What The Republican Party Needs To Do

[49er Fan]

Explain to me the rationale behind Roe, what its implications are, and what overturning it means. And THEN explain why overturning it would be "extreme".

 

I can admit that my pro-choice views on abortion are extreme - probably because I don't presume to know what direction every woman who has an unwanted pregnancy should take.

 

NY Times Editorial, Oct. 15, 2012:

 

If Roe v. Wade Goes

 

It is no secret that Mitt Romney and his running-mate, Representative Paul Ryan, are opponents of abortion rights. When Mr. Ryan was asked at last week’s debate whether voters who support abortion rights should be worried if the Romney-Ryan ticket were elected, he essentially said yes.

They would depart slightly from the extremist Republican Party platform by allowing narrow exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the woman. Beyond that, they would move to take away a fundamental right that American women have had for nearly 40 years.

 

Mr. Romney has called for overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to make her own childbearing decisions and to legalized abortion nationwide. He has said that the issue should be thrown back to state legislatures. The actual impact of that radical rights rollback is worth considering.

 

It would not take much to overturn the Roe decision. With four of the nine members of the Supreme Court over 70 years old, the next occupant of the White House could have the opportunity to appoint one or more new justices. If say, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest member, retired and Mr. Romney named a replacement hostile to abortion rights, the basic right to abortion might well not survive.

 

The result would turn back the clock to the days before Roe v. Wade when abortion was legal only in some states, but not in others. There is every indication that about half the states would make abortion illegal within a year of Roe being struck down, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenges abortion restrictions around the country, puts the number at 30 states. For one thing, abortion bans already on the books in some states would suddenly kick in. And some Republican-controlled state legislatures would outlaw abortion immediately.

 

Even with Roe and subsequent decisions upholding abortion rights, more than half the states have enacted barriers like mandatory waiting periods, “counseling” sessions lacking a real medical justification; parental consent or notification laws; and onerous clinic “safety” rules intended to drive clinics out of business.

 

Mr. Romney is a vocal supporter of this continuing drive in the states and in Congress to limit the constitutional right, even without overturning Roe. To a large degree, the anti-abortion forces have succeeded. In 1982, there were about 2,900 providers nationwide; as of 2008, there were less than 1,800. In 97 percent of the counties that are outside of metropolitan areas, there are no abortion providers at all.

 

We do not need to guess about the brutal consequences of overturning Roe. We know from our own country’s pre-Roe history and from the experience around the world. Women desperate to end a pregnancy would find a way to do so. Well-to-do women living in places where abortion is illegal would travel to other states where it is legal to obtain the procedure. Women lacking the resources would either be forced by the government and politicians to go through with an unwanted or risky pregnancy, attempt to self-abort or turn to an illegal — and potentially unsafe — provider for help. Women’s health, privacy and equality would suffer. Some women would die.

 

Mr. Romney knows this, or at least he used to. Running for the United States Senate in Massachusetts in 1994 against Edward Kennedy, Mr. Romney spoke of a young woman, a close relative, who died years before as result of complications from an illegal abortion to underscore his now-extinct support for Roe v. Wade. In a report in Salon last year, Justin Elliott, a reporter for ProPublica, found that when the young woman passed away, her parents requested that donations be made in her honor to Planned Parenthood. That’s the same invaluable family-planning group that Mr. Romney has pledged to defund once in the White House.

Edited November 8, 2012 by 49er Fan

[RI Bills Fan]

Now who's being disingenuous? People who don't pay Fed income tax aren't being demonized. People who don't pay it AND THEN complain that it isn't fair that people who do pay 35% off the top to the Feds aren't forced, by threat of imprisonment, to pay more are being demonized. One inartful line by a politician does not make a popular revolt.

 

Can you point me to where that distinction has been made here on this board, I seem to have missed it.

 

I understand that raising taxes on a single segment of the population is unfair. Which is why I'm for letting the Bush Tax cuts expire, in their entirety, and cutting spending to get the deficit under control. A position I might add I've espoused consistently for many years now.

 

I seem to recall you and many others here who loudly declared that "Deficits don't Matter" giving me schidt about that position pre 2008.

[meazza]

I think 49er Fan takes the inverse approach: Who gives a **** about a job if you can't kill your kids?

 

 

Can you point me to where that distinction has been made here on this board, I seem to have missed it.

 

I understand that raising taxes on a single segment of the population is unfair. Which is why I'm for letting the Bush Tax cuts expire, in their entirety, and cutting spending to get the deficit under control. A position I might add I've espoused consistently for many years now.

 

I seem to recall you and many others here who loudly declared that "Deficits don't Matter" giving me schidt about that position pre 2008.

 

The tax cuts should expire only after there has been some significant growth.

 

Perhaps Romney's idea of lowering taxes on capital formation is probably one of the smarter ideas to get some decent growth.

Edited November 8, 2012 by meazza

[Rob's House]

 

 

NY Times Editorial, Oct. 15, 2012:

 

 

If Roe v. Wade Goes

 

 

 

It is no secret that Mitt Romney and his running-mate, Representative Paul Ryan, are opponents of abortion rights. When Mr. Ryan was asked at last week’s debate whether voters who support abortion rights should be worried if the Romney-Ryan ticket were elected, he essentially said yes.

They would depart slightly from the extremist Republican Party platform by allowing narrow exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the woman. Beyond that, they would move to take away a fundamental right that American women have had for nearly 40 years.

Mr. Romney has called for overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to make her own childbearing decisions and to legalized abortion nationwide. He has said that the issue should be thrown back to state legislatures. The actual impact of that radical rights rollback is worth considering.

It would not take much to overturn the Roe decision. With four of the nine members of the Supreme Court over 70 years old, the next occupant of the White House could have the opportunity to appoint one or more new justices. If say, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest member, retired and Mr. Romney named a replacement hostile to abortion rights, the basic right to abortion might well not survive.

The result would turn back the clock to the days before Roe v. Wade when abortion was legal only in some states, but not in others. There is every indication that about half the states would make abortion illegal within a year of Roe being struck down, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenges abortion restrictions around the country, puts the number at 30 states. For one thing, abortion bans already on the books in some states would suddenly kick in. And some Republican-controlled state legislatures would outlaw abortion immediately.

Even with Roe and subsequent decisions upholding abortion rights, more than half the states have enacted barriers like mandatory waiting periods, “counseling” sessions lacking a real medical justification; parental consent or notification laws; and onerous clinic “safety” rules intended to drive clinics out of business.

Mr. Romney is a vocal supporter of this continuing drive in the states and in Congress to limit the constitutional right, even without overturning Roe. To a large degree, the anti-abortion forces have succeeded. In 1982, there were about 2,900 providers nationwide; as of 2008, there were less than 1,800. In 97 percent of the counties that are outside of metropolitan areas, there are no abortion providers at all.

We do not need to guess about the brutal consequences of overturning Roe. We know from our own country’s pre-Roe history and from the experience around the world. Women desperate to end a pregnancy would find a way to do so. Well-to-do women living in places where abortion is illegal would travel to other states where it is legal to obtain the procedure. Women lacking the resources would either be forced by the government and politicians to go through with an unwanted or risky pregnancy, attempt to self-abort or turn to an illegal — and potentially unsafe — provider for help. Women’s health, privacy and equality would suffer. Some women would die.

Mr. Romney knows this, or at least he used to. Running for the United States Senate in Massachusetts in 1994 against Edward Kennedy, Mr. Romney spoke of a young woman, a close relative, who died years before as result of complications from an illegal abortion to underscore his now-extinct support for Roe v. Wade. In a report in Salon last year, Justin Elliott, a reporter for ProPublica, found that when the young woman passed away, her parents requested that donations be made in her honor to Planned Parenthood. That’s the same invaluable family-planning group that Mr. Romney has pledged to defund once in the White House.

Thank you for your cut & paste (which contrary to Obama ads acknowledges the rape & incest exception) but you never explained the rationale behind Roe which is the key to understanding why it's bad law regardless of whether you like the outcome.

[RI Bills Fan]

 

The tax cuts should expire only after there has been some significant growth.

 

Perhaps Romney's idea of lowering taxes on capital formation is probably one of the smarter ideas to get some decent growth.

 

Define significant growth. And wouldn't the argument then become "Tax Cuts will kill the growth"?

[49er Fan]

Thank you for your cut & paste (which contrary to Obama ads acknowledges the rape & incest exception) but you never explained the rationale behind Roe which is the key to understanding why it's bad law regardless of whether you like the outcome.

 

I agree with the Court's decision as it relates to the 14th Amendment & privacy rights.

[meazza]

Define significant growth. And wouldn't the argument then become "Tax Cuts will kill the growth"?

 

Anything close to 3%? From what I recall, Romney's model was in that realm. Shocking really.

 

Tax cuts kill growth? Is that like conner economics?

 

I agree with the Court's decision as it relates to the 14th Amendment & privacy rights.

 

And you think people that are pro-life are extreme?

 

How considerate.

Edited November 8, 2012 by meazza

[RI Bills Fan]

Anything close to 3%? From what I recall, Romney's model was in that realm. Shocking really.

 

Tax cuts kill growth? Is that like conner economics?

 

Sorry, I meant to say the argument would be that the EXPIRATION OF tax cuts would kill the growth.

[meazza]

Sorry, I meant to say the argument would be that the EXPIRATION OF tax cuts would kill the growth.

 

If the expiration of tax cuts are offset by the intention of spurring investment, then I don't think it will have a detrimental effect on growth. If tax cuts are on income, money will be spent on consumption. If taxes are low or zero on interest/dividends and capital gains, you'd probably get much more investment since the required return will be a lot lower.

 

I personally think that will spur investment faster than cutting income taxes but I'm no economist.

[NoSaint]

a leopard can't change it's spots. many republicans i've met in the rural south (and some up north) are dualists. yes/no, right/wrong. there's no nuance and without nuance, tolerance is difficult if not impossible. this ignores the fact that many folks are republicans primarily for the reasons you're wanting them to stop supporting. i'll point again to the rural south. how well will the repubs do without the southern states support?

 

frankly, i dont think the republicans stand to lose alabama even if some backwoods kooks stop voting for them.

 

id venture theyd hold all the red states, and probably make progress in the swing states (as rob said if they forgot about the religious zealots that will abandon them if they stop forcing gay marriage/abortion as issues theyd probably pick up 2 voters for every 1 they lose in a lot of states)

 

the hardcore religious right is just soooooo frustrating to me, and damn near everyone i talk to including many sane, religious people that identify as republicans.

Edited November 8, 2012 by NoSaint

[birdog1960]

frankly, i dont think the republicans stand to lose alabama even if some backwoods kooks stop voting for them.

 

id venture theyd hold all the red states, and probably make progress in the swing states (as rob said if they forgot about the religious zealots that will abandon them if they stop forcing gay marriage/abortion as issues theyd probably pick up 2 voters for every 1 they lose in a lot of states)

 

the hardcore religious right is just soooooo frustrating to me, and damn near everyone i talk to including many sane, religious people that identify as republicans.

not so sure. virginia is clearly purple at this time. significant defections from the rural poor (far away from fairfax/loudon) and it's blue. nc same thing. what the rural poor are thinking, i have no idea.

[dayman]

They need to come down from there high horse and stop acting like they are better than everyone not a republican. That would be a good start.

 

While I like Rob's list this should be on it. This is important. There are "very" right wing people, and "very" left wing people...but the attitude of the tea party and the "we're always right and we won't compromise and the other side are moochers, parasites, and idiots" won't woo any new followers. Republicans will have to understand that there are a lot of non-moochers who have been voting Democratic lately...and they don't like being called idiots and moochers by what has become a group of angry finger pointers. The tone of the discourse and approach to government generally needs to wind down a bit.

Edited November 8, 2012 by TheNewBills

[BRAWNDO]

Republican party, this is what you need to do:

 

1. Grow a collective set of nuts - Stop being the Conservative version of the John Kerry. Distinguish yourselves on the most imprtant issues and take them head on. Particularly on economic issues. Our economic model is unsustainable, impossible to defend, and easy to explain. Stop dancing around the issue and dive in and hammer it in common sense terms. Talk to people straight, and assume they're not retarded. A lot are, but you'll win more with logic than gimmicks and talking points. And read Milton Friedman.

 

2. Stop alienating women - Don't get sucked in to these stupid birth control debates (thank you Rick Santorum). And damn it, STOP TALKING ABOUT RAPE!!! What are you trying to accomplish here? How about acknowledging that although abortion is morally abhorrent, regulation of abortion is not an essential function of the federal government. That doesn't mean go pro-choice, it means talk about abortion reduction through methods other than prohibition. You'll pick up 2 voters for every 1 you lose and ironically, you'll do a lot more to reduce the number of babies snuffed out in the womb.

 

3. Stop demonizing Hispanics. They're actually a lot more conservative than you think. An effective immigration policy involves securing the border and making legal immigration significantly more streamlined. Cracking down on immigrants who are working is pointless. And cracking down on their employers isn't much better. If we could get them documented so they pay taxes and so we can process them w/n our criminal justice system, we eliminate most of the problems associated with illegal immigration. And stop worrying about them taking jobs. People who work help the economy. You sound like liberals talking about outsourcing.

 

4. Explain to blacks why free market principles are in their best interest. And talk straight; don't be patronizing or handle them with kid gloves. You'd be amazed what you can say to a black guy if you just cut through the BS and talik to him like a man. He'll respect you for it. Don't think it will work? How's your current strategy working?

 

5. Put your bible away. You can be as religious as you want to be, and you don't have to be shy about it, but make it damn clear that you understand the value of separation of church and state. You can acknowledge that our country was largely built on judeo-christian values, but make it clear you don't want to impose your will on others. Honestly, the most important values you derive from your religion are universal. You'd be surprised how many people have an irrational fear of a conservative theocracy.

 

6. Stop talking about gays. The family unit has survived across the globe and across virtually all cultures from the dawn of civilization. It's not going to collapse b/c gays get to have federally sanctioned monogamous relationships. You don't have to like it. Hell, you don't even have to support it. Just let it go.

 

Follow this recipe, find some politicians who are halfway cool to communicate it, and not only will the party rise from the ashes, you might actually do some wonderful things to help the country.

 

Good stuff Rob.

 

I would like to add a few more points.

 

Find the best candidates to run in different parts of the country. The Democrats have excelled in finding candidates that can win elections in Republican Areas. See Jim Matheson in Utah, as well as Tester in Montana and Heitkamp in North Dakota, Romney won those states by 50, 13 and 20 points. Stop demonizing candidates who some they feel are RINOs or not conservative enough. If they had done that in the past two elections Lugar would have cruised in Indiana, Castle would have won in Delaware in 2010.

 

The Hispanic Vote is the key to the party's future. In the House of Representatives Jamie Herrera Beulter with Marco Rubio as a Senate Co Sponsor should introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill, including amnesty and a guest worker program for the 113th Congress to vote on. Make this the most important issue for Republicans in the next Congress.

 

Finally if you want to stop being labeled as the party of the White Guy, stop nominating them. The Republicans have two Hispanic Governors Susan Martinez of New Mexico and Brian Sandoval of Nevada. The same number of Hispanic Senators, one a piece and more female Governors. Yet most of the general population only sees two white guys on the ticket. In 2016 the Republicans should nominate the first completely non white presidential ticket in history. Some ideas would be Rubio/Martinez or Rubio/Sandoval.

 

The party needs to adapt before they go the way of the Whigs.

[PromoTheRobot]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/

 

PTR

[ExiledInIllinois]

#2. LoL... Yeah, that'll do the trick... LoL..

[Ozymandius]

When GWB won back to back, did the Dems "adapt"? No, they just got a compelling candidate in Obama and started winning.

 

GOP can stay exactly the same on issues, but if they nominate someone like Rubio in 2016, they will win in a landslide.

[ExiledInIllinois]

When GWB won back to back, did the Dems "adapt"? No, they just got a compelling candidate in Obama and started winning.

 

GOP can stay exactly the same on issues, but if they nominate someone like Rubio in 2016, they will win in a landslide.

 

Highly unlikely when you have Rob's #2 and #6 looming huge. They can't let it go! Both... Can't let it go... Stick a fork in the exclusionary conservative.

 

I stayed away from this board before the election because I would have been under attack by saying what self respecting woman could ever vote for Mitt Romney? Guess I was a little to hard! Go job ladies... Even if you had to lie to your nitwit husbands and sig others!

[Jim in Anchorage]

This is like Jim in Anchorage's gay marriage. Interesting to discuss...but we have more pressing issues and the federal government needs to focus on those other issues. Rob is right: Romney never said "Who gives a **** about abortion and gay marriage if you don't have a job?"

Mine? You started the thread!!

[MattM]

When GWB won back to back, did the Dems "adapt"? No, they just got a compelling candidate in Obama and started winning.

 

GOP can stay exactly the same on issues, but if they nominate someone like Rubio in 2016, they will win in a landslide.

 

The more appropriate analogy is probably Dems changing tack and nominating a centrist in Clinton after losing 3 straight elections, but go ahead, be my guest and "Stay the Course" into irrelevancy....

[49er Fan]

what self respecting woman could ever vote for Mitt Romney?

 

Maude Flanders? Oh, wait...

 

Helen Lovejoy

[LeviF]

what self respecting woman could ever vote for Mitt Romney?

 

I know a couple. Both pro-life. They respect themselves enough to not get pregnant when they don't want to (in other words, they respect themselves enough to not get horrendously drunk and sleep with some meathead frat bro without a rubber).

[meazza]

I know a couple. Both pro-life. They respect themselves enough to not get pregnant when they don't want to (in other words, they respect themselves enough to not get horrendously drunk and sleep with some meathead frat bro without a rubber).

 

I once slept with a chick (one night stand) and was a bit drunk. I said, should I use a condom? She said, "whatever you want".

 

Clearly one of those defining moments that could be life changing.

[dayman]

I once slept with a chick (one night stand) and was a bit drunk. I said, should I use a condom? She said, "whatever you want".

 

Clearly one of those defining moments that could be life changing.

 

don't leave out the part where you proceeded to engage w/ no condom ...

[meazza]

don't leave out the part where you proceeded to engage w/ no condom ...

 

I wasn't that drunk.

[dayman]

I wasn't that drunk.

 

you asked...

[meazza]

you asked...

 

True. So I'm a whore as well?

[dayman]

True. So I'm a whore as well?

 

free love man, not judging

[meazza]

free love man, not judging

 

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

maybe one of you can help me understand something....

 

I get the limited government, lower (and maybe simplify) my taxes, stay out of my wallet, don't ram your healthcare mandate down my throat, etc. - let's call it fiscal conservatism

 

so, if a large group of americans believe that to the core, and I think they do, then why is it ok for that same government to decide whether a woman can have an abortion, can marry someone of the same sex, or any of the other socially conservative mandates that are seemingly ok to ram down the throats of the citizens?

 

why is it not only ok, but required that gov't stay out of those financial issues, yet they're able to decide some really personal things about others based on their own beliefs and faith?

 

seems pretty hypocritical to me...

[dayman]

maybe one of you can help me understand something....

 

I get the limited government, lower (and maybe simplify) my taxes, stay out of my wallet, don't ram your healthcare mandate down my throat, etc. - let's call it fiscal conservatism

 

so, if a large group of americans believe that to the core, and I think they do, then why is it ok for that same government to decide whether a woman can have an abortion, can marry someone of the same sex, or any of the other socially conservative mandates that are seemingly ok to ram down the throats of the citizens?

 

why is it not only ok, but required that gov't stay out of those financial issues, yet they're able to decide some really personal things about others based on their own beliefs and faith?

 

seems pretty hypocritical to me...

 

because babies man, babies

 

We really don't need abortion debate in this topic so please edit your post

[meazza]

maybe one of you can help me understand something....

 

I get the limited government, lower (and maybe simplify) my taxes, stay out of my wallet, don't ram your healthcare mandate down my throat, etc. - let's call it fiscal conservatism

 

so, if a large group of americans believe that to the core, and I think they do, then why is it ok for that same government to decide whether a woman can have an abortion, can marry someone of the same sex, or any of the other socially conservative mandates that are seemingly ok to ram down the throats of the citizens?

 

why is it not only ok, but required that gov't stay out of those financial issues, yet they're able to decide some really personal things about others based on their own beliefs and faith?

 

seems pretty hypocritical to me...

 

Because it is hypocritical.

 

I am not a fan of abortion but I don't believe it is the governments right to decide. I couldn't give a **** about gay marriage.

 

Those who do are hypocrites but rarely do the masses question their parties message.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Because it is hypocritical.

 

I am not a fan of abortion but I don't believe it is the governments right to decide. I couldn't give a **** about gay marriage.

 

Those who do are hypocrites but rarely do the masses question their parties message.

ya, I agree, so my opinion on what the republicans should do is this (and it'll never happen...) - form a new party, call it the Conservative Party, the only requirement for membership is that you're a fiscal conservative. I realize this is similar to the Libertarian party, but you get my point. You can be pro-choice, pro- or anti- anything on the social side.

 

The purity requirement is killing the GOP, again IMO. You HAVE to be everything that a few extremists believe you should be and all at once. Worse, it keeps really good candidates from running or winning the primary. I could see someone like Chris Christie saying thanks, but no thanks in 2015 just because he doesn't want to tell people that he takes all of those positions.

[Barry in KC]

What absolutley needs to happen is for somone with a lot of money to start buying the major media outlets. Conservatives will be forever demonized until there is some sort of balance in the MSM. What happened in this election cycle was absolutely disgraceful.

[B-Large]

I really need to STOP hearing from !@#$s on the left lecturing me that the GOP needs more diversity.

 

Every !@#$ing woman that joins the GOP is IMMEDIATLEY labeled as a "dumb waitress" or worse by the left.

 

Every black that joins the GOP is IMMEDIATELY lableled as an Uncle Tom.

 

And moderation? Please.

 

You puke that we need more "moderate" candidates...and lecture us how to do it. Then you elect....Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren? !@#$ you AND youre hypocrisy.

 

And finally, cut the **** with your "old white guys dont work" meme. I have three words for you on that one....

 

JOE !@#$ING BIDEN.

 

 

I don't think one Democrat wants the GOP to do anything differently than they are right now....

[49er Fan]

What absolutley needs to happen is for somone with a lot of money to start buying the major media outlets. Conservatives will be forever demonized until there is some sort of balance in the MSM. What happened in this election cycle was absolutely disgraceful.

 

Fox News is consistently the #1 cable news network in the country (owned by Rupert Murdoch).

 

The Wall Street Journal is the #1 home-delivered newspaper in the country (also owned by Rupert Murdoch).

 

What more do you want?

[B-Large]

I once slept with a chick (one night stand) and was a bit drunk. I said, should I use a condom? She said, "whatever you want".

 

Clearly one of those defining moments that could be life changing.

 

thats not life changing... now if you asked "where should I put it".... and she said "whatever".... then we are talking....

[Barry in KC]

Fox News is consistently the #1 cable news network in the country (owned by Rupert Murdoch).

 

The Wall Street Journal is the #1 home-delivered newspaper in the country (also owned by Rupert Murdoch).

 

What more do you want?

 

When you add up the numbers: ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN,etc., the liberal media numbers far outway what Fox News gets. Any reasonable person can see that 95% of the media slants to the left.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Barry in KC

[meazza]

thats not life changing... now if you asked "where should I put it".... and she said "whatever".... then we are talking....

 

[Cugalabanza]

When you add up the numbers: ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN,etc., the liberal media numbers far outway what Fox News gets. Any reasonable person can see that 95% of the media slants to the left.

 

ABC, NBC, CBS are now "liberal media?"

 

It's like you got on a raft and started drifting out into the Atlantic ocean. Then you looked back and said, "hey where's North America going?"

[TakeYouToTasker]

ABC, NBC, CBS are now "liberal media?"

 

It's like you got on a raft and started drifting out into the Atlantic ocean. Then you looked back and said, "hey where's North America going?"

You know this is untrue. Most of it stems from the editorial staffs and directors coming from an educational background that lends itself to progressivism. What makes this even more tragic, however, is in reaction to this the few conservative leaning outlets have begun pushing back in a shameful way which also yields no real news.