CAGE MATCH: CRIST vs. RUBIO
They might want to call it “Death Wish 2010,” or perhaps, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Disaster.”
Just don’t call it “The Way Back.”
The Florida senate race, featuring moderate conservative Governor Charlie Crist being challenged in the GOP primary by former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, is shaping up to be a cage match between the party pragmatists and the litmus test conservatives. The contest will be played out before the entire nation and with the media gleefully watching as their newest made for television spectator sport — a real time broadcast of the Republican party’s destruction — comes to an HD flat screen near you.
Rubio, an attractive, dynamic, true blue conservative is the kind of candidate for which the right has been praying. John McCormick of The Weekly Standard got a little carried away in this panegyeric to Rubio, comparing the 37 year old to Barack Obama:
In some respects, Rubio is a little like another state legislator who ran for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama. Like the president, Rubio points to his biography as a testament to the American dream. The son of Cuban immigrants who fled Castro’s regime, Rubio grew up in a working-class home–his father was a bartender and his mother a factory worker, casino maid, and Kmart stock clerk. He spent a year at Tarkio College in Missouri on a football scholarship before transferring to earn his bachelor’s degree at the University of Florida and his law degree at the University of Miami. He married his longtime girlfriend Jeannette, once a Miami Dolphins cheerleader and now the mother of their four young children. Raised and confirmed a Catholic, Rubio worships with his family at an evangelical church.
A compelling history indeed. Moderate Reihan Salam describes Rubio as something of a Republican Atlas with his “square-jawed all-American looks,” and a “deep belief in the healing power of tax cuts.”
Meanwhile, Crist had been the target of an intense lobbying effort by several top level GOP pols who believed that the governor would have the best chance of holding the seat being vacated by Mel Martinez. They convinced Crist to drop his re-election effort and enter the senate race thereby assuring the enmity of many conservatives in Florida and around the country.
To make matters worse, National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman, Senator John Cornyn, flip flopped on his promise to remain neutral in the senate race and 15 minutes after Crist’s announcement, he threw the resources of the NRSCC behind the governor. No doubt the endorsement was part of the deal to get Crist to run for the senate but it still makes the NRSCC look weak and untrustworthy.
Already, calls for Cornyn’s head are making the rounds in the conservative blogosphere and Eric Erikson of RedState started a Facebook Page “Not One Penny to the NRSCC.”
Rubio himself has already drawn blood by releasing an ad showing Crist with President Obama and a voice over of doom accusing him of being in favor of spending trillions of dollars and piling up debt for our children and grandchildren. It is very effective and gets to the nub of why conservatives are angry with Crist, who participated in a dog and pony show with President Obama, appearing with him at a town hall meeting supporting the stimulus bill.
But that’s not the only problem the base has with Crist. The guy is a political chameleon who a decade ago found it advantageous to portray himself as a Reagan conservative when it was kewl to be a man of the right. He even earned the nickname “Chain Gang Charlie” for his tough law and order personae during his stint as Attorney General.
Now, the political winds are blowing left and Crist is blowing with them. Salam has some choice words for Crist in his Daily Beast article:
One of the key conservative charges against Crist is that his decision to back President Obama’s stimulus package was utterly bankrupt. Crist seemed more interested in currying favor with the state’s army of public-sector workers than keeping the faith with conservative principles. And honestly, that’s exactly right. Crist is not a conservative. With his permanent tan and slick white mane, he’s more like a kinder, gentler Latin American caudillo, who wants nothing more than to be cheered on by adoring throngs. Crist would be right at home with Juan and Eva Peron, dancing the night away and promising free T-bone steaks to the impoverished masses. As governor, Crist has enjoyed tremendous popularity—he has Obama-like job-approval numbers—and he’s done it by hardly ever making tough calls.
There’s no question that Florida is trending Democratic, and it doesn’t help that the state’s economy is sinking into the marshy deep from whence it came. Crist is keenly aware of this, and he’s moved accordingly. In flush times, a decent number of Florida’s must-win Latinos, notably Miami’s highly influential Cuban-American community, were open to small-government Republicans. A punishing wave of foreclosures—which hit Latino families particularly hard—has changed all that. Earlier in his political career, when hard-edged conservatism was on the rise, Crist was known as “Chain Gang Charlie” for backing extreme punishments for convicted felons. Now he’s better known for his efforts to fight climate change and save the Everglades. There’s little doubt that Crist looks himself in the mirror every morning and sees a future president. So why not run for reelection as governor?
Why not, indeed, Salam points out that the next Florida governor will have to make some very tough calls as the tax base shrinks and needs grow. Crist decided to get while the going’s good in order to remain “the most popular political figure in Florida.”
Of course, his wooing by the NRSCC and establishment Republicans did not take into account that his run for the senate would leave a huge vacuum in Talahassee that a Democrat is very likely to fill come election time. Crist was a near sure thing for re-election and his playing musical chairs with GOP politics in Florida could very well cost the Republicans a governorship in a crucial swing state.
So instead of re-election, Crist will rain on conservative’s parade by elbowing Rubio aside. This is sure to anger Rubio’s mentor and cheerleader Jeb Bush who, despite being out of office, still maintains a great network of fundraisers and political operatives across the state. Will Jeb join in the civil war and choose sides, backing Rubio by steering money and political know how his way? I think it will depend on whether Jeb Bush wants to run for president himself some day. Going against establishment Republicans and openly supporting Rubio would anger the very people he would depend on for a presidential run down the road. Prior to Crist’s entrance in the race, it seemed a foregone conclusion that he would give a boost to his disciple. Already he had steered some fund raisers his way, resulting in a haul of about $360,000 in a couple of weeks. But the smart money says that Jeb will play a behind the scenes role while urging his supporters to do all they can to help Rubio.
What kind of a chance does he have? Better than you’d expect. A recent poll showed Crist far ahead with 54% to Rubio’s 8%. But that same poll showed only 23% of Republicans in the state who would “definitely” vote for him in the primary. And more than 65% of the state’s Republicans don’t know enough about Rubio to make a judgment.
With a solid base of support among Cuban Americans, Rubio may surprise - if he can raise the millions of dollars to compete with Crist’s proven fund raising acumen. Florida is a very expensive state to run a race and Rubio’s challenge will be to raise enough money - not as much as Crist but enough to be competitive - and hope that the anti-establishment attitudes that some pollsters are already seeing in the electorate will translate into victory for him in the August, 2010 primary.
The new conservatives have the race they say they’ve always wanted; one of their own versus a “moderate.” If the evangelical, family values, small government, low tax Rubio pulls it out it will shake the party establishment to the core. Not a bad thing necessarily although if Rubio gets slaughtered in the general election, where will the new conservatives be then?
Maybe they’ll say that Rubio wasn’t “conservative enough” and try again. One thing’s for sure, if the new conservatives can’t win in Florida, the question will be asked how they can possibly pull off a victory anywhere else?
Yep, it’s on. We’ll see.
Comment by funny man — 5/15/2009 @ 11:29 am
One point is that it is a classic battle between an old, white moderate and an up-and-coming Hispanic conservative. I wonder how nasty it will get and that if Gov. Christ should pull off the primary, will he do it so ugly to turn off the Hispanic voters of Florida? I am pulling for Mr. Rubio as he is a fresh face, Hispanic and solidly conservative. Mr. Rubio is the future and Gov. Christ is the past.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — 5/15/2009 @ 1:19 pm
Florida is not a left-of-center state. Essentially the only way either Rubio or Crist loses is if the supporters of the other stay home (or actively supports the Democrat).
That makes the NRSCC move maddening. They have openly declared that conservatives need not apply to become Senators.
Comment by steveegg — 5/15/2009 @ 1:34 pm
Rick -
Although you touch on it somewhat, you are missing another very important angle on this story. The FL GOP committee has already thrown their support hat into Crist’s ring as has, for the most part, the National committee. There has been a storm already brewing here in the state of Florida regarding the state’s GOP leader’s (Jim Greer) heavy-handed handling over the presidential and other elections. There is a very strong backlash building as the state GOP committee seems to be committed to a course of ‘we will dictate to you’ (the county and local GOP committees) regarding your committee membership as well as your endorsement choices in elections. There have even been calls to simply support Crist from the get-go completely and just skip the whole primary process because they (FL GOP) know better who we should vote for. At least two county GOP party committees so far have drafted letters of condemnation over these actions basically demanding that the FL GOP back the f!*^ off and save their endorsements until the primary process is completed. More than a few folks simply want to have a fair opportunity to vote for and select our own choice of candidate through an unbiased as possible primary process. We (the Florida voters) screwed the pooch and were more than helpful in getting McCain selected in presidential primary and many see Crist as being of the same mold. Things are going to get very hot and steamy down here in FL and it’s not just going to be the weather.
Comment by Michael S. — 5/15/2009 @ 1:34 pm
This is going to be so good. Must remember to stock up on popcorn and beer.
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/15/2009 @ 2:32 pm
Will “the base” go for Crist?
Did “the base” go for Mitt?
Comment by HyperIon — 5/15/2009 @ 2:48 pm
I am constantly amazed at how someone can be considered conservative when he is rabidly pro-illegal immigration. Two years ago, when Mel Martinez carried water for Bush and sponsored the amnesty bill, there were “Dump Martinez” movements all around Florida, and I do believe it was over the amnesty issue.
Last year Rubio, as Speaker of the Florida House, bottled up illegal immigration enforcement bills, carefully prepared by Florida citizen organizations (about 75% to 80% want illegal immigration controlled in this state, whose costs for illegal aliens are through the roof). Rubio even told those people he would allow the bills to be heard. In the end, he and his fellow Miami area Hispanic henchmen would not allow the bills to come up for a vote.
He did a similar thing this year, although not as Speaker, to a bill concerned only with violent illegal alien criminals, nothing more. The only difference between him and Martinez is that Martinez said he was against amnesty in the beginning then later changed his mind, whereas Rubio lies about how his stand on illegal immigration at the very same time he is stabbing Floridians in the back over it.
To me Rubio is no conservative, and I would not vote for him. Just because Crist is a RINO, and unacceptable to conservatives, does not mean they should accept just anyone. And from what I read in blogs and comments, most people are ignorant of Rubio’s actions. It’s amazing in these days of the internet and public disclosure of everything, how people can get still away with lying.
Comment by rjc — 5/15/2009 @ 3:17 pm
RJC:
Do you happen to have the complete list of litmus tests?
I think it would be really helpful to have the complete, detailed list of things a person must agree with in order to be acceptable to folks like you.
But in this case, I think you’re right to push hard on this issue. As a Democrat I’d love to see you folks alienate the dwindling portion of the Cuban community who might still be considering voting Republican. I think you should keep at it until there’s not a single Hispanic left in the GOP.
No half measures! Extremism in the defense of electoral suicide is no vice!
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/15/2009 @ 3:54 pm
“Will “the base” go for Crist?
Did “the base” go for Mitt?”
Well…. Mitt lost the Florida primary to McCain by a not too large margin, and one factor in that margin was a last-minute call by Crist to endorse … McCain.
Here’s how the base will see it: Rubio=Reagan-for-the-21st-century and Crist=McCain … which direction do you want the party to go in?
I agree with Rick Moran that the NRSC move was maddening. I hadnt realized they *recruited* Crist, knowing Rubio was there already. Rubio and Crist could have been a great combo ticket for Florida in 2010 now we just have a mess.
Meanwhile in Texas we have a Clash of the Titans between Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison. Perry is edging KBH on account of stronger conservative support.
At least the RINOs will have Castle and Delaware. (I predict Castle wins that race.)
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 5/15/2009 @ 4:13 pm
Isn’t Crist . . . well, very well-liked and respected in Florida? This isn’t just a “moderate vs. hard-liner” contest taking place in an objective vacuum. Even if theoretically Rubio is “stronger” philosophically speaking, he’s gonna have a hell of an uphill battle against Crist.
Comment by busboy33 — 5/15/2009 @ 4:49 pm
busboy,
of course he is and that might turn out to be no win-no win situation. However, this HAS to play out before we get back somewhat of unity. Think about Dems after 68.
Comment by funny man — 5/15/2009 @ 5:20 pm
The problem that I have, and that folks I talk with have, is the state party dictating who is going to be allowed to run for what office. Republican officials have told Rubio to drop out and to run instead for Attorney General. Current AG Bill McCollum is the anointed Republican candidate for Governor. It’s the Bob Dole/John McCain - it’s their turn - syndrome all over again. The party leadership seems to think it can control who is going to hold office.
I say let Rubio and Crist slug it out.
Comment by Juan Paxety — 5/16/2009 @ 4:52 am
Michael:
“Litmus test” is not an issue with me. I am a church-going Catholic and would be willing to give even on a number of issues considered “Catholic” issues because I don’t believe they are dangerous to the country. Yes, I am a one-issue person: because I deeply believe that illegal immigration will ruin this country in a few decades if not reined in. I need not go into it. There are no good reasons - none - for the kind of immigration we have had in the past few decades, and the only arguments people use in favor of it are to call people rationally opposed to it names.
It boggles my mind why the Republican party, or any party, would want to go out of its way to create a huge voting bloc just so it could pander to this voting bloc, and continue to grow it and pander to it. It’s like creating a situation of your own making where you can be practiced extortion on, so you can go on and on continually being extorted, until you have nothing left.
I am not concerned any more with the Republican Party in Florida. With Rubio’s rise in popularity, the Party has shown they are nothing but Democrat wannabe’s. Doesn’t it bother anyone anymore that our “leaders” and those in control of party politics are no longer responsive to the people’s wishes? Are you saying, Michael, that we should go out and vote for people who are going to make us into another California? Great. Just what we need.
I would rather go down not voting for these snakes. And hope against hope that something will happen (and do what I can to make it happen) to turn the tide. It wouldn’t be the first time a party was considered dead and rose again a few years later. I seem to remember not too long ago it was considered the Democratic Party was also considered dead. Time will tell.
Oh, I have also contributed over a period of years to a “migrant worker” reach-out program, and would visit with them. This was under the guise of helping the poor. I of course learned that I definitely was not helping the poor, but was aiding a favored group of people illegally here take jobs away from Americans. I am not saying these are bad people; most are not. But just wanting a better life is not enough to support the kind of law breaking and general chaos that illegal immigration brings. Not to mention that at the bottom, it is a political power grab by La Raza. If you think it is just an unimportant side issue, I feel sorry for you.
Comment by rjc — 5/16/2009 @ 5:58 am
One more thought. Your implication, Michael, that by not supporting illegal immigration the Republican Party loses the Cubans in Miami is a case in point of how completely lost people in this country are: to assume that Republicans should be in favor of something so wrong just to keep those votes. Pardon me while I gag. (And, anyway, not all Cubans are in favor of illegal immigration.)
I realize that sites like this, and almost all politically-oriented sites are not about the issues, but about how they affect political races, kind of like discussing a chess game. And there is nothing wrong with that. So let me say, in that light, that there are also many Democrats, and I am guessing quite a large number, who are against illegal immigration. And I believe it is only a matter of time before they become more vocal over it. There’s no telling how that would affect the “chess game”.
Comment by rjc — 5/16/2009 @ 7:17 am
RJC:
Since you identify yourself as “single issue” I think you concede that this is a litmus test for you. However, I take your broader denial of litmus-testing at face value.
I am all for controlling the borders. (Cubans of course are not: they have a special exemption that allows them something very close to free entry into the US.) We have a basic right as a country to decide who comes in. Period.
I agree it’s an important issue.
It’s also an issue where the methods Republicans have proposed, and the rhetoric they have used, have turned off the entire Hispanic population. Inevitably when you build a wall to keep people out you end up insulting the friends and relatives of the people thus excluded.
I personally have no objection to a wall, but I also enjoy a the occasional laugh at the expense of Republicans who have managed to use this issue to alienate the one growing voter bloc they should have been able to corral.
If you want to be able to come at issues like this and not suffer the electoral consequences you need to learn to stifle your radio loudmouths who turn a reasonable desire for control of the borders into xenophobia. Yet another issue where genuine conservatives would do themselves a favor by severing partisan relations with the wingnuts.
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/16/2009 @ 11:05 am
It’s annoying to see self-proclaimed Republicans employ the same labeling games in intra-party contests that the Dems use in inter-party elections.
What in Hades is a “moderate conservative”?
And - because we’re talking about litmus tests, how about we drop the conceit that only conservatives have them.
There are most assuredly “litmus tests” which disqualify one from having the “moderate” qualifier - how about being honest about it? Even better, how about fessing up to what they are?
Tell us what you “moderates” are for, not just what (and who) you are against.
Comment by BD57 — 5/16/2009 @ 2:11 pm
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say, moderation?
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/16/2009 @ 5:29 pm
Chuck:
You’re right…
Problem is, that’s just an affectation -
“We’re fair and reasonable, we try to see both sides, we’re not dogmatic, we think we all should just be able to get along ….”
Are we to be moderate in our love of freedom? In our defense of country? In our desire to leave our kids a better nation than we inherited?
What are “moderates” - beyond people who seem to think they’re somehow superior to people who aren’t as enlightened as they are?
Comment by BD57 — 5/16/2009 @ 7:52 pm
@BD57:
“What are ‘moderates’ - beyond people who seem to think they’re somehow superior to people who aren’t as enlightened as they are?”
Dunno — why are hard conservatives convincenced they are morally and intellectually superior to people who aren’t as enlightened as they are?
Comment by busboy33 — 5/16/2009 @ 10:31 pm
I think moderate/conservative is a smokescreen hiding a (normal) power struggle after a lost election. Some think we have to become more ‘pure’ other more ‘centrist’ to win. That’s all.
Depending on what you regard as conservative I’m more conservative than Ann Coulter. However, there is one big difference. I just think liberals have a different idea about government, that’s it, end of story. Not so those folks, they just love to indulge in their liberal hate fest. Here is a new low:
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=312
Now I know there are the same type-A-personalities on the other side. However, that only has to do with a personality disorder not conservative or liberal.
So for me moderate/conservative is not the big issue. What is practical and doable is. Most of all, I’m TIRED to hear the claims of the ’shout-louder’ faction to be the honest true conservatives. Maybe they are but so are many others who might have different views on a number of topics (e.g. Iraq war) and who don’t have a pathological hatred of liberals. Just a thought: am I elitist if I’d rather listen to what David Brooks has to say (even if I don’t agree) then about musings of Joe the plumber?
Comment by funny man — 5/16/2009 @ 11:23 pm
As a Democrat; I’d like to see the “Club for Growth” run candidates in every race in the nation.
Heck; I’ll even contribute $25!
The new mascot for the GOP should be Wiley E Coyote.
And Boss Limbaugh makes a great spokesman.
Comment by Commie Stooge — 5/17/2009 @ 7:11 am
busboy:
Now this is fun ….
so called ‘hard conservatives’ have policy views. Stronger military; missile defense; lower taxes, fewer regulations; respect for religion in American life; support for marriage (and so on).
If you think they’re claiming moral superiority, it may just be that you don’t like them being sure of what they believe - a lot of people think refusing to back down when challenged is somehow ‘arrogant.’
I have noted a pattern - - - - even in the face of direct requests to state the ‘moderate’ platform, it doesn’t happen …
C’mon guys - it ought not be this hard to answer the question.
Comment by BD57 — 5/17/2009 @ 12:46 pm
Describing Crist as a conservative is like calling Specter a rightwing stalwart.
Obviously you’re using the NY Times frame of reference here. Try and be objective.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 5/17/2009 @ 9:29 pm
Monday morning links…
Invasion of the Lionfish (photo). Sheesh. But they are highly edible.
The Alinsky explanation for the O and the Dem agenda. Dino
The humiliations of the modern Dad. Dr. Helen. Lucky Glenn.
Moslems call for Jihad in NYC. No wonder they have a lo…
Trackback by Maggie's Farm — 5/18/2009 @ 3:49 am
Rubio is no far right nutjob
He is tot he right of Charlie Crist but thats not particularly hard (and Mel Martinez)
He has a Centrist record in Tallahassee where he worked with Crist.
Crist and the National GOP are tagging this Moderates Vs Conservatives
they want to make this a war
Comment by Larry Bernard — 5/18/2009 @ 8:24 pm
BD57 said:
You’re not going to get an answer, because your question is bunk and makes zero sense. But, you already know that. Which is why you’re standing on our soap box thumping your chest so hard. You think you’re right. You think you’ve got the ignorant rubes beat. But, the rest of us are actually laughing at you.
“Moderate” isn’t a political party. There is no platform. It’s a philosophy applied to certain aspects of life where absolutism is detrimental for more people than a less rigid position. Your grand standing on the issue is laughable, and either you’re a troll, or you simply don’t get it.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/20/2009 @ 9:20 am
@BD57:
Chuck got it, but I’ll play along.
“so called ‘hard conservatives’ have policy views. Stronger military; missile defense; lower taxes, fewer regulations; respect for religion in American life; support for marriage (and so on).”
Those aren’t policy views . . . those are preferences.
“Lower taxes” — how low? 10%? 5%? 1% Zero? How is that Stronger military and missle defence getting paid for?
“Stronger military” — Same problem, other way. Mandatory 20-year compulsory service? An M-1 Abrams in every driveway?
“Respect for Religion in life” — this is like being for infants and puppies. It’s a lovely sentiment that means nothing. What does being “for” religion mean? The government will hand out Bibles (that would certainly be “for” Religion)? If so, what version? If I’m a doctor, would you support my Religious view that I shouldn’t have to treat a Jew because they killed the Christ? You respect religion in life, right?
and so on . . .
I hesitate to speak for Moderates, but for me a moderate considers the issues for a specific, particular problem. How they come down will change as the facts change. Idealogues (Right and Left) don’t care what the facts are, they have an answer before they even hear the question.
Let me use your “lower taxes” policy position again as an example. Do you honestly think Democrats and/or liberals think “higher taxes” is a positive policy position? That they sit around thinking “gee, things are going swell, but we just aren’t taxing people enough!” I hope you realize that’s nonsense. Or bigger government — Dems want to create government agencies because they are bored? If all the percieved needs of their constituencies were met, and the budget was in surplus, do you think that Dems would vote to raise taxes? Create more unnecessary agencies? After all, they’re “for” higher taxes and big government, right? That’s their goal, right?
The funny thing is . . . I was always tought that this was the conservative viewpoint, rather than the liberal viewpoint. The old “roadblock” parable:
A Conservative and a Liberal are walking down the road, when they come across a roadblock running across the road. The Liberal became enraged. “This roadblock hampers travel on the road!” he thundered. “Let’s drag it to the side immediately and improve how this road works for everybody!”
The Conservative put his hand on the Liberal’s shoulder, holding him back for a moment while he spoke in a calming voice. “You are right, the roadblock does hamper travel”, he said. “Perhaps moving it will be the best solution.”
The Liberal became excited at that afirmation and surged forward to immediately dismantle the roadblock, but again the gentle hand of the Conservative gave him pause.
“Before we do proceed,” The Conservative calmly said, “Perhaps you would clarify one small detail for me.”
“Anything!” the Liberal said, eager to beging making the road a better one.
The Conservative leaned closer.
“Why is this roadblock here in the first place?” he whispered, as with a crash a giant boulder burst threw the woods on the side and rolled across the road, just on the other side of the roadblock.
Sometimes roadblocks are a useless impediment and should be removed. Sometimes they serve a purpose. To go forward with the blanket position “all roadblocks must be torn down” or “All roads must be made as fast and useful as possible” is foolish.
Guess what? Every policy belief you listed for hard conservatives is one I hold. I am for the best military, protection from missle attack, paying fewer taxes, less regulatory hassle, respect for religion and marriage. However, I’m not for wasting Trillions of dollars on useless weapons platforms simply because a contractor wants to get paid, budgeting the government into debt, letting people and industries act with Anarchistic freedom, or government control of personal matters of conscience. What’s the difference? well, after removing out the jingo-istic buzzwords . . . the difference is dependent on the situation and facts.
Those policy positions are the mantra of the far right because they (a) sound good and (b) imply the far left are opposed to them. I’m for good things, you aren’t in my “for good things club”, so you must be against good things. If I say that the far left is for: helping your fellow man as Jesus tought, protecting citizens from being abused, guarding against oppressive government and protecting the environment for our children, does that mean the far right are for letting people be killed, oppression, and dumping toxic waste on maternity wards? Of course not.
What you identify as “what hard conservatives” are for is what EVERYBODY is for. Moderates balance those ideals against practical realities in particular situations. I guess hard conservatives never do (snark).
Comment by busboy33 — 5/23/2009 @ 1:30 pm