Again: What Liberal Media?

Yes, journalist Eric Alterman reminds us one more time about the non-existent so-called Liberal media.

Please see here.

Donna Shalala, Hypocrite of the Month

Did you hear about Donna Shalala, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Clinton Administration?

Well these days Dr. Shalala, as president of University of Miami, is battling campus janitors who, God forbid, are trying to unionize in order to bargain for living wages and health benefits.

Wow, doesn’t Shalala, a life long Democrat, believe the role unions play in order to bring about a just society? I think she is clueless and/or a complete sellout. No two ways about this issue.

Currently the janitors make as little as $6.40 per hour and have zero, yes, zero health benefits. Shalala on the other hand makes over a half a million per year. Moreover, the university is not hurting for money and has recently raised over one billion dollars in a single fundraising drive. Woman, I ask, what happened to your Democratic values?

The irony: Shalala's 9,000 square-foot digs, paid by the university, was featured recently in the New York Times magazine. The article shows off her Coral Gables estate and discusses her other worldly possessions including the fact that her dog "Sweetie" has four dog beds. This case makes her the top candidate for the hypocrite of the month.

In unity, carajo!

Sí se puede.

For more information read here.

Uber blogger Wonkette has a super take on the topic here.

Tone Deaf Bush

Bush has fallen into some very hot, if not boiling, political water with his proposed approval of the purchase by Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates owned firm, of the London based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which runs six major United States ports. Bush even threatens a veto if Congress takes any action preventing the sale. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) calls the move foolish and said the Bush Administration was "unbelievably tone deaf politically." To quote the great fictional moral philosopher Forrest Gump, "Stupid is what stupid does."

The ports involved are very important and vital to our economy. They include some of our busiest: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The bipartisan angst felt about this issue brings about a good question: Why should we worry? Well, the company that will run the ports can select the personnel of their choice and have oversight of the cargo brought into the country. Moreover, the firm will have complete knowledge of the security plans along the eastern seaboard--an inviting opportunity for any terrorist organization with proactive plans that have hatred towards the U.S.

Rep. Edward Markey, (D-Mass.) said:

Almost none of the cargo that enters our ports is ever inspected. While the federal government is ultimately responsible for security at ports, much of the day-to-day security responsibilities, such as hiring security guards and ensuring adequate access controls and fencing are in place, are delegated to the companies that operate at the port.

Yet, the Republican in Congress will not go quietly into the night on this issue. They’re ticked off and are willing to challenge the Bush Administration on this strange decision. In fact, House Speaker Hastert called for an "immediate moratorium" to be placed on the deal. Oh, oh, those sound like fighting words.

We have enough problems in combating terrorism domestically to add another headache to worry about. As such, this issue is a winner for Democrats, and we can rightly make the case that we’re tougher on security issues than the Bush Administration. Dems can rightly argue that Bush allowed "bombs in a box" to be potentially brought into the country by outsourcing the management of ports.

We have a winner folks.

Update: Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly blog has a diferent take. See here.

Jeff Parker Captures Bush in Action

We have another super political cartoon from Jeff Parker who is with Florida Today.

Mr. Parker captures Bush true interests in this drawing, and it’s not the same interests of the men who wear the uniform in our armed forces.

For more of Jeff Parker please visit here.

Republicans: Have You No Sense of Decency?

Photo: Senator Jay D. Rockefeller IV

In 1954 during the contentious Army-McCarthy hearings, Army general counsel Joseph Welch reprimanded daffy Senator McCarthy by saying, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

The recent illegal domestic wiretapping inquiry by the Senate has been stonewalled by GOP operatives from the White House working in conjunction with Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I say it's fair to ask the same question in this instance, "Chairman Roberts, have you no sense of decency."

Sen. Jay D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia) said that Sen. Roberts had abdicated his responsibility as the leader of the committee that is supposed to oversee the intelligence activities in the Unites States. Clearly an important job if one believes in oversight and the proper role of Congress.

One could easily conclude that there is no separation of powers when it comes to the Republican controlled Senate. It appears the Senate is beholding to the executive branch, as the Intelligence Committee under the leadership of Roberts, seems under the commander-in-chief’s spell.

There is still hope for Americans who believe in justice as Congresswoman Heather A. Wilson (R-New Mexico), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is considering its own inquiry. As they say in pop culture, “You go girl.”

On the bright side these conservative Republicans are giving lots of ammunition to Democrats running for office this year. This election cycle will be an interesting one politically. Let’s hope Americans eschew jingoism and an extreme nationalistic mentality for the sake of our Republic as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Republican-English Dictionary

Over at The Reality-Based Community Blog there is a super post by Mark Kleiman named "Entries from the Republican-English Dictionary." It's a complete hoot.

Two of my favorites are:

*class warfare/ n./* Any attempt to raise the minimum wage.

*pro-life/ adj./* Valuing human life up until birth

There are so many other good ones.

Check it out here.

Keefe on Cheney

Mike Keefe, an award winning political cartoonist with the Denver Post, explains why VP Dick Cheney was able to dodge the draft back in the 1960's. Forget that going to school business.

Congress Blames Homeland Security Dept.

Photo: Rep. Shays (R-Conn.)

A U.S. District Judge ruled that FEMA could evict 12,000 families staying at hotels, all causalities of America’s worst natural disaster: hurricane Katrina. It’s another example that the US government cares little about its citizens. The feds are more concerned about waging idiotic wars in far away lands and spending billions and billions on arms and fattening the coffers of companies like Halliburton than bringing some sense of normalcy to Louisiana.

FEMA spokesman Butch Kinerney said, ”People kind of get into a routine living in these hotels, and it’s not necessarily a good routine.” So what’s FEMA’s answer: to put the families on the street. Let’s not forget that the federal government via the Homeland Security Department totally bungled the relief effort. A House Report will state exactly how badly the feds blew it.

Expect the Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff, to be grilled by both Republicans and Democrats alike when he testifies in Congress. Yesterday Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) was on ABC’s Good Morning America making the case that The White House was clearly in “a fog." Shays, a member of the committee that will produce a sizzling House report scheduled for released today added, "We wanted the Homeland Security Department to be an asset to help FEMA, and instead it stood and watched it fail."

Of course Chertoff will begin to cover his behind just like former FEMA director Michael Brown did last week. And Republicans always talk about accepting responsibility. Ha, ha. ha, ha!

Bush Continues to Ignore Congress

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the Bush Administration continues on the wrong track insofar how the US deals with prisoners in our so-called War on Terrorism (WOT). Of course I continue to mention that this conflict is a "so-called" WOT because it’s quite clear that terrorism is a tactic and not a philosophy; countries do not go to war against tactics per se.

According to the Times article a recent United Nations inquiry states that the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay very often amounts to torture and violates all sorts of international laws like the Geneva Convention where the US is a signatory.

There was a saying used during the 1960’s that captured the spirit the US should use when dealing with Third World countries and their battle with communism. The US should win their hearts and minds was the oft-used phrase. Well, how the US is currently dealing with prisoners is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim street.

The Bush Administration should heed the words of Sen. John McCain. Last year he took a strong stance against such abuses and distanced himself from such policies. Earlier in the month McCain attended the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany and was applauded by the audience for his stance against torture.

Of course the subject of the "unitary executive" seems to pop up again and again with the Bush Administration. After all Bush signed into law this year's Defense Appropriations Bill and it included the McCain Amendment forbidding the torture of detainees by all US personnel. Since Bush cares little about the separation of powers, he included a "signing statement" which is the official Bush Administration position pronouncing his interpretation of the new law. In this specific instance, Bush's signing statement declared that he views the new torture law to be limited by his "inherent authority" as commander-in-chief to protect the national security of America. In short, he could do want he wants, certainly not the intent of Congress.

The report, compiled by five UN envoys, interviewed former prisoners, detainees’ lawyers and family, and US officials. It strongly urges US policymakers to close Guntanamo and bring all captives to trial in the US.

The Nixon-Bush Doctrine

Long time political correspondent Bruce Morton (now with CNN) warns that the all-powerful imperial presidency is here to stay unless Congress asserts itself and defends its proper role within the schema of our democratic republic. Otherwise, the executive will continue to be emboldened and continue to use powers not enumerated in the constitution and act in ways contrary to law.

Morton calls this executive usurpation of power the "Nixon-Bush" doctrine and recalls an interview Richard Nixon gave British journalist David Frost:

Frost: "So ... what ... you're saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal."

Nixon: "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

Frost: " By definition."

Nixon: "Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security ... then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law."

Of course the national security card can be used at will much like a wild card in poker, except, according to Nixon and Bush, it seems the president always has the wild card; a very scary concept. Because Nixon's view eschews the notion of checks and balance, he is talking more like a tyrant and not a leader of a democratic constitutional republic who swore an oath to uphold our Constitution.

The notion also becomes more daunting because Morton correctly notes that terrorism is not a philosophy per se but a tactic used by opponents who do not have the wherewithal to fight conventional type conflicts. So the "War Against Terror" becomes an eternal battle. If Congress does not assert itself, then the imperial presidency, dare I say the "unitary" executive, is here to stay.

No wonder Republicans who are serious about their oath to defend the Constitution (Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Lindsay Graham) were vocal in their objections to the "Nixon-Bush" doctrine as articulated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales earlier in the week. But because they are Republicans and realize their Republican teammates are heading into a very tough election year, their objections were rather mild.

What puzzles me is how many conservatives are defending Bush and his actions. It's ironic because anyone who even thinks about regulating the spread of guns in American society is hit, and hit hard, by the Second Amendment argument. Gun-loving conservatives seem enamored with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It's a shame conservative folk do not respect the Fourth Amendment as much as they do the Second Amendment.

For additional information read CNN reporter Bruce Morton.

Richie Ross, Political Consultant Extraordinaire

There is a great background article in the Capitol Weekly about famed Sacramento political consultant Richie Ross who long ago worked as Assembly Speaker Willie Brown's chief-of-staff, to be sure, an incredible top post. He was there when California lawmakers saw maestro Speaker Brown at work. Under Brown's tutelage Ross became one of Sacramento's most influential Democratic insiders in recent years.

He's also a powerful lobbyist which has brought Ross some recent controversy and conflict of interest charges by his foes and his clients opponents. Of course controversy is always found in the world of politics and it should come as no surprise. Hello!

Ross was inspired by the tumult of the 1960's to get involved in politics, always keeping in mind social justice. He was a seminary student in Maryland when he first heard about the struggle of Cesar Chavez and his farm workers movement in California. Ross decided to join the struggle as an organizer and made the trek to arid Central California. After working long hours with Chavez and the United Farm Workers (UFW), and making great gains, Ross entered the hurly-burly world of elective politics.

The article discusses some of the inner workings in Sacramento and is a must read if Sacramento politics interests you.

Of course to get the full flavor I recommend you GOOGLE Richie Ross.

Read here about political consultant Richie Ross.

James Madison, the Constitution and Tyranny

When the machiavellian pols at the White House found out that some brave soul with a conscience in the Bush Administration had contacted the New York Times to blow the whistle on the clearly illegal wiretaps the NSA had been conducting for a couple of years they went to work overtime. Via a request from the NSA the Department of Justice began an investigation into the leak. How paradoxical. The Bush Administration is going after the person/s who courageously warned Americans that something has gone awry in the executive leadership of this country.

Needless to say right wing-nut Republicans came to the defense of the law-breaking Bush and the actions of the NSA. The following was recently posted in a popular progressive Blog (as an example of idiotic thought):

Liberals continue to put our safety in jeopardy for purely partisan political reasons. Most liberals are so politically desperate that they cannot be trusted to keep secrets. The revelation of this program, unlike the Plaime crapola, has resulted in "severe harm" to our security and we have yet to hear the liberal outcry. It will take another 9/11 event in the homeland to put an end to the harmful liberal hackery. God save us all from liberal treachery.

The treachery I see is coming from the Bush White House. Leaving aside the rest of the reactionary nonsensical dribble, it comes down to what Senator Leahy said to Attorney Alberto Gonzales on Monday, "Nobody is above the law, not even the President of the United States." Sen. Leahy could have also added to the quote: "Not even in time of war." If one believes the president is above the law, at any time, then we’re sliding towards the destruction of our republican democracy (read: three separate co-equal governmental branches).

Remember that James Madison, known as the Father of our Constitution, once warned in Federalist No. 47 that the accumulation of power, unfettered power, in any of the three branches of our government was the definition of "tyranny."

In James Madison’s own words:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

It was James Madison, in fact, that helped frame the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment. There is little doubt that the framers of our Constitution went to great lengths to secure for its citizens the arbitrary use of power from the government, even in time of war (Amendment III). Madison was a strong proponent of the Bill of Rights because he wanted to protect civil liberties that the federal government could easily curtail.

How ironic that hard-line Republicans always champion Constitutional originalism or strict constructionism and how the judiciary should use either as guiding principles. It seems they only argue that point when politically it best suits the Republicans, and only then. In this instance, it seems defenders of the Bush Administration adhere to a conceptual framework known as the "living Constitution," that is, interpreting the Constitution to the needs of the society rather than a fixed maybe outdated meaning. So, neo-conservatives and reactionary Republicans embrace the "unitary presidency," especially in time of war; screw FISA, warrants, and the intent of the legislature.

Instead of posting a painting of Founding Father James Madison, should I have posted an upside down flag of the United States, an international signal of distress? Maybe I should have because our American Republic, our Constitution, and the venerable separation-of-powers doctrine we cherish are in a state of crisis and the sooner we Americans come to realize that, the better.

Clash of Titans: Executive v. Congressional Powers

The "Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority" hearings by the Senate Legislative Committee headed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) yesterday were nothing short of contentious. The issue as revealed by the New York Times last year involves President Bush authorizing the NSA to perform thousands of wiretaps without Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court authorization, as required by law. Bush believes that his actions were legal because Article II of the Constitution gives him broad "commander-in-chief" powers, especially in time of war.

The hearing began with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales making a strange argument when he used both President Wilson and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as examples of broad executive power used during time of war. Both presidents used what today would be considered extralegal methods to surveil Americans during World War I and II. Of course Gonzales did not have to go back that far back in time, he could have used President Richard Nixon as a more recent example, or former FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover who wiretapped Americans, presidential hopefuls and their girlfriends at will.

However, Gonzales did not mention the fact that FISA enacted in 1978 did not apply in any of the instances that he mentioned. In fact, FISA was written in response to the abuses of the Nixon Administration a few years earlier. Prior to 1978 Congress had not flexed its legislative muscle; it did with FISA.

The Supreme Court can resolve this clash between the executive and legislative branches, and the sooner the better. And, the Supreme Court itself (if this issue gets to them at all) will more likely look toward the reasoning of Justice Robert H. Jackson in his concurrence in the landmark Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952) to determine if Bush has acted constitutionally. In Youngstown, the Court (6-3) held that President Truman had acted unconstitutionally when he seized private property because the president did not unilaterally have the inherent authority to do so without Congressional approval, even during a time when national security was at stake.

Justice Jackson, in his concurrence in Youngstown, divided presidential power into three quite specific categories. Presidential authority is the strongest in cases where the executive acts with the express or implied authority given by Congress. In cases where Congress has been silent, what Justice Jackson called the "zone of twilight," the power of the president is at best uncertain. The president’s power is the weakest, however, in cases where the executive branch defies laws passed by Congress.

I believe the constitutional issues when it comes to the NSA using domestic wiretaps on its citizens without going to the FISA Court are quite obvious. Does the executive branch have the authority to order such wiretaps without due process as stated in FISA? Justice Jackson’s third category in Youngstown—-that is, presidential power is weak in these cases because Congress has acted and passed a law-—is apparent in the current NSA domestic surveillance cases.

According to FISA, in order to spy on American citizens, the executive needs probable cause before the requisite warrants are issued. When President Bush allowed the NSA to use wiretaps without going through the FISA Court he acted contrary to a law mandated by Congress. Again, the Bush Administration believes they have the authority to by-pass FISA because the president is acting under the "war powers" articulated in Article Two of the Constitution and, as such, FISA does not apply. The Bush Administration believes when acting as the commander-in chief in time of war they have broad implied executive powers and Congress cannot interfere, even via statute.

Let’s note what Justice Jackson wrote in Youngstown:

When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. ...Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

The difficulty now lies with how civil libertarians can get the Court to review the actions of the Bush Administration since the Supremes are the only ones who can make a definitive ruling on the matter at hand. It’s impossible for individual Senators or members of the House to bring the case before the Courts because individual lawmakers lack standing (unless they were wiretapped without a Court order). Our hopes lies with the ACLU and that their case against the NSA will bear some judicial fruit.


To read the ACLU Fact Sheet: Legal Claims in ACLU v. National Security Agency, please Click Here.

To read the myths of the NSA spying brouhaha, please Click Here.

Power Corrupts

Guest Blogger: Larry Caballero, La Palma, Calif.

As an American, I am saddened by the culture of corruption in Washington DC, and it's disgusting that any politician is capable of abusing their office. I'm sure no one gets elected so he or she can be corrupt; it's just something that happens over time, but it still happens.

Campaign finance reform can help to stop some of this, but there is still too much money in campaigns. There are too many lobbyists who are willing to spend too much money on officials in order to influence their votes. And pork barrel projects are the name of the game in Washington since it helps politicians get elected back home, and to get elected, it takes money, lots of it.

Of course, when was the last time you gave any money to a politician to help with campaign expenditures?

That's the problem. Most voters are so turned off with politicians that they don't want to donate to them, so politicians have to depend on lobbyists and special interests to finance their campaigns. Wealthy candidates who are willing to fund their own political races are less dependent on these groups, but they are not immune.

So what is the answer? Perhaps the public media can provide free time for the candidates. Otherwise, they’ll need to raise millions of dollars to pay for TV ads. Limiting the amount of money a candidate can raise, and by whom, can help, but there are too many loopholes in the system.

Several groups and organizations have Political Action Committee (PAC) money, which they can use to support their candidates. This makes it too easy to abuse the system, and corruption follows soon.

In Sacramento much of the same problem exists. We will be having a primary in June for several statewide and local offices, and it's amazing the millions of dollars spent for an office that pays something over $100,000 a year. For the governor's race alone, each candidate will spend close to 40 million dollars.

Enough is enough. The voters need to be more involved in the political process and make it clear to our elected officials and candidates that we want them to represent all of the people, and not only those who contribute to their campaigns.

The reason for term limits was to ensure that no politician stays in office too long, but inevitably the best kind of term limits is the ballot box on Election Day. If a candidate is not being fair with the people who he or she represents, then that candidate needs to be removed from office.

Maybe it's time for a change in Sacramento in November. It's obvious to me and most Californians that Arnold the Governator has let us down over and over again. After his election he attacked for no good reason the very people who put him in office—the nurses, teachers, policemen, and firemen—then he wasted our tax dollars on a needless early election. Now he wants us to believe that he cares about the people of California by proposing a budget that is irresponsible.

It's a budget that will only lead to a larger deficit and I though the Republican Party was the party of fiscal responsibility. What happened under Arnold's reign? Is it possible that he too has become corrupt? Here’s a man who once said he was so rich he would not take money from the special interests then turned around to take more money than even Gray Davis took after serving five years!

It’s time for the people to demand that our elected officials and candidates promise to do what is right, or they should plan to be out of a job at election time.

The Republican Moderates and the Constitution

I told my good political friend last year that the best hopes of Democrats in Washington lie with the Republican moderates, especially in the Senate. I still believe that, more or less.

Tomorrow, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), chair of the Judiciary Committee will begin a hearing on the “Wartime Executive Power and the NSA’s Surveillance Authority.” The main witness on Monday will be U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The hearing is scheduled for 9:30am EST.

The problem: According to the latest polling, 51% of Americans support the illegal wiretaps as a part of the so-called “War on Terror,” and I do not find that outlook surprising. After all the flag is waving very high these days and the Administration keeps reminding Americans of that: It’s code Orange people.

According to Kermit L. Hall, a constitutional law scholar and legal historian, Americans have always revealed a paradox towards civil liberties and civil rights. According to Hall surveys have historically shown that when Americans are offered the choice between quite specific libertarian and anti-libertarian choices they tend to select the more “pro government intrusive” options. So as it’s playing out right now, by a narrow margin, Americans agree that it does not matter what civil rights are violated as long as we get those “bastards.” After all if the ones whose constitutional rights have been violated are innocent what are they afraid of? Screw the Bill of Rights, is the mentality of many Americans; it’s war.

Let’s hope moderate Republicans take a stand on this issue for the sake of our Republic as envisioned by the Founding Fathers; the Fourth Amendment is quite clear.

Update: To read (PDF) the AP/Ipsos Poll Click Here.

SOTU and Groundhog Day

Guest Blogger: Eileen Becker Salmas, Southern California


This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fall on the same day.

As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, and the other involves a groundhog."

SOTU: Patriotism and Platitudes

The State of the Union (SOTU) address is a speech, mandated by the US Constitution to Congress, and as such, to the people of the United States collectively. Instead what we received was a speech targeted to his right wing political base.

The SOTU address was just as I expected: lots of bluster about American foreign policy in Iraq and terrorism. This is about the only time the Democratic lawmakers rose to their feet and applauded; they are politicians after all and in the end it’s much about posturing, and I can’t blame them as Democrats should never be seen as weak on American security. (Yes, we Democrats support our troops in Iraq, but not the foolish US-Iraq War, which will get many of our soldiers killed for no good national security reason.)

As Samuel Johnson in 1775 once said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," and the Bush Administration took that road long ago. Democrats are along for the ride at this point. Yes, America should implement a muscular plan to protect America but how the Bushies go about it time and time again is to appeal to our fears, our super charged patriotism, and extra-legal methods like wiretapping Americans without a court order. "If you are not with us, you are against us," is Bush’s mantra.

And I can’t believe Bush continues to defend, in the SOTU, the clearly illegal wiretapping of Americans without a Court order; talk about chutzpah.

On the domestic side Bush’s comments were a litany of initiatives that will probably get nowhere and, as such, seem like platitudes. As it was often joked during the 2000 presidential election, "That Dubya from Texas, he’s all hat and no cattle."

Yet, the SOTU truly is not important. As Charlie Cook, a Republican analyst of congressional and national elections (and writes the non-partisan "Charlie Cook Political Report," and is fair and reasonable) said on PBS Tuesday evening:

The State of the Union speeches are not memorable and are not important. State of the Union speeches do not make a difference, they never make a difference. The average person may have watched the first 10 minutes, but they don’t stick around.

Finally, Bush forgot to mention, other than a few sentences, the plight of the citizens in New Orleans, the State of Louisiana, and the future of the victims of Hurricane Katrina. How terrible, as I know they must have been listening very closely.

I agree with Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) who after the SOTU speech said, "If you liked the last 5 years, he’ll give you 3 more years of that."

Oh no!

UPDATE: My apologies to Mr. Cook. He informs me that he has been registered as an independent fo18 years.