Analysis of the Republican Debate in New Hampshire
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-14/analysis-republican-debate-new-hampshire
Seven Republican challengers met face to face for the first major debate in the run-up to the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain sparred over health care, jobs, and U.S. involvement in Libya. But the candidates primarily focused on President Obama rather than each other. The debate was billed as the most important event of the Republican nomination process so far. But did the candidates set themselves apart? And will this early debate matter in the voting booth? Analysis of the Granite State’s first Republican debate.
Guests
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Michael Tomasky
special correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast; editor of the quarterly journal Democracy.
Stephen Hayes
senior writer at the Weekly Standard and a Fox News contributor.
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
PhillipBrandon on June 14, 2011 @ 10:30 am asked: "Are ultra-conservatives against the idea of federalism? (I literally don't know their stance.)"
When it serves their purpose? Of course.
That's why they oppose the health care law with the (phony and simplistic) cry of "States' Rights" (a term not to be found in the Constitution, by the way), but support invasion of the Federal government's exclusive authority over Immigration, such as by Arizona's SB1070.
Chuckjones on June 14, 2011 @ 11:10 am wrote: “Been listening to this morning's show and hearing one of the program's analysts refer to Michelle Bachman's "extreme views." There was no debate on the characterization among the other panelists and Diane.”
And that proves bias according to you? Maybe they thought there were more important things to discuss (like what the candidates said). Heaven knows there’s enough of the media contemplating its own reflection rather than reporting!
Oh, if “liberal bias” is your explanation, answer me this: How come Mr. Hayes an enthusiastic Bachmann supporter, and a reporter/commentator for the conservative “Weekly Standard” and Fox News, didn’t launch a “debate on the characterization”? Maybe because immediately before he had called her views “pitch-perfect”, and there had been no “debate on the characterization” either?
meangreen on June 14, 2011 @ 6:32 pm asked: "Where the smoking gun on Sarah Palins 24,000 emails during her time as Governor."
What has that got to do with the price of eggs in China?
This episode of The Diane Rehm Show was about the New Hampshire debate, not about the Alaskan e-mail dump. You might as well complain that there was no discussion about Palin's lack of knowledge about American history!
CR on June 14, 2011 @ 7:41 pm wrote: “Let me see if I get this right now, . . . .”
No, you didn’t, since you obviously think playing the game of “count the guests” proves something (as opposed to what they had to say, and how well it matches reality).
A big tip-off is your calling Mr. Hayes “Center”. No, he’s hard right!
And your complaint about the “old song” is pathetic. Sure, taken “out-of-context” you can spin it any way you wish.
But taken in context it clearly just referred to the fact that Palin is the other “Tea Bagger” darling, who’s place Bachmann is trying to take (and did take in this debate).
CR on June 14, 2011 @ 7:47 pm wrote: “But, let me add that I enjoyed the Richard White interview on his new book about Railroads.”
But did you appreciate the fact that it pretty much destroys the Republi-Con, Libertarian, Ayn Randian nonsense about the perfection of the “free market”? After all, the railroads would never have existed without massive government assistance!
CR on June 14, 2011 @ 7:57 pm wrote: “I wonder about the expense of this witch hunt against Governor Palin? . . . . Small minds feeding small minds.”
Which one would that be? The one where a blogger posted obscene pictures she had Twittered to her adoring male fans? (No, that didn’t happen.)
The one where the media followed what was clearly a self-promoting publicity tour, providing her the attention she obviously craves? (That happened, but I’d hardly call it a “witch hunt”.)
Oh, maybe you’re referring to the “Alaska dump” of her e-mails. You know, the one finally made in response to a request from 2008 (when she was running for Vice-President)? Gee, and here I thought Republi-Cons wanted complete transparency from their public figures, and would spare no expense in demanding every piece of paper they can, and crafting crazy “conspiracy theories” when they don’t.
Let me just whisper two words in your ear: Birth Certificate! Ring any bells?
The only small mind I see on display, sir, is yours.
thrashertm on June 15, 2011 @ 12:03 am wrote: “Once again, for the 10,000th time - Ron Paul advocates non-interventionism - NOT isolationism. Trade and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Get a clue.”
The term “isolationism” refers to the movement (notably before World War II) that opposed intervention in foreign conflicts, and which was quite content to allow Hitler to sweep across Europe.
While I would hope that if faced with such evil Mr. Paul would see the wisdom of such “interventionism”, his rhetoric doesn’t indicate it. Thus the comment by the guests was correct.
Get a history book.
So Mr. Cain wouldn’t “feel comfortable” appointing Muslims. How does he feel about appointing Blacks?
More importantly, this is apparently another one of those Republi-Con “scholars” who lecture us on “returning to the Constitution”, but don’t know a thing about it! (Such as Article 6, Paragraph 3: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”.)
Then there’s Pawlenty, who claimed he could produce 10 years of 5% growth (through “voodoo economics”, of course), something never achieved in American history! Maybe for his next trick he’ll wow us with his ability to walk on water, or just part the Red Sea!
(But for those who like prophecies about the 2012 Election, I have good news for Pawlenty. Pay no attention to the pundits, pollsters, and commentariat. My infallible source has predicted he will win on Election Day - the Magic 8 Ball says so!)
Mr. Elving made the understatement of the entire show: “That [Rick Perry’s support for secession] would take us back to 1861 in an interesting way. But times have changed. It's a different Republican Party. . . .”
Yeah, the Republicans of the 1860’s were known as the “radical Republicans”. They fought a war to preserve the Union (against Southern treason). They created the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to take away the South’s “states’ rights” to trample on the freedoms of all persons (not just Blacks), putting the Federal government in charge of protecting those freedoms. And, oh yes, they gave us our first national income tax!
Today’s GOP is clearly no longer “the party of Lincoln”, which is yet another reason I coined the term “Republi-Cons”!
The candidates only had 30 seconds to speak! What genius came up with that one? I realize that with 7 people, and 2 hours available, that left about 17 minutes per person, but come on! That’s not enough time for anyone to make an intelligent and informed statement. They might as well have allowed each candidate to run 17 minutes of their campaign ads (at 30 seconds an ad)!
Meanwhile, I have one thing to say to Ms. Bachmann and Mr. Hayes: YOU LIE!
How much longer must we endure that canard about the new health care law “costing” 800,000 jobs? In fact the CBO said nothing of the kind! What it actually said is that a number of people would no longer have to work just to afford health insurance. For example, some people would no longer need to work two jobs to afford health care. (Which, of course, means those jobs would then be vacant for unemployed people to fill.)
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=05A3200A-558C-47D9-A860-30E4...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/14/michele-b...
So let’s see: the Law will make health insurance (and thus health care) more affordable for more people. Those people will no longer be forced to work just to get insurance. The job openings created when those people stop working (or work less) will then be available for unemployed people to fill. In short, a win/win situation for the nation. No wonder Bachmann pledges to repeal it!
monte, on June 13, 2011 @ 10:46 pm wrote: “Michelle Bachman seems the brightest . . . , very sharp I like her a lot.”
Oh please! Aside from her “little lie”, consider some other statements she made:
She believes that raising children is best accomplished by a “mom and dad”, and therefore wants a constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, even though she was raised by a single mother! She’s a living refutation of her argument! (Then again, given she’s “fact challenged”, maybe not?)
She supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, but she won’t “interfere” with the laws of States that allow same-sex marriage? Again, an obvious contradiction!
Too bad she wasn’t asked a really hard question: such as the location of Lexington and Concord!
And we’re being told (by “experts”) this person “won” the debate! I shall retire to Bedlam.
Finally:
Of course what matters more than the arrant nonsense all these candidates spewed was a dose of reality: the phone call from Barry about his friend who died because she had no health insurance, and couldn’t afford proper cancer treatments. That matters more than all the GOP slogans about “economic freedom”, as if the Constitution was written by Ayn Rand or Grover Norquist.
Repeal “Obamacare”? And what will they put in its place? The “hope” that the “pure, perfect, sacred, and holy” free market will solve all our problems (like it did for Barry’s friend perhaps?). Or maybe the wonderfull “Ryan Plan”, which will replace actual insurance (Medicare) with vouchers that (so far as I know) won’t increase as the costs of premiums go up, and also won’t do anything about insurers denying coverage for “pre-existing conditions” (which everyone over 65 have)?
I’m not worried about the latter. I’m 58 and will be “grandfathered” into the current Medicare system. But all you “young whippersnappers” should be cautious about (once again) buying a “pig-in-a-poke” from these people. You bought their claim in 2010 that they were going to focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs” and would ignore social issues like abortion, gay rights, birth control, and unions. How’s that workin’ out for ya?
Ciao!
Etaoin Shrdlu 2 wrote:
meangreen on June 14, 2011 @ 6:32 pm asked: "Where the smoking gun on Sarah Palins 24,000 emails during her time as Governor."
What has that got to do with the price of eggs in China?
This episode of The Diane Rehm Show was about the New Hampshire debate, not about the Alaskan e-mail dump. You might as well complain that there was no discussion about Palin's lack of knowledge about American history!
Etaoin:
I guess in an indirect way she is running but has not announced. Remember her avoiding the media while on her bus trips. Good for her.
The media is obsessed with her. I got a feeling she would do a better job in running the economy of this country than than the present POTUS.
Etaoin Shrdlu 2 wrote:
CR on June 14, 2011 @ 7:47 pm wrote: “But, let me add that I enjoyed the Richard White interview on his new book about Railroads.”
But did you appreciate the fact that it pretty much destroys the Republi-Con, Libertarian, Ayn Randian nonsense about the perfection of the “free market”? After all, the railroads would never have existed without massive government assistance!
Etaoin
It is the free market and capitalism that took Government invented ideas to the masses. Think of the internet or computer. What Bill Gates and Micheal Dell did could have never been duplicated by government entities. Yes they have used the tax credits or as you call it massive government assitance to better mankind just like the railroads did. The railroads added to this country's wealth bringing more people from the east and the transportation of goods and services.
But then as you stated, this is about the New Hampshire debates. "What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China".
Etaoin stated on June 16@3:58am
"So let’s see: the Law will make health insurance (and thus health care) more affordable for more people. Those people will no longer be forced to work just to get insurance. The job openings created when those people stop working (or work less) will then be available for unemployed people to fill. In short, a win/win situation for the nation. No wonder Bachmann pledges to repeal it!"
CBO numbers are always changing so something meant for today does not mean it will be like that tommorrow. Ask Cathine Sabluis? She left some numbers out after the Reform Bill was passed.
How will insurance become more affordable? I have not seen my private insurance go down if anything it has gone up. What if the majority of doctors refuse to take patients from these government back insurance companies like they do medicare or medicaid? You bring down costs by not paying medical professional as much resulting in higher overhead costs and effecting everybody employed in that doctor's office. What makes you think that the present system will not be the model for these new exchange programs. Kind of reminds me of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Half Government owned and half private own but the government dictates the rules and everybody losses.
Etoain: you have never worked in the private sector and just as bad as Obama who has never had a real job in the private sector.
To meangreen, writing on June 16, 2011 @ 8:21 am:
Your "response" to my earlier Comment really isn't one. You still haven't answered the question: why bother bringing up the "Alaska e-mail dump" at all? It wasn't part of the discussion, and had nothing to do with the debate. In fact, it's a little like "Saint Sarah" herself: she goes on a "publicity tour" in a big obvious bus, then complains when things go awry because she gave a stupid answer to a softball question. (And she didn't even have the grace to admit her error, and defuse the damage with self-deprecating humor.)
Yeah, given those personality traits "I got a feeling" she'd make a great President - NOT!
Fortunately the Magic 8 Ball has spoken, and she won't be!
;-)
meangreen on June 16, 2011 @ 8:40 am wrote: “It is the free market and capitalism that took Government invented ideas to the masses. Think of the internet or computer. . . . . ‘What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China.’ ”
PART ONE
The answer is simple, but you don’t see it because you (like most conservatives) have a manichean view of this issue: either we must worship the “pure, perfect, sacred, and holy” free market, and condemn all government intrusion into economic activity, or else we’re a bunch of Commies!
I very specifically mentioned “the Republi-Con, Libertarian, Ayn Randian nonsense about the perfection of the ‘free market’ ”. This manichean view is what that reference meant. All you’ve done is argue that the free market can be beneficial. When have I ever denied that?
But it’s one thing to say (as I do, paraphrasing Churchill) that Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others, it’s something else to say (like the Republi-Cons) that the absolute laissez-faire version of Capitalism is the only version we can employ. I believe in regulated Capitalism, where the excesses and failures of the free market are balanced and checked by reasonable regulation, and where the failures of government are balanced and checked by the marketplace. That’s been part of the policy of America from the start, and it's something entirely different from what the Republi-Cons are saying.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Which brings me to my point about the railroads. They never would have existed without massive government support. But that violates “laissez-faire”. In short, in the real world those companies would never have survived if Republi-Con policies had been in place, and good-bye to all the benefits you correctly say flowed from and through the railroads!
(I’ve always thought it ironic that Dabney Taggart, the heroine of Atlas Shrugged, was in railroading. The “bible” of the modern form of Social Darwinism has a main character whose business wouldn’t exist without the very thing the book condemns: government interference with the “free market”!)
Ditto for computers. You know an important part of how and why the first ones were created? As part of government financed projects (for example, to break the Enigma code). Maybe, starting from scratch, Gates and Dell could have invented computers, software, and programming codes all by themselves, but that’s not what happened! To paraphrase Newton: if they saw farther than most in that field, it was because they stood on the shoulders of government funded giants!
Oh, and I believe Gates himself is no supporter of pure “laissez-faire”. I can’t speak for Dell.
Why is this so hard for you conservatives to understand? Because you live in a world of black or white, where there is no middle ground.
meangreen on June 16, 2011 @ 9:07 am wrote: “CBO numbers are always changing so something meant for today does not mean it will be like that tommorrow.”
True, but once again, irrelevant! Bachmann and Hayes weren’t simply relying on CBO numbers (if that was all they did, my objection would simply be to raise the point you make, and argue that what it said last August might not turn out to be true).
But they LIED about the report. They claimed it said 800,000 jobs would be eliminated, when all it actually said is that 800,000 people would no longer have to work just to get health insurance. That’s not the same thing.
Put it this way: if I said segregated schools are constitutional according to Brown v. Board of Education, that would be a bare-faced lie. The fact that a future Supreme Court might overrule Brown and reinstate Plessy v. Ferguson (the 19th Century case that allowed segregation) doesn’t make my lie into truth.
At best, one could try to defend Bachmann and Hayes by saying they were simply mistaken, and didn’t know what they were talking about. Leaving aside the moral duty of a candidate for public office to get her facts straight (and a reporter/commentator as well), whether they are fools or knaves they are no one I’d want running this country, or giving me political commentary.
Besides, how effective do you think this bumpersticker would be:
“Bachmann: she’s not a liar, she’s just ignorant and wrong!”
meangreen on June 16, 2011 @ 9:07 am wrote: “How will insurance become more affordable? I have not seen my private insurance go down if anything it has gone up.”
If you bothered to actually read the material I provided links to (which include, in turn, links to the actual CBO report) you’d know the answer. Then again, if you spent as much time studying the health care law as you spend making irrelevant arguments against it you’d know the answer as well.
Let me give you a few examples: The law provides subsidies to individuals and small businesses that can’t afford insurance. Subsidies means the insurance is more affordable. The law also will create (after 2014) Insurance Exchanges that will allow people who purchase insurance as individuals (like I do) to purchase as a “group”. Employer provided insurance is way cheaper because it is group insurance. Thus, individual insurance will become more affordable. (Why? Ask an accountant. It’s got something to do with the actuarial calculations that insurance companies use to set premiums.) Then there are all the provision preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Among other things, that will allow “shopping around” for cheaper policies. Right now, if you have such a condition your present insurer essentially has a monopoly - you can’t change insurers without losing your coverage (assuming you can even get that new policy). Oh, and then there’s the dreaded “individual mandate” (which I don’t necessarily support). It’s premised on the fact that the more people who buy insurance, the more the risk is spread, and the lower the premiums become. Lower premiums = more affordable.
Simple, ain’t it?
(Though, whether this will actually work is another question all together. The only way to know is to try. Most of this won't go into effect for years, so your current premiums are irrelevant.)
meangreen on June 16, 2011 @ 9:07 am wrote: “What if the majority of doctors refuse to take patients from these government back insurance companies like they do medicare or medicaid?”
These are not “government backed insurance companies”, they are private insurance companies, the same ones currently operating. The government subsidies (etc.) go to the purchasers of the policies, not the issuers. (As for your assertions about Medicare or Medicaid - I don’t know that’s true, but it’s irrelevant.)
“You bring down costs by not paying medical professional as much resulting in higher overhead costs and effecting everybody employed in that doctor's office.”
Which, by the way, is exactly what private insurers have been doing for years. Ever look at the statements you get from your insurer when it makes a payment? Look carefully. You’ll note they rarely pay 100% of what was billed. (And no, your co-pay doesn’t make up the difference.) And yet, we haven’t seen reports that the majority of doctors have switched to a “cash only” system.
(By the way, on June 6th All Thing’s Considered had a report discussing some of this: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/135385837/high-costs-limited-care-a-pain-f...)
meangreen on June 16, 2011 @ 9:07 am wrote: “What makes you think that the present system will not be the model for these new exchange programs. Kind of reminds me of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Half Government owned and half private own but the government dictates the rules and everybody losses.”
Well, so it turns out you already knew part of the answer to your original question. Yet you asked it anyway. How disingenuous of you.
Anyway, you are just engaging in more “cheap shots”. I’m not sure what “present system” you mean (Medicare, etc., or Freddie and Fannie) but it’s irrelevant in either case.
(I’ve already dealt with the Medicare argument.)
Freddie and Fannie played a part in the economic meltdown, but they were not the source of the problem, neither were they primarily responsible for it. (That’s another lie conservatives love to tell.) The source was the unregulated toxic adjustable rate mortgages, the credit default swaps, and the derivatives, that were based on those mortgages. Neither Freddie nor Fannie created those mortgages. Their role in the mortgage business is limited to buying up mortgages and then re-selling the package of mortgages to investors in the secondary market (“securitizing” the mortgages). They don’t regulate or control the original creation of the mortgages.
Things went wrong when they decided to “jump on the bandwagon” and get into the market for those toxic mortgages, just like the (largely unregulated) commercial banks were. In a sense, they were creating their own version of “credit default swaps”.
Oh, and by the way, Freddie has existed since 1938, Fannie since 1968, without trouble up to now. I wonder how many private sector banks and financial institutions went bankrupt or had to be taken over by the FDIC (another “horrible” government program) during that time period?
Nice try playing “the game of perfection”.
meangreen on June 16, 2011 @ 9:07 am wrote: “Etoain: you have never worked in the private sector and just as bad as Obama who has never had a real job in the private sector.”
Wow, a double header! Wrong on both counts.
My first job as a lawyer was working for a firm defending Michelin Tire Corporation in Products Liability cases. I’ve also worked for private firms in the areas of land use, medical malpractice defense, securities laws (filing initial pubic offerings of stock), contracts and international sale of goods, commercial construction contracts (representing private contractors, including in suits against the government), and civil litigation involving private financial fraud (you know, swindled investors trying to get their money back). Oh, I also have some brief experience working for the government, but the vast majority of my work was done “in the private sector”.
You do no better with Obama. Among other jobs “in the private sector” he worked for the Business International Corporation (a publishing and advisory firm, though apparently with CIA ties), and he served as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization (the Catholic church). While attending Harvard Law School (from which he graduated magna cum laude, by the way) he worked as a summer intern at private law firms. He worked for two-years as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and then served as a professor of Constitutional Law for twelve years. He also worked as an attorney for 11 years in a private law firm. (We won’t bother to count his work for various private foundations.)
Sound arguments require fact and reason. When will you learn this simple lesson?
Ciao.
Etoain: Stated on june 16
"you do no better with Obama. Among other jobs “in the private sector” he worked for the Business International Corporation (a publishing and advisory firm, though apparently with CIA ties), and he served as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization (the Catholic church). While attending Harvard Law School (from which he graduated magna cum laude, by the way) he worked as a summer intern at private law firms. He worked for two-years as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and then served as a professor of Constitutional Law for twelve years. He also worked as an attorney for 11 years in a private law firm. (We won’t bother to count his work for various private foundations.)"
Everyone of the positions that you stated still does not prove that he understands how private for profit sector works?
1. His position w/ BIC, which he did for one year and mostly did writing & reseach. His employer was nothing like working for General Foods.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html
2. He was a block walker which has nothing to do with a profit and loss statement.
3. He took an intership and was a Dean at the University of Chicago. Still does not prove that he understand the way a small or large for profit corportation works.
4. These so call private foundations which are probably the non profit type, did he run any of them, was asked that his job depended on his fund raising results. I know that in these tough times non-profits are taking the practices of the for profit companies being that contributors are ask so more with the money they donate. Non profits probably do not get the funds that they use to get because the rich people who do the majority of giving are also hurting.
So I stand by my point, Obama does not under the obstacles small or large businesses face.
Hope these facts are good enough for you.
Etaoin wrote on June 16@8:21am
"Your "response" to my earlier Comment really isn't one. You still haven't answered the question: why bother bringing up the "Alaska e-mail dump" at all"
To answer your question, Sarah Palin will probably run and I Governor Christi will put his name in the hat even though he says he will not.
meangreen on June 16, 2011 @ 11:10 pm wrote: “Everyone of the positions that you stated still does not prove that he understands how private for profit sector works? . . . . So I stand by my point, Obama does not under the obstacles small or large businesses face. Hope these facts are good enough for you.”
PART ONE
First, while I appreciate the implied compliment, it’s not necessary to quote everything I write. You’ll note I don’t when responding to Comments. I just try to include enough to give the context for the reader. If they want the whole thing they can go back and read it (that’s why I include the date and time).
Second, moving the goal post a bit, aren’t you. Your original Comment simply stated that neither he nor I had any experience with the private sector, so I responded with the evidence that we both had such experience.
(Glad you took my word for it regarding my own experience. The only way I could prove it to you would be to forego my “screen identity”, and I no more wish to do that than any of us want to forego theirs.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Third, now that you’ve stated the “hidden premise” of your argument, I can respond in two ways:
A) Some of his positions (even in those foundations) required him to serve in an executive capacity. For all your scorn, running such organizations requires the same skills as any business executive.
B) Running a country is not the same as running a business, and such experience does not indicate success. On another episode of DR (I think, it might have been a different NPR site) I pointed out that Bush the Second’s business experience didn’t translate into effective governance. (Of course, the weakness with that argument is that Bush was a bad businessman too!) You should consider that Reagan also lacked experience running a business in the private sector. The closest he came was when he served in the Screen Actors Guild (one of those “dreaded” unions, which I suppose don’t count either). It is true he had executive experience as Governor of California, but that was in the “irrelevant” public sector.
In short, those facts are not “good enough” because I submit Obama had as much experience in the private sector as any of those worthies, and that one need not be a businessman to be a good President. (In fact, that’s why Presidents get advice from their Treasury Secretaries, their Council of Economic Advisors, etc.)
The “buck stops here” doesn’t mean the President does everything. It just means he’s ultimately held responsible for everything. (Sometimes fairly, sometimes not.)
meangreen on June 16, 2011 @ 7:44 pm wrote: “To answer your question, Sarah Palin will probably run and I Governor Christi will put his name in the hat even though he says he will not.”
Maybe I’m being dense about this (hey, totally possible), but I just don’t see that as an explanation. But it doesn’t really matter since neither Palin nor Chrisi will win, Pawlenty will.
The Magic 8 Ball has spoken!
;-)
Ciao.