Did the "liberal" label hurt us this year?

[latteromden]

Oh, we all heard it. Kerry was the most liberal member in the Senate (nevermind that the true most liberal member in the Senate had just been, oh, I don't know, killed in a plane crash the year before these ratings were compiled), Edwards was the fourth most liberal member in the Senate. But in the end, what did that really do to us? We got 49%, didn't we? Did the GOP really succeed in damaging us by calling us liberals, and was it Kerry's failure to connect with the majority that doomed us, or were they able to use that word against us?

[stepnw1f]

1. Voter Fraud

That's straw-man argument. Until we have legit elections everything else is moot.

[RafterMan]

7. Then what are you doing in the Politics forum?

Since it's moot, I mean.

[stepnw1f]

9. Because It WUZ a New Post

I didn't find it there. Besides, what's your point?

[tridim]

2. The fact that they cheated hurt us

That's all.

[Lone Pawn]

23. Did they cheat 60 million votes?

If not we still have work to do.

[tridim]

42. They cheated about 10 million votes

That's enough to throw it.

[evil genius]

3. who made the list?

the fucking xtian coalition, who as far as i'm concerned can shove that list right up their collective asses. To be on top of their dis-approved list is exactly where we want our leaders to be. Number one with a bullet.

[KuTava]

35. Actually, organizations from both sides rated Kerry as very liberal.

This was based on his voting record.

Since we still got 48% or so, the label obviously isn't a problem. We should wear it proudly, and make sure in the next election that our candidate doesn't hide from it like Kerry did.

[Ardee]

4. Liberal is a push button word

To some liberals Kerry's support for the Iraqi invasion, his votes for Homeland Security and that obnoxious education bill No Child Left Unpunished make him ineligible for the club...:hippie:

Seriously, if it wasn't one thing it would have been another, like Cheney's "elect Kerry and we will get a nuclear bomb in one of our cities......." The problem was twofold; the machinations of republicans to subvert a free election and Kerry's unwillingness to take off the gloves and fight the good fight.....

[gottaB]

5. Not much, no

It was used against us, but not to great effect. The response to the liberal label from the Kerry campaign didn't please me, but it arguably pleased others. It exposed a weakness--allowing the opposition to define our positions--but I'm not sure the weakness is inherent in the label itself.

At one point late in the campaign I reckon the Republicans knew they went too far in their demonization of Northeastern liberals, so they felt compelled to hussle up to New Hampshire to make amends.

I have a sense that the Republicans have done it to death, and have turned off many voters, but that can't be confirmed by looking at the latest election results. Time will tell, I guess.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. no it didnt really hurt him

No one I know who voted against him said "I dont like him because he is liberal. They all said "I dont like him because he is a flip flopper" or "he says he is going to make jobs but how?"

[liberalpragmatist]

51. Polls showed most voters thought of Kerry as a liberal and didn't care

Although Kerry ran from the word, most Americans didn't really seem to care. Polling showed people thought he was a liberal, but they weren't worried about what traditionally bothers them about liberals - very few were swayed by Bush's "tax-and-spend"-theme the last few weeks.

So the word didn't hurt him.

What hurt him was the perception that Republicans are stronger on national security, and, to a lesser extent (not nearly as much as the press said right after the race), the fact that rural voters don't trust Democrats and see us as culturally permissive and insensitive to religious voters.

[lgardengate]

8. All of the above...

Kerry didn't connect well with non Dems."Liberal"has been used to portray folks weak on forigin affairs,to extreem on domestic affairs,anti tradition,and pro forcing stuff on everyone else that they aren't ready for (gay marriage,and legislating from the courts).

I'm just saying that seem to be the preception aound me...even with more conservative and moderate Dems. West Virginia now has many who vote Dem localy but not for President.And When Byrd is gone i really fear for his seat staying Dem.

[w4rma]

10. smears mainly did it. Remember when big media thought Bush might lose

they brought out the big guns (Sinclair and Swift Boats). And they spread the lies widely.

Plus Kerry was perceved to be a gun grabber and his support of amnisty for illegal immigrants was VERY bad in rural areas.

[Calvinist Basset]

11. I'm proud to be called a "liberal"

If I were a politician and someone attacked me with the label, I would respond with something like the following:

-----------

I wonder what my opponent means by calling me a "liberal?" The word appears to be used as a negative description of my character. But how could this be? The dictionary defines a "liberal'"as being endowed with many positive things, such as generosity, open-mindedness, and extravagant kindness.

As well, in our socio-political history, the "liberals" have been involved in numerous advancements for our nation, our society, our world and our overall human condition. They fought for better working conditions; they worked tirelessly to guarantee potable drinking water; they wrangled with money-hungry corporations to ensure safe medicines; and they even looked for ways to enable protection of wages for those who are injured at work. Suffice it to say, I have only provided a small list of examples. Liberals have done much, much more for the benefit of all U.S. citizens.

Liberals have included a great number of great people, such as a score of our nation's founders. For, embodying another definition of liberalism, that of standing up to established and tyrannical authorities, these founders helped give birth to our nation.

There's also Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin." She gained the reputation of being the little woman who caused a great war. But in reality, she had the audacity to write the words that would be the catalyst through which the evil institution of slavery would be demolished.

And let's not forget the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. By his unwavering witness--even to the point of his death--Dr. King gave vision to the real possibility of civil rights for all people.

So, do I deserve the title of "liberal?" I am humbled, yes, humbled for someone even to consider placing me within such an esteemed and honorable group. If my opponent, or anyone else for that matter, truly considers me to be a "liberal," I can only say, thank you. Thank you for such a tremendous compliment and I will do all I can to live up to this prestigious title.

[sendero]

28. Very nice...

.... the fact is that right-wing hate radio, starting with Limbaugh and proceeding with others, has been working tirelessly for 20 years to make "liberal" a dirty word.

The masses, not being particularly savvy to the rhetorical dishonesty used to do so have lapped it up.

What is sad is that few Dem leaders are willing to say something like what you just said, they just don't have the courage.

[Calvinist Basset]

32. *sigh*

I know. Sad, isn't it?

[KuTava]

36. Yes! This is what our candidates should say.

[youngred]

12. Nah, Flip-Flopper was worse

we've made some headway in turning back the negatives on liberals.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

14. Bull. Every single one of those policies are corporate give aways.

And are therefore the exact opposite of liberal.

He is a neo-con. That is not a half-liberal, half-conservative. That is a corporatist who is socially conservative.

*Everything* Bush has done is the exact opposite that a liberal would have done and I have no wish to see the word "liberal" associated with any of those things you listed even if conservatives want to label them liberal because of their knee-jerk attitude that everything they oppose must be liberal.

[youngred]

18. if you're using the traditional definition of liberal

he is. but the definition in America is far different

[blondeatlast]

29. Check his profile, and the accompanying website.

Enjoy!

:puke:

[VOX]

25. Dude, you are the Trojan Horse of all Trojan Horses...

Per your own site:
http://www.newliberals.org/issues.htm

SUPPORT the sentiment that abortion is evil because it kills a potential human life, and find legal ways to reduce it.

SUPPORT the right of the United States to attack those who would attack us before they do any damage.

SUPPORT a new Social Security System that gives ownership benefits to all Americans.
- - - - -

WHY are you even bothering with this 100% right-wing shit here?????? :grr:

[blondeatlast]

30. Yeah, I saw his site too.

We DUers know what to do, and I already have TWICE.

Don't forget to mention his spammed replies as well.

[Poiuyt]

15. I like the label "Progressive" better

It has a much more positive sound to it. Who wouldn't rather be progressive than regressive?

[w4rma]

16. It's probably more accurate also.

Liberal tends to get confused with the old pre-civil rights movement Republican liberal that is pretty much the DLC of today.

[dogman]

20. O'Vilely is already using it.

His op-ed the other day was titled "Progrssives want to remove Christ from Christmas." or similar. We should stick with liberal and wear it proudly. Define ti for what it is, not let it be defined. It has an historic place in this country.
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”-George Washington

[ElectroPrincess]

34. OK, if you like the sound, however, be advised

that hate radio and right wing think tanks are seamlessly INCLUDING the label "progressive" to all things evil.

The assault on the term "progressive" has already begun but short of full swing as of yet.

Therefore, IF you love the term cool, I kind of do also.

Yes, I'm proud to be both "liberal AND progressive."

My point: If you think the right wing radicals will give you any more slack if you choose to call yourself "progressive." No dear hearts, fellow DUer's - you got another thing coming.

Let's take just one page out of their playbook but refusing to back down and allow the RW to RE-define the proud term "liberal."

We don't have to use their language even if the whorish MSM gives in ... use our OWN terms "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion; "late term abortion" not "partial birth abortion"; "Upper Class Estate Tax" (for the small small percentage of estates over 2 million dollars) not "death tax"

It sucks, I too would rather play it straight, but we have to counter the RW with our OWN terms.

[KuTava]

37. Can't we win the debate on the issues?

Are we trying to win hearts and minds based on the truth, or based on our ability to spin things?

"Pro-choice" is a prime example. Pro-choice in regards to what? What flavor of ice cream to eat? The issue is abortion. The right have already coopted the word "choice," anyway, to mean their attempt to destroy the public school system.

And the word "liberal" too. I'm proud to be liberal. Who here isn't?

[DireStrike]

47. No, we can't.

Sorry, this is the new scorched earth politics. Brought to you by the GOP.

[Protagoras]

17. Only when our party tripped

and broke it's face running the hell away from the word. We showed fear and the animals felt free to pursue and attack.

Maybe if we'd actually STUCK with the label and faced down our opponents then we wouldn't be needing to talk about it now.

[FrenchieCat]

19. shouldn't have.....

but it did. We have allowed "them" to define "Liberal"....and their definition stinks.

See Wes Clark's Definition.....From Maher's show, September 5, 2003

Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could get you to say that.

Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.

Maher: Good for you!

Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back

[LimpingLib]

21. It always hurts a bit , but can be offset with populist progressive appeal

to voters and average citizens.

Kerry showed that a mass lib can win even with a poor campaign and too much posturing based on shitty advice from the overpaidd pollsters that left many concerns of average citizens off the radar.

[LittleClarkie]

22. They would have used the liberal label regardless of the candidate

It probably hurt. But they would have found a way to hang that on any of our candidates.

For pete's sake, Kerry was only #1 in 2003 based on a limited number of votes. He's 11th overall. To call him a liberal is such an oversimplification. He's liberal in some ways, progressive in some, a hawk in others (fiscal and national defense).

Rush was almost complimenting Dean on being at least the only "pure" liberal of the bunch, when in alot of ways, he was a conservative. His most liberal stance was the war.

Seems to me they only REALLY started in on the Massachusetts Liberal thing towards the end when they were getting desperate.

[FredScuttle]

24. It hurt us in a key demographic

the fucking moron vote.

edit: sorry, "moran"

[Hippo_Tron]

26. It's not so much the label as, us letting them define the issues

First of all, the "#1 liberal in the senate" was compiled during 2003 when Kerry was RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. The ONLY significant vote that he and Edwards casted was the 87 billion (something that in hindsight they both should've voted YEA on). Thus they were labled 1st and 4th most liberal by some stupid right wing newspaper. Analyzing actual voting records and issue positions, I HIGHLY doubt that anybody could convince me that Kerry is more liberal than Durbin, Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold, Leahy, Corzine, Dayton, or even Jeffords and Chafee.


But did it really hurt us? I don't think so. As Michael Moore said, Kerry got more votes than Raygun, Bush I, Clinton, or Gore. His economic messages were winning messages and if anything, being more populist would've gotten the left wing of the party to do more than reluctantly support him as ABB. Evangelical nutcases didn't decide the election, we got our base out, Bush got his base out. What decided it was the fact that we, in the end, lost the national security debate. We, in the end, gave the people no reason to change horses midstream, something that I think we could've done with the right strategy.

[gottaB]

27. Interest group ratings, Kerry, Durbin, Chafee

Kerry: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Durbin: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H1201103

Chafee: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BRI43231


Some Selections:

 
                                        Kerry     Durbin      Chafee


NARAL (2003)                             100%       100%         90%


National Tax Limitation Committee          0%         5%         63%
(2003-2004)

National Retail Federation (2003)          0%        38%         62%


NAACP (2001-2002)                        100%       100%         48%


Consumer Federation of America           100%        90%         60%
(2000)

Christian Coalition  (2003)                0%         0%         50%


Conservative Index (2002)                 11%        20%         45%


NEA (2003)                               100%       100%         55% 


League of Conservation Voters (2003)     100%        89%         79%


Family Research Council (2003)             0%         0%         29%


Children's Defense Fund (2001)            91%        91%         73%


Citizens for Global Solutions             63%       100%         55%
(2002-2003)

Council for a Livable World (2000)        75%        88%         33%


Friends Committee (2003)                 100%        89%         56%


American Assc. of University Women       100%       100%         80%
(2003)

Brady Campaign (2003)                    100%       100%         50%


American Public Health Assc. (2003)      100%       100%         75%


League of Private Property Voters          0%        11%         33%
(2003)

UAW (2003)                               102%*       92%         52%


AFL-CIO (2003)                           100%        85%         31%


American Bar Assc. (2001-2003)           100%       100%         67%


USPIRG (2003)                             95%        90%         62%


National Journal Composite Liberal        97%        87%         53%
(2003)

Alliance for Retired Americans           100%       100%         30%
(2003)

CATO (2001-2002)                          33%        17%         92%

Conclusion. It's total bs to be saying that Chafee is more liberal than Kerry. Whether Kerry or Durbin is more liberal is open to debate, but I question the value of denying that Kerry has a liberal voting record. Even when compared to the most liberal Republican, it is clear that Kerry has more in common with liberal Democrats than with any other group.


*UAW gave Kerry a ten point bonus.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. The National Journal is the survey that declared Kerry #1 liberal

Without most people knowing that it was only based on 2003 votes. You're probably right about Kerry being more liberal than Chafee, but just being more liberal than any of the Republicans doesn't make him #1 liberal in the Senate. Plus there's nothing in there that evaluates his votes for the IWR and the first Bush tax cuts.

[gottaB]

48. Okay, let's break it down

1. The National Journal was one of the many interest groups listed. So? Are their ratings far off from other groups? USPIRG, AFLCIO, LCV, NAACP and so on--put them together in a composite, excluding ratings from the National Journal, and see how far off your composite rating is from the National Journal's. It is hardly a distortion of the facts to say that Kerry is the US Senator with the most liberal voting record. It may be debatable, it may subject to distortion, but it is in itself a reasonable conclusion to draw from his voting record.

2. It's true that the National Journal's composite rating gives a higher rating for Kerry in 2003 than in 2002, and that the "most liberal Senator" line was picked up by the opposition in an attempt to ridicule and discredit Kerry. However, there's an overall pattern which should not be overlooked. Kerry consistently rates extremely high with groups like NAACP and LCV, while he consistently rates extremely low with groups like the Christian Coalition and the John Birch Society. By most people's understanding that would be the voting record of a liberal, some would say an "extreme" or hardcore liberal.

3. IWR. Yes, there are groups that consider the IWR. Citizens for Global Solutions, which I included in my list, rated candidates on the IWR and similar bills. If that group's rating is your only yardstick, Kerry is clearly not as liberal as Durbin, and may not be much more liberal than Chafee. (NB, Kerry was absent for three votes CGS considered important. I rather suspect that had he not been campaigning in 2003, his rating would have been 80%.)

I don't disagree with the argument that a liberal ought to value peaceful solutions to international conflicts, or even that one should the IWR heavily when assessing the political views of a candidate. But should one therefore also discount dozens of other measures? To use opposition to the IRW by itself to define "liberal" would present a distorted picture. It would accurately predict that Zell Miller is a warmongering imbecile who tended to side with Republicans more than Democrats, but it wouldn't enable you to differentiate between Miller, Trent Lott, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Russ Feingold, etc. In view of the multitude of tasks that need to be undertaken by the Senate, or more narrowly the subset of foreign policy issues that need to be addressed in the interests of promoting global peace, any useful definition of "liberal" ought to encompass a group of Senators who more often than vote can be expected to come together to articulate and promote a liberal foreign policy agenda. John Kerry clearly belongs in any such group, a point which is lost on some on advocacy groups such as Peace Action, but which is clear to many others such as the Friends, the Council for a Livable World, and CGS.


3. Taxes. The votesmart list does in fact include ratings based on votes for the first Bush tax cuts. I listed the most recent scores from the National Tax Limitation Committee, a voodoo economics anti-tax group. The NTLC scorecards unfortunately do not show a vote-by-vote tally for each Senator, but their ratings are nonetheless informative. Liberal Democrats like Durbin and Kerry are rarely awarded more than a few points by this group. Moderate Republicans like Chafee are rated higher than Democrats, but not as highly as the Reagonistas would like.

4. The issue at hand in a nutshell: "Is it better to use to composite scores to identify political affiliations, or is it better to choose one or two key votes?" One aspect I've touched upon is whether a given vote is adequately representative of the total pattern of voting. Another aspect concerns the significance of a vote. In the case of the IWR many competiting interpretations of that vote have been offered, and there seems to be no shortage of disagreement as to its legal, political or rhetorical import. That diversity of meanings gives rise to another level of complexity. Some pieces of legislation are not offered in good faith. Knowing that a bill can mean different things, a legislator may put forward a bill that has a certain legal meaning, but quite a different meaning in terms of electoral politics. Which meaning should be given precedence? Furthermore, in the case of the IWR, another layer of duplicity was introduced insofar as Senators were misled and fed false intelligence by the Bush administration. That would seem to me to be a reason to put more stock in composite ratings assembled by grassroots activists and lobbyists with clear political agendas and experience in promoting their agendas through the legislative process. Not that one should discount votes one thinks are vital, but one should have a sense of proportion, and a sense of the whole political field.

5. I'm not going to try to convince you that Kerry is the most liberal Senator--because I don't believe it's true, and because it's not especially relevant. What I have shown is that the political difference between John Kerry and somebody you would consider to be among the most liberal Senators is minimal, a fact which is made clear by comparison to one of the most liberal members of the opposition. Am I trying to have it both ways? Not at all. I don't have a strong disagreement with those who would argue that Kerry is the most liberal Senator, because, as I said, it's a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn from his voting record. What I find disagreeable is the suggestion that liberals are best represented by those politicians who did or said they would have voted against the IWR, regardless of their positions on hundreds of other issues that are important to me as a liberal voter.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. I don't think that there's a HUGE difference between Kerry...

And those listed. Nonetheless the IWR, tax cuts, and free trade are big issues. Kerry voted to the right on all of them, which is important because even though he is still liberal, the notion that he is the #1 liberal when he has all of those on his record, is ridiculous. And again I still don't think that the National Journal's 2003 rating is fair (even if they clearly state that it is only 2003), because Kerry was running for president in 2003 and skipped most of the votes.

[gottaB]

54. Well, let's break it down some more

You criticize National Journal ratings, but you haven't dealt with other groups that rate Kerry as liberal. USPIRG for instance, which most would agree can be regarded as a liberal group. Now you can look at their report for 2004, when Kerry was truly absent for many votes, and it would seem that Durbin is a 100% "USPIRG liberal" while Kerry is only a 40% "USPIRG liberal." But you can also look at their lifetime scores, and see that Kerry has a 89% rating while Durbin has a 83% rating. So who's more liberal according to that group's ratings? Not Dick Durbin. Only Boxer, Corzine, Lautenberg and Reed have higher lifetime scores, while Feingold ties with Kerry at 89%.

USPIRG is yet another example, but one that fits a pattern. Clearly Kerry is among the most liberal Senators. The issues of the National Journal's accuracy and whether 2003 is a fair year in which to take a measure are red herrings. Is it your contention that USPIRG and NAACP and AFLCIO are ridiculous? Because their ratings are not far at all from the National Journal's.

To your definition of liberal you've added oppositition to "free trade," but you've mischaracterized Kerry's voting record. How is it that Kerry earned a 100% rating from the AFLCIO in 2003? By agreeing with them on 13 key issues, including trade with Chile and Singapore. How has he earned a 91% lifetime rating from the AFLCIO? Obviously his vote for NAFTA was one of the 19 votes the AFLCIO thought was wrong. But making that single vote a litmus test raises the same set of issues mentioned with regards to the IWR. Kerry's position on trade issues is not the most liberal, but the amount of agreement between Kerry and liberal interest groups on trade issues outweighs the amount of disagreements, a fact which becomes apparent when you introduce a genuinely rightwing or even moderate Republican Senator for comparison.

Tax cuts. I think we are back to the same problem of cherry picking highly contentious votes in order to make a case. If you can establish a pattern that agrees with the facts, then you're making a case. However, Kerry's overall position on taxation is progressive. It seems to me that either your view of the Bush tax cuts is too reductive, or you are failing to examine Kerry's actual voting record. Perhaps a little of both.

It will concede that you have found three issues where a case could be made that Kerry is not the most liberal Senator, and that the difference between his position and the properly liberal position is meaningful. I don't believe it's a strong case, but I accept that it's a reasonable sort of argument. The question then becomes, Are these three issues sufficient to define "liberal"? I don't think you've shown that at all.

At best I think you've outlined what might be an anti-DLC position. That is not the same thing as a purely liberal position. And if we're talking about what to do with such a position, I don't think it helps matters to mischaracterize the positions of our last nominee or other liberal DLC members in the Senate. The goal, as seen from my humble vantage point, should be to isolate the least productive, most reactionary elements of the DLC, neutralize their influence over the Party, peel off the most agreeable members, and establish in its stead a broad progressive caucus that can effectively work with centrists and moderates in order to achieve common objectives.

[erpowers]

31. I Do Not Think So

[Bridget Burke]

33. What alternative do you propose?

Refusing to make "Liberal" an insult & showing how much of what's good in America was begun b Liberals?

Or becoming more like Republicans? This is not a new suggestion.

[PATRICK]

38. The word is becoming toothless

one way or the other. We could be running someone to the right of Mussolini and they would grumble and and mumble and vote for Bush. Once in power the wind is out of their sails because it was all about the negativity. Now that they are in it is about profiting and squatting. Lucrative and only exciting for the shine of gold.

In a land devoid of enemies they break the mirror, look to their money and an invisible, irrational fear haunts them even so.

It wasn't about liberalism. It was about sanity. Sanity didn't win even though in the smothering darkness it garnered the most votes.

But the disheartening talk about liberalism is about cowardice, not unpopular ideology.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. No; running from it did

Even if someone doesn't identify him/herself as one, those of us who do are a big part of the coalition. Self-hatred is something the right systematically tries to get us to do.

[ClearMessage]

40. "Liberal" does hurt us

because we have allowed the republicans to define us, rather than define ourselves.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

43. Yes it did. Everyone I know who voted Bush cited that.

n/t

[crazyzoeillinois]

44. not a bad word you people!

Liberal is NOT A BAD WORD. We need to turn it around and shove it in the right's faces!!!!

[orpupilofnature57]

45. Sucking up to neo-cons using words like progressive did. eom

[Bouncy Ball]

46. No it didn't

and no offense but why is this even a question?

I AM A LIBERAL DAMMIT!!! I AM PROUD OF THE FACT THAT I AM A LIBERAL!!! YOU CALL ME A LIBERAL AND I WILL THANK YOU HEARTILY!!!

They CANNOT use the word against us if WE do not act like it is an insult or something to run from. WHY would it be? It's a wonderful word with a wonderful meaning.

[cyn2]

49. Doesn't matter....it's a good word, and we own it! n/t

[Lizzie Borden]

52. No. Period. That's final.

n/t

[greenohio]

53. It didn't help. If it did, shrubs advisors would have never let him use

it over and over and over.

[mvd]

55. I'd like to see someone defend the label instead of..

run away from it. Yes, it could have hurt because there was little response.