U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Funny, didn't McCain refer to the defunct country of Czechoslovakia? Did he not refer to the president of Germany as Vladimir Putin? I thought that was common knowledge.

---

You're suffering from the same problem Lemur is.

Quote:

---

hmmmm.....

---

Unfortunately, Mr. Biden didn't say that. Go read the story again. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Nothing was broken 200 years ago? Well, I'm Native, I'm sure there are some black and female members of the forum, who'd laugh you off a stage for that one. Yes, these petty, destructive cultural revolutions that changed things that were working just fine are the reason our country is in decline. Not the mass explosion of corporate greed and its close ties to political establishments which have allowed it to gut our country. Schools struggle every single year for their budgets and we are talking about a 700 billion bailout for filthy rich Wall Street investment banks and financial institutions on taxpayer dimes. That's to blame on feminism and civil rights and such, right?

---

don't forget abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

You didn't specify 20-30 years ago, you said 200 years ago things were fine and it was the changes since then that have ruined this country. That includes an awful lot of stuff that many of us not only consider good things, but necessary things, that in no way should be blamed for the fact that an obsessive deregulation mindset and insisting on the myth that the market corrects itself without need for intervention is far more responsible.

---

*sighs*

No... I said... "Things were running just fine for 200 years...". Meaning I was relatively content with the progress of this nation for the past 200 years until the generation born after WW2 matured and took over the reins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

You're suffering from the same problem Lemur is.



Unfortunately, Mr. Biden didn't say that. Go read the story again. :beam:

---

HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT AN AD WAS NOT GOOD????????????????????????????????????????????????

Besides, John "Obama is going to teach yourself how to do it" McCain hasn't been so ideal in his ads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT AN AD WAS NOT GOOD????????????????????????????????????????????????

---

At first he did. Then the Obama campaign slapped him around and released a statement "from" Biden that said now that he's seen it, it really was a good attack ad. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT AN AD WAS NOT GOOD????????????????????????????????????????????????

Besides, John "Obama is going to teach yourself how to do it" McCain hasn't been so ideal in his ads.

---

I'm completely lost... :dancing:

Is anybody else following this weird "suspension" with McCain? Does it make a lick of sense? And what's with snubbing a talk-show host and bald-faced lying about it? Is that smart?

David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy.

Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

-edit-

Man, the lengths McCain is willing to go to to avoid letting Palin speak in an unscripted environment are getting into self-parody territory.

McCain then looked around the room and gestured as if to welcome questions. The AP reporter shouted a question at Gov. Palin (“Governor, what have you learned from your meetings?”) but McCain aide Brooke Buchanan intervened and shepherded everybody out of the room.

Palin looked surprised, leaned over to McCain and asked him a question, to which your pooler thinks he shook his head as if to say “No.”

As another analyst pointed out: "What's really sobering is that the McCain campaign continues to block Palin from answering questions even though it's now resulting in reams and reams of bad press for the McCain-Palin ticket. That suggests McCain advisers know that letting her answer even the most elementary questions in an uncontrolled environment is so dangerous that it's worth weathering the current media drubbing they're taking in order to prevent it from happening at all costs."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

*sighs*

No... I said... "Things were running just fine for 200 years...". Meaning I was relatively content with the progress of this nation for the past 200 years until the generation born after WW2 matured and took over the reins.

---

Fine. Point taken. But if you are going to be so vague and cover such huge swaths of time with positive generalizations just be prepared for someone to immediately think you are saying a lot of really ugly things were good. Might I suggest being more specific with what exactly you are saying instead of leaving it up to the imagination.

Lemur-

Yes, the suspension makes total sense. For one, McCain is so deeply in bed with lobbyists against regulation for Freddie and Fannie (MANY WORK IN HIS CAMPAIGN, NOW!) that he needs to get as much distance as possible and present himself as hardcore for responsible regulation.

For two, everyone with a lick of sense has been saying that if McCain or at least his "vetters" are not extremely worried about the debates, they are either really stupid or really naive. Everytime McCain has to speak on his own without aids feeding him his lines he says something youtube worthy and makes himself look.... 72 years old and confused. People have been saying for weeks that Obama is probably going to mop the floor in the debates and now McCain has an out.

And, also significantly, pushing back the debate schedule would mean more time to prep Sarah Palin and vet her and train her with all the lines and talking points she needs to give for any possible topic that might come up in a question. We all know what happened the last time she gave an interview in an uncontrolled environment where someone other than Sean Hannity was giving her something other than playdough softball questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I love you too, TuffStuff, and I'm not afraid to say so. BTW, I posted an item in the Election Thread specifically for you, but I think it got buried. Here it is.[/url] I know abortion is an overriding issue for you, and I'd be curious to hear your reaction.

---

The terrorists only killed 10 hostages today, down from their usual 15. See - you people who said we should have gone in and stopped injustice should have just waited. Everything is fine now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The terrorists only killed 10 hostages today, down from their usual 15. See - you people who said we should have gone in and stopped injustice should have just waited. See? Everything is fine now!

---

So a marked, measurable reduction in abortions means nothing to you? Are you not even slightly interested in lowering the total number of abortions in this country, or is anything short of a blanket ban just foolishness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The terrorists only killed 10 hostages today, down from their usual 15. See - you people who said we should have gone in and stopped injustice should have just waited. Everything is fine now!

---

If 10 people were killed from dehydration in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike would you even be discussing it?

Sorry, but the whole "omg something is way worse because it's war/terrorist" related thing doesn't fly with me... after we watched a whole American city virtually destroyed and did almost nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

What are you going to do in a couple of months when you can't divert any and all questions about Obama and his plans into a criticism of Bush and the Republicans? As a Democrat, you're going to have to learn to take responsibility for your man's plan. ~:)

---

Shouldn't all fiscal conservatives be on board with anyone who is talking about getting out of the war asap?

WHOEVER wins at this point is going to inherit a cripplingly large deficit. The top priority is to cut that down as soon as possible, and you're not going to do it by handing out enormous tax cuts to rich people and corporations. We've had 8 years of that junk. And the war spending...

Why is it that every minute detail of a campaign plan posed by a Democrat must be worthy of Congressional passage in advance, whereas McCain can just sort of mutter and make vague one-line soundbytes and he has a stamp of approval? What he promises to cut in earmarks is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the tax cuts he is planning to hand out to people who make over $400k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So a marked, measurable reduction in abortions means nothing to you? Are you not even slightly interested in lowering the total number of abortions in this country, or is anything short of a blanket ban just foolishness?

---

Your chart and article literally suggest that people have abortions out of frustration with Republican administrations or due to their policies. I fail to see the logic in that. I'l bet that irrespective of whether we have a Rep or a Dem in the oval office, abortion rates will increase as the economy does more poorly.

You people think that overturning Roe would be a blanket ban. You simply won't hear us out. The issue of finding a right to have an abortion in the Constitution is not only an issue about abortion, but of constitutional law and respect for the Federal or State level legislature's role in writing laws. We couldn't even repeal slavery without a few amendments to the constitution and the words "all men were created equal" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were included in the declaration of Independence... But the question of abortion could be settled in a court by the decisions of 5 men. Abortion is such a massive issue because of the impact on life and what the Constitution means. Overturn the bad constitutional decision and maybe abortion will fall to #2 or 3 on my list of most important reasons to vote for or against a president. I believe that you can be agaisnt Roe v Wade and still be pro-choice.

Also - I don't understand why people "who support fetal homicide as an option" are looking to lower the abortion rate anyway. If it isn't wrong it's just an effective form of birth control, right? Do you just dislike it because it is a more invasive form of birth control for the mother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

If 10 people were killed from dehydration in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike would you even be discussing it?

Sorry, but the whole "omg something is way worse because it's war/terrorist" related thing doesn't fly with me... after we watched a whole American city virtually destroyed and did almost nothing.

---

What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Your chart and article literally suggest that people have abortions out of frustration with Republican administrations or due to their policies.

---

Say what? The data is what it is. How can a chart "suggest" something? Are you getting a little paranoid over there in Long Island?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You people think that overturning Roe would be a blanket ban. You simply won't hear us out.

---

Wow, a strawman and a "you people" construction. Twofer! When have I (sorry, "me people") said anything like that? When have I ("me people") failed to hear you out? Where's this tidal wave of frustration coming from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Overturn the bad constitutional decision and maybe abortion will fall to #2 or 3 on my list of most important reasons to vote for or against a president.

---

So the real, practical reduction of abortion is meaningless compared to the constitutional issue of repealing Roe v. Wade? And you wonder why some people use the term "emo-con"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I believe that you can be agaisnt Roe v Wade and still be pro-choice.

---

Agree 100%. As I have said on this board previously, Roe v. Wade prevents us from arriving at a sensible compromise. Do you recall "us people" saying that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Also - I don't understand why people "who support fetal homicide as an option" are looking to lower the abortion rate anyway. If it isn't wrong it's just an effective form of birth control, right? Do you just dislike it because it is a more invasive form of birth control for the mother?

---

Man, you are on a troll roll! Go, cowboy! Rile 'em up! Yeee-hah!

There's no logical reason why one cannot want abortion to be legal and rare. If that strikes you as a hypocritical stance, then you're keen on frightening away any potential allies to your cause. Absolutism is its own undoing, you know.

My main agenda is having Roe v. Wade overturned and trying to convince people that the unborn are human beings; entitled to basic human rights. The legal aspects can be decided in the various legislatures. In the absence of laws that ban abortion except cases in which the life of the mother is in question - I will keep fighting and resign myself to the same position that people who believe that war is never just maintain. The practical reality is that I will die and my kids will be able to move on to the next issue. If we don't resolve it, I will die and my kids will still be yammering on about how Roe corrupts the constitution and leads to the deaths of innocent human beings.

It is the choice of those who refuse to entertain the repeal of Roe. We will never stop complaining about how absurdly unjust and illegitimate the decision was. You asked why it is our main political position. Is this an unreasonable explanation? Everyone comes to the table with their own specific concerns. What do you stand for as your #1, Lemur?

As for my main concern as a human I guess it is health and livelihood of myself and my loved ones. Since that is taken care of for now - what else should my main concern be? Animal cruelty? poverty? War? Green planet? Not everyone has to have the same major concerns, but they should listen to opposing arguements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What?

---

My point was that the pro-lifers seem to be totally indifferent to loss of human life in almost every other context, besides abortion. There is no consistency in the so called Pro Life movement, at all. There is no particular reverence for the lives of anyone who isn't a fetus or mentally vegetated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

My point was that the pro-lifers seem to be totally indifferent to loss of human life in almost every other context, besides abortion. There is no consistency in the so called Pro Life movement, at all. There is no particular reverence for the lives of anyone who isn't a fetus or mentally vegetated.

---

Totally indifferent to life in what situation specifically? The death penalty, war? Anything specific?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You asked why it is our main political position.

---

I did? When? I wasn't asking for why you're pro-life, I think it's fairly self-explanatory. Rather, I wanted to hear what you thought of the fact that abortions have reached a 30-year low. Frankly, it doesn't appear you have any thoughts on that subject at all, which I find perplexing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What do you stand for as your #1, Lemur?

---

Probably torture, with financial irresponsibility coming a close second. The amount of debt that has been added to the budget this year makes me want to scream. And I am extremely skeptical of giving anyone $700 billion with no strings, no oversight and no questions.

Torture is meat for a different thread. I predict, with a high degree of confidence, that many people who currently support "enhanced interrogation techniques" will be saying, "Oh, I had no idea they were doing that" a few years from now. And what's sad is that they will believe it. If anybody actually gives a **** about torture as anything beyond a talking point, you owe it to yourself to read The Dark Side. Read up, and then let's talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

At first he did. Then the Obama campaign slapped him around and released a statement "from" Biden that said now that he's seen it, it really was a good attack ad. :dizzy2:

---

Biden is a straight talking maverick ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

What are you going to do in a couple of months when you can't divert any and all questions about Obama and his plans into a criticism of Bush and the Republicans? As a Democrat, you're going to have to learn to take responsibility for your man's plan. ~:)

---

Obama wont' be able to pay for his plan. The bailout (however big it ends up being) will prevent that. He's said as much. Now, what's the difference in tax revenue between his and McCain's plan? 600 billion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

No, I was talking about this:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194205.php
Which I mentioned earlier.

CR

---

Oh CR...

Quote:

---

* Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

* The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

* Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

* Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

* The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

* This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod's firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as "astroturfing."

* David Axelrod is Barack Obama's chief media strategist.

* The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

---

I read this and wasn't convinced until I saw the last two points--

Quote:

---

*The video was created on a macintosh
*THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ALSO USES MACINTOSHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

stuff

---

America is better now culturally than it ever has been ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Totally indifferent to life in what situation specifically? The death penalty, war? Anything specific?

---

Everything you said, plus quality of life issues. Pro Lifers don't seem particularly interested in practical things we could do (abortion will never, ever be gone entirely. That's as fruitless as the war on drugs.) For one they could help completely get rid of all the b.s. abstinence-only crap that is attached to all kinds of Federal funding for planned parenthood or medical programs or overseas planned parenthood/medical assistance. (Abstinence only programs INCREASE the rate of pregnancy and have no factual basis whatsoever upon which to argue that they work-- look at McCain's VP pick) Most Pro Lifers are pro death penalty but seem to think that the conditions that contribute to crime in our society are the fault of individuals and so if they wind up at 40 getting the death penalty, that's their problem. (Not that I disagree ENTIRELY with that idea, but I do think that if you really cared about human life, you'd care about fighting poverty and inequality and the other factors that contribute heavily to crime.) And war, of course- even unnecessary wars. As long as someone can be at least marginally construed to be not entirely submissive to our foreign policy will, killing them in virtually any numbers is acceptable to large numbers of the American voting base. It's not concern for the "enemy" anywhere near as much as concern over debt and American casualties that ever gets us out of even the most pointless and unending military conflicts.

The strong ideological/religious/moral core to the pro-life movement makes it irrational and unreasonable. They aren't willing to look for the ways to help shape society so that abortions are not a desirable option (not that I think they are anyway, for the huge overwhelming majority of women.) The insistence on taking rigid extremist moral stances, even when it goes against what's practical, what works, and what will effectively reduce unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates, doesn't seem to interest pro-life if it involves condoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Everything you said, plus quality of life issues.

---

You don't seem to be understanding the pro-life, generally right-wing, theory. The government guarantees you the right to life, but what you do with your life is up to you, the individual.

I can support the death penalty in principle (I don't actually support it in practice, except in exceptional circumstances) because the criminal in question has committed a crime so henious that they deserve it. An unborn fetus is guilty of no more than being an "inconvenience" to the mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You don't seem to be understanding the pro-life, generally right-wing, theory. The government guarantees you the right to life, but what you do with your life is up to you, the individual.

I can support the death penalty in principle (I don't actually support it in practice, except in exceptional circumstances) because the criminal in question has committed a crime so henious that they deserve it. An unborn fetus is guilty of no more than being an "inconvenience" to the mother.

---

I would give a different interpretation of the death penalty. It is vesting the state with the right and the trust in its CAPACITY to fairly decide, beyond all reasonable doubts, that it has the integrity and capacity to make correct decisions about who is definitely guilty and warrants being killed by the state.

If you do not trust the government to correctly calculate your taxes, why would you trust them to decide if you should live or die?

And jury bias and incompetence, people even hurrying to make a decision so they can go home for the weekend and not have to come back, is so well documented it's not even funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I would give a different interpretation of the death penalty. It is vesting the state with the right and the trust in its CAPACITY to fairly decide, beyond all reasonable doubts, that it has the integrity and capacity to make correct decisions about who is definitely guilty and warrants being killed by the state.

If you do not trust the government to correctly calculate your taxes, why would you trust them to decide if you should live or die?

And jury bias and incompetence, people even hurrying to make a decision so they can go home for the weekend and not have to come back, is so well documented it's not even funny.

---

Which is exactly why I said I am for it in principle, but against it in practice. Some deserve to die, but how can we make sure the right person dies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Which is exactly why I said I am for it in principle, but against it in practice. Some deserve to die, but how can we make sure the right person dies?

---

It sounds like you and I are pretty much on the same page then about the death penalty. Absolutely some crimes merit it, but I have very little confidence in a state-managed system of randomly picked idiots herded into a courtroom (and most of them tend to be unemployed and/or undereducated because working people will bend over backwards to get out of it) to decide it in a way that engenders any confidence on such an important issue. Also, the fact that DNA evidence has retroactively cleared so many convicted people. AND the fact that it is well documented that discrimination still exists in the U.S., both formally (higher penalties for variants of cocaine used mostly by blacks, and lighter penalties for snort coke used mostly by rich whites, for example) and informally (non-white defendants are convicted MORE OFTEN and given HARSHER SENTENCES compared to white defendants convicted of exactly the same crimes.)

The difference is, it is you making the case that human life is supreme. I have a nuanced view about human life in some circumstances, but in general, I believe it is a paramount human right. Thus I think war in any context other than very literal self defense or conflict with a very real, provable imminent danger ("they COULD possibly attack us one day" does not cut it) is very immoral. I don't see this type of consistency in the pro life view, which seems deeply embedded in the neoconservative right-wing of American politics. As George Carlin said, they want to protect you up until you pop out of your mother, but then no healthcare, no education, no insurance, no equality, no equal opportunity, etc. etc., you are on your own.

The Wall Street Journal harshes all over McCain:

Last week, Republican presidential candidate John McCain called for a commission to "find out what went wrong" on Wall Street. It was an excellent suggestion: Public inquiries into Wall Street practices served the country well in the 1930s.

And Mr. McCain has a special advantage to bring to any such investigation -- many of the relevant witnesses are friends or colleagues of his. In fact, he can probably get to the bottom of the whole mess just by cross-examining the people riding on his campaign bus. So the candidate should take a deep breath, remind himself that the country comes first, pull the Straight Talk Express over at a rest stop, whistle up his media pals, and begin.

Topic A should be deregulation. Financial institutions are dropping everywhere after playing with poorly regulated financial instruments; the last investment banks standing are begging the government for stricter oversight; and some of our nation's leading champions of laissez faire have ditched that theory in an extraordinary attempt to rescue the collapsing industry.

The philosophy of government that has dominated Washington for almost three decades is now in ruins, and it is up to Mr. McCain to find out exactly why we believed it in the first place. Why did government stand back and permit all the misconduct that generated all this bad debt? What particular ideas led us to believe that government should just keep its hands off and let markets run their course?

Man, and it only gets more harsh after that. Ouch! Somebody at WSJ got cranky, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Man, and it only gets more harsh after that. Ouch! Somebody at WSJ got cranky, man.

---

I'm sure someone will call him out as a Democratic operative or something. ;) Working for that darn commie paper the Wall Street Journal!

Why does Texas hate freedom?

The event Sep. 17

Quote:

---

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline.

"The seriousness of this issue is self-evident," the lawsuit states. "The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them."

Texas election code §192.031 requires that the “written certification” of the “party’s nominees” be delivered “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day.” Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.

"Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late," says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state laws "does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines."

---

The result Sep. 22

Quote:

---

"We are disappointed with the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of our request to have the Secretary of State abide by the law and remove the names of Senators Obama and McCain from the election ballot," stated Russell Verney, manager of Bob Barr's presidential campaign, following the Texas Supreme Court ruling.

"The Court’s one-sentence denial deprived us, and the voters of Texas, of any explanation of the Courts reasons for arbitrarily exempting the Republicans and the Democrats from the clear deadline set forth in the law," Verney continued. "Third parties and Independent candidates are consistently told that deadlines are deadlines. Texas has somehow determined that deadlines are just suggestions but we are left without the guidance of the Court’s reasons."

The campaign is consulting with its attorneys to decide whether to further challenge the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court.

---

McCain campaign reaches new level's of ridiculousness:

Quote:

---

McCain camp to propose postponing VP debate
Posted: September 24, 2008 1828 GMT
(CNN) — McCain surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there’s no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.

In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday.

Graham says the McCain camp is well aware of the position of the Obama campaign and the debate commission that the debate should go on, but both he and another senior McCain adviser insist the republican nominee will not go to the debate Friday if there’s no deal on the bailout.

---

Seriously? This whole "suspend campaign" thing is geared at delaying (perhaps eliminating) the VP debate? How can anyone defend the choice of palin?

"He's fleeing the interview! He's fleeing the interview!"