican, although a much different Republican from every other GOP contender in the field. Recently, Paul's campaign has been energized by raising $4.2 million in a single day (setting a new political record) as well as the fact that Paul is on the rise in New Hampshire polling (currently ahead of Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee at around 8% support).

The truth is that I have very mixed feelings about Ron Paul. I love the fact that he is strongly opposed to the Iraq War and wants to bring our troops home. Paul is also 100% correct on issues such as domestic surveillance and the Patriotic Act. However, on most other issues, Paul is dead wrong.

For example, I completely disagree with Paul's position that the U.N. and NATO are evil and that we need to immediately withdraw from them. Also, while the abolition of the income tax is a grand idea in theory, when it comes right down to it, where is the government going to get the money to do the things that the government needs to do? We would be forced to borrow even more money from foreign countries which leads to a host of all other kinds of problems.

A huge issue I would question Paul on is the issue of abortion. His position seems directly contrary to his Libertarian and Constitutionalist values. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee an individual his/her right to privacy? Doesn't the government have no place to get involved in a individual's personal life according to the Libertarian platform? If Paul believes in the Constitution, why is he staunchly opposed to a woman's right to choose, which is protected under the right to privacy? I don't think anybody is personally in love with the idea of a woman having an abortion, but it is a fact that abortion is a necessary choice for a woman to have.

Another issue that Ron Paul is dead wrong on is the issue of universal healthcare. Paul has said that if the government just stays out of the healthcare world, then somehow more people would be able to afford healthcare. It is simply insane to think that the healthcare crisis will simply fix itself; it won't. As far as I'm concerned, healthcare should be a constitutional right guaranteed to every American. It is literally a life or death matter. To think that there are people who die because they do not have access to quality healthcare is something that everyone should be outraged at. I admit, sometimes the government gets involved where it shouldn't, but healthcare is one area where it is essential for the government to act and act quickly. Universal healthcare is long overdue in this country and I can only hope that in 2008 America elects a President who will bring about it.

I'll close by saying something else positive about Ron Paul besides his opposition to the Iraq war and domestic surveillance. Paul, unlike most of the GOP candidates, is someone who I feel is being true to himself. Paul's positions have been consistent and he's not afraid to speak his mind and speak it forcefully. Although I may disagree with him on many issues, I truly have a lot of respect for his honesty and boldness. America needs a leader who is not afraid to stand up for what he/she believes in and, love him or hate him, Paul does just that. In fact, Paul may be the only Republican in years to do that. Thats why I feel it really is a shame that Paul doesn't have a chance to do better in the nomination process. For once I would like to see the Republicans nominate someone who at least tries to work for the good of the American people. The last thing I'll say though is that I don't think Paul is just going to go away. As I've said before, I could see him running as a third party candidate in the general election, which would be interesting to say the least.

Troops Surge, But Still No Political Progress

Every reason George Bush gave the American people for going to war in Iraq either never happened or was wrong.  Misleading America is the one thing Bush will be remembered for.

Almost one year ago Bush ordered a surge in troops in Iraq.  His stated purpose, he told America, was to reduce the violence so that the Iraqi government would make the needed reforms to unify their country.  Well, as of right now, the Iraqi's have achieved very little, if any, of that unity.  American's and Iraqi's are still being killed in a civil war and it is now reported the Bush administration has lowered its political expectations in Iraq to a few limited goals.  This is just one more blunder and policy failure added to the many other ones. 

 

As of this very moment, our military and civilian leaders say our military can't change Iraq's need for political settlement.  Senator Joe Biden has been saying that for over 3 years.  Al Sidar, one of the Shiite's militant leaders, ordered his army to stand down for 6 months and they have done so.  However, even with the stand down of the militants, the Iraqi government can not reconcile its political differences.

 

It is past time Mr. Bush realize what other countries have already figured out.  It is time to bring our brave men and women in uniform home.  This war over WMD that did not exist was won before it even started.  Mr. Bush just did not have the wisdom to understand that because he and his neocon friends wanted to play God in the Middle East and now America and its people are paying the price.  

The World Is Letting Itself Be Known: Get Out Of Iraq

A former diplomat and labor leader, Kevin Rudd, defeated Australian Prime Minister John Howard to lead the Australian people in a new direction.

 

Mr. Rudd campaigned and promised the Australian people that he would withdraw Australian troops from Iraq and sign the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming.  Mr. Howard was a staunch supporter of President Bush and his Iraq policy and refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocal.

 

The defeat was so decisive it was reported Howard would probably loose his parliamentary seat altogether.  That would be only the second time in Australia's history.  The defeat of Howard is a continuation of the fallout from the Iraq War.  Donald Tusk, Poland's new Prime Minister, said in his inaugural address just recently that Poland would withdraw its troops from Iraq by the end of 2008. 

 

People around the world are making it known that the occupying forces in Iraq should be withdrawn.  The American people share that same feeling, despite the state of denial the Bush administration and many Republicans are still in.  Hopefully, next year, the American people will speak out as loudly against the war as people in Australia and Poland and around the world did, and elect a President who is committed to bringing the war to a safe end.

John Edwards----My Take

Sen. John Edwards used to be considered a frontrunner in the crowded race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Well now that frontrunner status of Edwards has faded to a point where, at best, Edwards is in the upper second-tier of candidates. There are several reasons to blame for his political demise, all of which were brought upon by John Edwards himself.

The John Edwards of 2004 was a cheerful, hopeful, friendly, semi-populist candidate. His message was one that resonated with many Americans. So when John Edwards entered the 2008 race, he was immediately one of my favorites. But as the campaign dragged on, Edwards underwent a noticeable transformation. He went from the cheerful candidate of '04, who always had a smile on his face and appeared to be the nicest person in the world, to a harsh, angry populist. Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the populist message, and in fact I agree with much of it, but any candidate who appears angry is an immediate turn-off.

And while Edwards was getting angrier and angrier, he was simultaneously moving further and further to the left of his opponents. The mainstream appeal that Edwards had in '04 was quickly eroding. I would find myself watching clips of Edwards' speeches or reading transcripts and thinking to myself, "what exactly is this man thinking?" He began saying the most radical things and, at times, sounded certifiably insane. I suppose Edwards moved radically to the left to pick up the support of the far left wing of the Democratic Party, but if anything, his leftward journey backfired. As Edwards was pulled to the left, his poll numbers, both in Iowa and nationally, dropped. He may have picked up the votes of the more radical liberals, but he alienated mainstream Democrats and Independents, including myself. Edwards had always been my second choice after Sen. Clinton, but I was and still am baffled by his dramatic shift to the left. I consider myself a 100% liberal Democrat, but not a radical left wing Democrat. I'll also point out that the further a candidate moves away from mainstream America's ideals, the harder it is for him to win a general election. And to anyone who disagrees with that point, how exactly would you explain the fact that Sen. Clinton, and to a lesser extent Obama, run better against top GOP candidates than Edwards? The more centrist positions of Edwards in '04 led me to become a supporter of his, but this time around he has completely turned me off on the idea of voting for him.

The final straw for Edwards came in September when he was (despite what he would want you to believe) forced into taking public financing for his campaign due to his dismal fundraising. The fact is that by doing this, Edwards appeared desperate and needy. Voters want someone who is strong and has the ability to out raise the Republican opposition. For those that know and follow politics, they know that by taking matching funds, Edwards severally handicapped himself if he was to somehow win the nomination. From the start of the primary season to the DNC in August, Edwards would essentially be broke, and hence unable to respond to the sure firestorm of attacks by the Republicans. The last thing Democrats need is a candidate who is unable to put up a fight against the GOP for nearly 6 months. Its hard to make-up for 6 months of constant onslaught and attacks in just 2 and half months. Democrats would fare much better with a candidate who can respond to Republican attacks and put up their own ads to gain crucial momentum and support heading into November 2008.

And now, just under 6 weeks from the Iowa caucus, John Edwards is trying to fight his way back up to the top. The problem for him is that many Democrats, such as myself, have completely tuned Edwards out. His constant negativity and growing unelectablity have put him out of the running for the Democratic nomination. It is no longer Clinton vs. Edwards vs. Obama, but rather its just Clinton vs. Obama with Edwards being the pesky little fly that just won't go away but has no shot at stopping the big dogs.

Why I Support Hillary Clinton For President

I had planned to write a long post on why exactly I believe Sen. Hillary Clinton is the best choice for President, but then I came across this video and it says everything I wanted to say and says it way more articulately than I ever could.

Barack Obama----My Take

What I am about to write is partially in response to the post I had written earlier this week comparing the foreign policy credentials of Democratic Presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I had cross posted that post as a diary on DailyKos and (to put it gently) the general response I got from readers was that they wanted to know exactly why I thought Obama shouldn't be President.

I'll start by asking: What exactly has Obama done to qualify for the job of leading the entire free world? In my opinion, absolutely nothing. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate in '96. He was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. So if you want to go in terms of actual public service, then Obama has a little more than 10 years, but in terms of readiness to be President, you really have to look at Obama's record and experience in the U.S. Senate. No offense to state senators, but that job doesn't exactly prepare you for Presidential politics, much less for the actual job of being President (not that there is anything that can truly prepare you, but you get my point). The truth is that basically whichever candidate has the most signs in a local community will win State Senate. There are no real debates and no real tests for the job of a State Senator, but rather the person whose name is most recognizable on the ballot when a voter votes will win . It's that simple. It doesn't take much work or ability.

That brings me to Obama's big U.S. Senate win in '04. Or was it so big? I mean, seriously, Obama's opponent was Alan Keyes. Sure, Obama had good ideas and ideals, but it wasn't exactly a tough campaign for Obama. He has yet to face a true, tough opponent in a big election scenario and I'm not sure Democrats should want the 2008 Presidential Election to be Obama's practice.

It's not that I hate Obama, but I just do not think he is ready to compete in what is sure to be one of the closest, toughest elections in U.S. history. I do not think he is ready to inherit the office of President with his lack of experience. As several candidates have said, the next President will not have time for, "on the job training". That phrase might seem like nothing more than old political rhetoric, and it could very well be, but the phrase is nonetheless true. There is such a myriad of problems facing the country that the next President will have to deal with: the Iraq War, healthcare, the environment, the economy, immigration, etc. It is my feeling that the next President will have to have experience to deal with those issues.

Obama and his supporters like to throw out the fact that he has "judgment" and "judgment trumps experience". Make no mistake about it, judgment is important, but judgment and experience can coexist. The fact is that Obama might have been against the Iraq War in 2003, but he didn't have to vote on it. He has said several times in interviews that he does not know how he would have voted if indeed he was in the U.S. Senate at that time. Other candidates were in the Senate at that time and did vote for authorizing the war, but that does not mean they do not have good judgment. Those who voted for the war were lied to and told that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the U.S. If those facts had been true, then the correct judgment would have been to defend our country. The problem was that President Bush and his administration lied to Congress. There was no reason for Sen. Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Biden to believe that Iraq didn't have WMDs; there was no reason at that time to believe they were being lied to. They voted to protect the country based on what they were told and protecting the country is always the right vote. Every single one of the Democrats who voted for the war have long since said that if they had known that Iraq didn't have WMDs and that they were lied to, they wouldn't have voted for the war. So while "judgment" is very important, Obama has no justification for claiming that he somehow has better judgment than everyone else.

A second argument Obama supporters like to make is that Obama is the only candidate who can bring about change. Just the thought of that should outrage all Democrats. What is the one name you think of when someone says the complete opposite of Bush? The name Clinton comes to mind. The truth is that any Democrat would bring radical change from the current administration. And again I'll point out that change and experience can effectively coexist. This too might be a talking point of several candidates, but it is true that someone must have experience to make change happen. Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and to some extent, Edwards, have decades of experience fighting for change. Obama has only a few years (I'll also point out that he voted exactly the same way as Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc. did when he was elected in the U.S. Senate on all the important issues, including the Iraq War). Hillary first starting working for change in 1977 when she worked (without pay) for the protection and rights of women and their children. She also worked hard to expand medical privileges to the poorest areas of Arkansas. Some say that Hillary's position as First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S. does not count as experience, but when you looked at what she fought for and accomplished in those years, it is clear that Hillary worked just as hard as any State or a U.S. Senator. Who can forget her daring attempts to get universal healthcare in '93 and '94. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson have equally impressive resumes when it comes to fighting for change. So while it is great that Obama wants to bring change, other candidates have actually brought change. "Change" is not just a word that can be thrown around. A candidate has to have the strength to bring about the change and quite frankly Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc. have shown that they know how to bring about real change. Obama has not.

So, as you can hopefully see, it's not that I hate Barack Obama, it's just that I do not feel he is ready to be President. There are far more qualified candidates who have an actual record of achieving meaningful goals. Obama "talks the talk", but the others "walk the walk". And let's face it, the only reason Obama is so well known is because of an awesome, inspiring speech he gave at the 2004 DNC. But let's remember that there have been many great speakers, but not many great Presidents. We need a great President, not a great speaker in 2008 (although hopefully a better speaker than Dubya). Maybe Obama will be ready to be President in the future, but he is just not ready at this time.