Sarah Palin: Political Strategy 2009

Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses. Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money." Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists?) or that they just didn't know. I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are totally clueless.

Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who arent's knowledgable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything of importance. The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know.

At some point, and I don't think that time is now, Sarah should be speaking out on Obama-nomics, his disastrous economic policies. She's wise with her approach of being in the limelight occasionally (interviews once or twice a month with conservative or centrist national media) and being out of it most of the time. Throughout much of 2009, third-parties (us on the blogosphere, FOX news, other conservative outlets) should carry much of the load of criticizing Obama.

Talk radio people (Rush, Glenn, Sean, Laura, and their local counterparts) should keep up a constant drumbeat of criticism, although their focus should always be Obama's policies and his associates, not the man himself. (More advice next week for talk-radio people.)

Practically speaking, Sarah must let the "Obama honeymoon" continue to unfold (and, eventually, unravel). The election didn't occur that long ago, and she doesn't want to be seen as a sore loser. Any criticisms she makes of Obama -- and this doesn't hold for people like me -- should be in tone of "helpfulness." Actually, of course, she wants to "help" Obama fail -- as he is, as he will continue to do. She wants to position herself as an attractive alternative to BHO, as the angel of real, effective change.

In terms of specifics, Obama's approval rating (about 60%) is still too high for sharp criticism to be effective. Most Americans want to "give him a chance," mainly because they can't see any alternatives. They know he's going to be around for four more years. They mistakenly confuse his success with America's. Limbaugh needs to continue simplifying his point on hoping Obama fails. The way I've put it is, "If Obama succeeds, America fails." Or, "If Obama's extreme agenda succeeds, Americans lose freedom and opportunity." She should not into detail.

When he goes below 50% in approval rating -- and that sould happen late this year -- Sarah's criticism should be sharper and relatively continual. Until then, she should be proposing constructive alternatives to Obama's "Socialism Lite." She needs to stay away from abstractions, such as "he wants to redistribute the wealth," and personalize it, "He wants to take your money and your children's money and give it to other people." She needs one-syllable words and short sentences -- "zingers."

Most of all, she doesn't want to suffer from over-exposure. Remember, part of Sarah's charm is her role as "the Mystery Lady from the Northland."

Gov. Ed Rendell of PA is admittedly, a vote-buying, semi-socialist type who never saw a tax increase he didn't like. However, he's also a very savvy politician, and he said of Sarah, "She has great political instincts." He's absolutely correct. Lately, Sarah's instincts have been telling her to take a lower profile -- not to be invisible, but to be less visible. That will also help strengthen her situation in Alaska, where the people -- some of whom act like little more than children -- can get the idea that Sarah is paying sufficient attention to them.

Those of in the "Sarah Movement" never tire of her. We may wish we had "all Sarah all the time." But she needs to be very calculating about media appearances. My view is that never again -- even if she ends up getting electing President -- should she waste her time with people like Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. CBS. for example, is in nearly as bad shape as Ciitigroup and GM. There's no reason to prop up Katie or other Obama shills.

Right now, the most important thing she can do is to raise money for SarahPac -- lots of money. She needs to determine exactly which candidates she wants to help. A good "first candidate" would be Jim Tedisco, the Republican state assembly leader in New York who's running for the vacant congressional seat in New York's 20th District. It's an important race (for a seat perviously held by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand). Also, it's in an area of New York (Albany, Saratoga Springs, Hudson Valley) that's friend to Sarah and her views. Sarah has a great chance to carry New York in the 2012 "Super Tuesday" primary.

She should concentrate appearances (over the next three years) in states she must win, including FL (crucial), VA, NC, NM, CO, NV, OH (crucial), and perhaps PA.

Why am I concerned about over-exposure for Sarah? Consider what happened to Hillary Clinton, who had certainly been around -- and in the news for a long time. By 2007, the media was tired of her. She was old news. Some journalists speculated that the nation was suffering from "Clinton fatigue." In contrast, Obama was "the new guy in town," someone who was "bold and fresh," to steal Bill O'Reilly's phrase.

Sarah doesn't want to become old news. When a conservative journalist wants to interview her -- and go to Alaska to do so -- she should cooperate if it's in her interest to do so. When a left-wing journalist (or someone like Oprah, wants to chat, Sarah should find some an excuse to say no.

Barack Obama: Bankrupting the Nation

Handing money out to AIG is "like donating blood at a morgue." (Troy Dunn)
Him: "Look, he's giving us all money just like he primised."
Her: "He has your wallet."

Financial expert Troy Dunn says, "It's like donating blood at a morgue." He's talking about the government's stupid decision to throw more cash at hapless AIG.

In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- in the sidebar at the upper right.)

Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.

Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%..

What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.

Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.

Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.

GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.

GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.

What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.

What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?

What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners in listed shares of all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation. (Citigroup, once the most valuable financial institution in the world now has its stock trading at $1.03 per share.)

This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."

About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."

If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.

Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning." Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.

[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]

Rush is Right, Obama Wrong

Tomorrow (Thursday), I'll discuss Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million resident. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million provide 63% of the city's revenue. What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? It would do real harm to city services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people. Is Obama aware of such situations? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama.

Below: "Obama's success would be America's failure." That's why we don't want him to succeed.

Barack Obama has no understanding of how the American economy works. How could he? The man has spent his entire life going to left-wing academic institutions, "organizing" communities, and running for ever-higher offices. If you want to know what's wrong with the economy and what must be done to fix it, don't go to Obama's web site. Instead, come here, where I'll offer simple explanations of what is going on and how we can help improve the situation.

A last word (for now) on Rush Limbaugh's amazing speech to CPAC: What Rush reminds us is that we don't have to "make nice" with people who try to smear Sarah Palin -- or who sling mud at Limbaugh. Being nice to deceitful, dishonest people ensures they will never get any better. We may not change their minds, but we can at least make them uncomfortable.

Frankly, in his LONG address Rush did not say offensive things. His goal was to defend responsible democracy and the American way of life. The accusations he made about Obama's socialist -- or vote-buying -- agenda happen to be true.

Some of our Republican leaders are good people -- John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, even Michael Steele -- but they aren't forceful enough. As Limbaugh indicated, when it comes to simple matters of right-and-wrong, "bipartisanship" is not the answer.

When a public policy is bad, compromising on it doesn't make it "half-bad." When Obama is taking steps that harm charities and the housing market, we don't need a bipartisan compromise. When people tell us comforting lies, we need to tell the truth to the best of our ability.

Also, when investors feel gloomy about the stock market's prospects, we need to reveal the negative effects of Obama's efforts to increase the tax rate on capital gains and reduce people's capacity to invest. Finally, when Rush says that's what Obama's doing, is he being "mean" -- or is he just reciting some obvious truths?

We don't want to punish the most productive people in the economy and reward the least productive. Doing so harms the country. That's why many of us, including Rush, don't want Obama to succeed.

In fact, Obama's success would be America's failure. We don't want to become like Britain and France, with slow growth, high unemployment, and a social welfare scheme that reduces opportunity.

Barack Obama likes to talk a lot about Abraham Lincoln and, lately, Franklin D. Roosevelt. One historical individual Obama has never mentioned -- but should -- is Benjamin Franklin.

What's the best way to gain great wealth? Is it to speculate wildly on Wall Street, assuming that the market will always go up -- as you've noticed, it doesn't? Or is it to buy more house than you can afford, believing that the market will always trend upward and you can sell it at a handsome profit. Not anymore.

Benjamin Franklin took a more modest approach, one we might describe not as "get rich quick," but rather as "Get rich . . . slowly."

He said, "The road to wealth, if you desire it [who doesn't?], is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality. That is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both."

In the U.S., tens of millions of people have gotten wealthy by doing exactly what Franklin advised. (In contrast, Obama got rich through two massive book deals for autobiographical volumes that were strong on hope and short on real accomplishments.) His wife got a rich person's salary primarily because she was married to an influential legislator.

Currently, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich is trying to get rich with a book deal of his own. If all else fails, as it did for Blagojevich if not for Obama, then write a book.

For normal people, it pays to follow Ben Franklin's advice, sagacious as he always was.

[Tomorrow: What Obama doesn't know about the economy could fill a book -- one he presumably won't ever write.]

Rush Limbaugh versus Barack Obama

On Rush Limbaugh: We all, including Rush, fall into the situation described by St. Paul: "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the Glory of God." Sarah Palin reminded us long ago that she isn't perfect either. (But you're closer than most, Sarah!) This is the second of two columns today about Limbaugh. Scroll down to see the other.

NOTE: PLEASE SEE URGENT INFORMATION AT BOTTOM


That said, Rush Limbaugh evokes fear and loathing from the Left not because he's a "bad man." He does so because he is the embodiment of the American Dream. He came from nowhere (Cape Girardeau, MO) and from nothing. He never went to college (remember, Bill Gates dropped out in his sophomore year). He has benefited greatly from the kind of opportunity America provides to its citizens. He's grateful. He doesn't expect everybody to agree with him, because he understands, as he put it, that we're all individuals, all unique.

I disagree with Rush on a couple of issues, one of which is how to handle immigration. But I was happy he brought up the scapegoating of businesspeople, some of whom are no more responsible for their companies' problems than I am for the collapse of my 401-K. He made ME feel guilty, because I sometimes trash Wall Streeters indiscriminately. Of course, the Obama people are looking around for others -- scapegoats -- to blame for the disastrous results their policies are producing.

Rush shamed the media, which should be shamed every single day. He brought up questions about Obama's actions that the media should be raising -- but isn't. He asked where on earth a socialist agenda, and that is Obama's agenda, had ever worked. That is a legitimate question, and not one CNN or MSNBC wants anything to do with.

To me, Rush stood up for the Constitution, for liberty, for tolerance (*we want everybody to be successful"), and for opportunity. If people want to trash him for that, they're not only short-sighted but downright dangerous. For someone like Rahm Emmanuel, the essence of America boils down to buying votes and selling influence. For Barack Obama, it's redistributing wealth -- without having a clue how wealth is created.

Rush said what many people feel and believe, but lack the skill -- or the guts -- to tell the truth as effectively as he did. As one of my blogs put it today, "Three cheers for Rush Limbaugh."


URGENT INFORMATION BELOW:

CONGRESS EXPIRES CRITICAL TOOL FOR SCREENING ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT!
The E-Verify Program, on which businesses across the country rely to screen
employment of illegal aliens expires this Friday, March 6. E-Verify has been in
use since 1997 by businesses nationwide - but Congress appears to be 'hoping'
Americans won't notice that they removed the extension of this regulation from the
"Stimulus Plan" and the issue has been ignored and screened out of Mass Media
news coverage.

LET'S SHOW WASHINGTON WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION and we are opposed
to the hiring of illegal aliens. SIGN the Urgent E-VERIFY PETITION Now - and send this
link to your friends to sign on in support of this "Smart Business Practice."
http://www.wam08.org/TakeaStand.html

In Praise of Rush Limbaugh

Last Saturday afternoon Rush Limbaugh delivered a remarkable one-and-a-half-hour speech to CPAC. It was broadcast live by FOX, CNN, and a few other outlets. The speech ignited a storm of commentary on the Sunday talk shows and throughout the country. In it, Rush said he "hope(s) Obama fails." Rush said he felt that way because Obama's policies, particularly in economics, are bad for the country -- and at variance with the traditions that have made this an exceptional country.

I watched the well-received speech on CNN, a network Limbaugh intentionally failed to mention in his speech (he mentioned FOX several times). The CNN reporter and news reader seemed miffed that Rush had omitted any reference to their network.

CNN also read several e-mails from viewers hostile to Limbaugh. One called him a "fascist"; another likened him to Hitler. Later, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele called Limbaugh an "agitator" and "incendiary." (Subsequently, Steele apologized and praised Rush.)

Time out, folks. Limbaugh's could have been "A Tribute to America." He spoke in support of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, two documents he believes Obama is ignoring in his rush toward a nanny-state. Rush allied himself with the Declaration's commitment to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He called for a government that respects the Constitution, which Obama clearly does not. He saluted Americans' self-reliance and their belief in liberty and opportunity.

In short, the speech Limbaugh gave was one Barack Obama should have delivered -- but won't -- ever. There was nothing fascistic or Hitlerian about Rush's call for equality of opportunity and fairness. There's nothing dictorial about a love of democracy.

Yes, it's possible to disagree with Rush on some issues -- and I do myself. However, Rush cherishes dissent from his views, because he realizes that conflict draws attention. If he didn't have an audience, he's end up like so many of us, basically talking to ourselves. When Rush talks, people listen, and that's the main goal of his profession.

If Limbaugh is an "agitator," then the nation could use a lot more agitation. If he's an "entertainer," as he has often admitted he is, Rush demonstrates that there's nothing wrong with being entertaining. Making a thoughtful statement on politics and society does not require one to be as boring as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Michael Steele.

Limbaugh is passionate about all the right things: liberty, equality, opportunity, innovation, and wealth creation. He's deeply rooted in American traditions and values. Other Republicans could learn a great deal from him.

Does Rush rely heavily on emotion? Of course, and he's wise to do so. Most Americans (70%? 80%? More?) don't on their intellect -- the rationality -- in making political decisions. Instead, they respond vicerally, emtionally -- with their hearts first and their heads second. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with feeling strongly about issues. Other Republicans -- in general, we're an unexciting lot, alas -- could learn a lot from Limbaugh.

Rush's point -- and my point -- is this: We hope Obama fails in his effort to socialize the country. Insofar as Obama fails, the nation succeeds. Insofar as Obama fails, the Constitution will remain the foundation of our nation's greatness.

Obama: "All the Wrong Moves"

NOTE: Tomorrow (Tuesday) I'll switch gears for a day and write "In Praise of Rush Limbaugh." speaking about his Saturday remarks at CPAC (and the fall-out). Then, I'll go back to explaining why Obama's horrible economic and social policies are driving the nation into a Depression.

In dealing with the current severe recession, Barack Obama is making "all the wrong moves." He is taking steps that will turn today's recession into tomorrow's Depression. At a certain point, he will not be able to blame his mistakes on George W. Bush.

I'll be writing all this week (on this blog and my other one) about what has gone wrong with our economy -- and why Obama's spending spree won't cure what ails us.

Amity Shlaes' book about the Depression (The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression) talks a great deal about the real strengths -- and the real weaknesses -- of Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The big question she faces is: Why on earth did the Depression last so long (from 1929-1940)? The answer is that, first Hoover, and then Roosevelt, pursued policies that made a sustained recovery impossible. Roosevelt cultivated groups, such as consumers, who had many votes and scapegoated producers, who had few votes. He looked at voters not as individuals but rather as members of groups, a Democratic tendency that continues to the present day.

Regarding Franklin Roosevelt, Shlaes reminds us that very rich man gained his wealth from inheritance. He was not in any sense a self-made man. Frankly, he knew less about business than most people who put in a stint at 7/11 or Burger King. Hoover wasn't much better, believing that a balanced budget would cure all economic woes.

Why is what Amity Shlaes says important? BECAUSE OBAMA IS MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES THAT PROLONGED THE DEPRESSION. Shlaes says:

". . . The biggest problem was the intervention, the lack of faith in the marketplace. Government management of the late 1920s and 1930s hurt the economy. Both Hoover and Roosevelt misstepped in a number of ways. Hoover ordered wages up when they wanted to go down [because of deflation, which is what we have now]. He allowed a disastrous tariff, Smoot-Hawley [think: "buy American"], to become law when he should have had the sense to block. He raised taxes when neither citizens individually nor the economy as a whole could afford the change. After 1932, [many nations, including Japan, Sweden, Greece, Denmark, and others] began seeing industrial production levels rise again -- but not the United States.

"Roosevelt's errors . . . were equally devastating. He created regulatory, aid, and relief agencies based on the premise that recovery could only be achieved through large, military-style efforts . . . [Some] new institutions, such as the National Recovery Administration [NRA], did damage. The NRA . . . [over-relied on] price-setting. NRA rules were so stringent they perversely hurt business. They frightened away capital, and they discouraged business from hiring workers. Another problem was that the laws . . . were so broad that no one knew how they would be interpreted. The resulting hesitation in itself arrested growth.

"Where the private sector could help to bring the economy back -- in the area of [electric] utilities, for example -- Roosevelt and his New Dealers often suppressed it . . . . [As a result of Roosevelt's intimidation tactics] business decided to wait Roosevelt out, hold onto their cash, and invest it in future years. Yet Roosevelt retaliated by introducing a tax -- the undistributed profits tax -- to press the money out of them.

"Such forays prevented recovery and took the country into the depression within the Depression of 1937 and 1938 . . . . The high [union] wages [for some] made possible by New Deal legislation helped those workers who earned them. But the inflexibility of those wages also prevented companies from hiring additional workers. Hence the persistent shortage of jobs in the latter part of the 1930s . . . . Fear froze the economy, but that uncertainty itself might have a cost was something the young experimenters [of the New Deal] simply did not consider.

"Roosevelt's move[s overall were] so profound that they changed the English language. Before the 1930s, the world 'liberal' stood for the individual; afterward, the phrase increasingly stood for groups."

Tomorrow on my blogs, I'll talk about how Obama has turned out to be someone who doesn't know or understand economic history and thus seems hell-bent on repeating it. Like Hoover and FDR, he doesn't understand business -- how could he? -- and so he's advancing policies, especially in taxes, that make it impossible for private enterprise, especially small businesses, to create a sufficient number of jobs. That's not his intention, of course, but neither was it the intention of Hoover and Roosevelt.

Obama: Constitution ISN'T "Living Document"

God must have loved Hillary Clinton Supporters, because he made so many of them. Today (Sunday) I picked an argument with one HRC backer -- this time about the false notion that the U.S. Constitution is a "living document." Supposed constitutional law "expert" Barack Obama believes it is. He's wrong, as he is about so many things. (Picture above is Obama consulting one of his key advisers on constitutional law.)

"Some people say the Constitution is a 'living document.' In fact, the Constitution is a a 'dead document." (Justice Antonin Scalia)

What Scalia meant by that statement (made on "60 Minutes") is that the Constitution is a written document, and the words in it mean what they appear to. What that means also is that Barb C., Steve Maloney, and Antonin Scalia can read the document as written and UNDERSTAND (and frankly, eventually agree on) what it means. We can consult historical dictionaries and the like to make sure certain words didn't have a different meaning in the 18th century than they do now. The problem with taking a liberal view of the Constitution is that it undermines the purpose of having such a document. If it means something different every morning when we wake up, then heaven help us. Obama takes a liberal view, where the certifiably dead document is eternally in flux."

Obama studied constitutional law at Harvard. Is he really an expert on the subject? In his adult lifetime, Obama has never written a single article on constitutional law. He hasn't even submitted a footnote. So far as we know, he's never examined or edited a piece submitted for a top law review. In fact, if he's ever made a coherent statement on the subject, I must have missed it.

That's not an impressive performance for someone who served as the first African-American "president" (not "editor" as you may have heard) of the Harvard Law Review. Would Obama, a living monument to affirmative-action, have been chosen president of that august body if he hadn't been (partly) of African-American descent? I leave that to your imagination. He proves that even a classic under-achiever can get ahead in America.