Me on Fox News yesterday discussion ACA/Obamacare and President Obama's Leadership

[stevenleser]

Show was America's News HQ and aired live at 1:15pm EST

[Rex]

1. You made them choke up on their own words!

"Never heard anyone talk like that!?" Maybe you should tell them to get out more often and read up on current events! Nice to see you not fall for any of their obvious trolling.

Funny at the end, the commentator cannot stay unbiased.

[Tigress DEM]

106. Yah, "never heard someone talk like that" it's lonely in his bubble.

He don't get out much.

[kentuck]

2. If the President is going to be "negotiating with two parties", rather than just one....

I assume that you think the Republican Party and the Tea Party are not going to unite??

Basically, if anything is to get done, the establishment Republicans will have to join with Democrats to pass stuff or to keep stuff from being passed, otherwise the Tea Party will continue to put them into these uncomfortable and unpredictable situations.

[stevenleser]

11. Exactly, some form of that will have to happen. Which is why I said the President faces a tough time

If you are an establishment Republican, you have already caused yourself problems for voting to end the shutdown. Any additional perceived help you give to the President is going to be tantamount to more nails in your coffin and more ammunition you give to your eventual tea party primary opponent.

[bluemarkers]

44. let's hope the establishment has seen the light and

is willing to 'turn the page' on the tea partiers. They could gain some points by being the sane (less crazy) part of their party. All depends on where the money flows.

you are right - it's easier for 2 to agree than 3. Even though the rancor in dc is all Obama's fault (yawn, boring)

[kentuck]

55. I believe that Mitch McConnell will run against the Tea Party...

and will defeat the Tea Partier in the primary. In my opinion, the Tea Party has lost a lot of credibility with a lot of establishment Republicans. Mitch McConnell is a most disagreeable fellow. He cannot get along with the Democratic Party and he can't get along with the Tea Party.

I think we should be careful and not give the Tea Party too much credit.

[librechik]

86. thx 4 the info

i'm curious about the outcome--it will reveal which Repub party has control of the illegal voting machines in KY.

[pacalo]

68. I think the establishment Republicans are at the end of their rope with the teabaggers

&, like Sen. Schumer said the night of the vote, "the brinkmanship coming from the right has reached its peak". I would hope that the establishment Republicans recognize that working with Obama would be a good way to marginalize the teabaggers. Ignore them altogether, which will goad Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, & other loonies into making further spectacles of themselves. Let them self-destruct whatever relevance they might have left.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Did they threaten you with physical harm ?

[stevenleser]

12. LOL. Nah.

They actually treat me and other Democrats who go on pretty well.

[BelgianMadCow]

4. great to see a DUer trying to keep it sane on Fox

and you managed that real well. Rather weird that you don't get a lot of recs

[stevenleser]

14. Thank you! As to why...

... I don't get a lot of Rec's, I have very little patience dealing with folks like reply #9 and I end up making those folks here mad at me and of course they don't Rec my OPs.

That's OK. I'm not about pretending things are better than they are. I'm about making sense (hence the name of my radio show) and I give people the brutal truth. As Harry Truman said, (paraphrased) some people think the truth is hell. It is hell, actually, that the Republicans control the House. But pretending it isnt so is no way to be.

[Divine Discontent]

20. even if people here don't agree with you, and you know those that I'm referring to

they should support your going on Faux Noise and speaking some rational discussion, something they don't get very often on that wart of a station. I would guess that every single one of those who say you should say this or that would have a horrible time getting their thoughts out without blowing up at the idiots who stand in the way of progress. good job!

here's what the president needs from the voters:


http://www.zazzle.com/shutdown_the_gop_by_voting_in_2014_government-128195183613839642?rf=238107662556833486

[librechik]

87. *

[Paulie]

5. Beauty. They really start to lose bladder control when someone isn't speaking the talking points

Of the day script.

[Southside]

6. GOP: "The biggest policy debacle of our time since chamberlain...."

GOP: "Carrot Top's fan page is more sophisticated than the health insurance Website"

Do they get paid per one liner ?

The topic was coming together and moving forward. You spoke about common ground to work together, the other side was fixed on attacks and division, no answers. These 5 minutes were no different from the dysfunction of the shut down. One side trying to answer the problem, the other side bent on attacking and the moderator decides to punt the ball.

Great job maintaining the civility. Hopefully, Republicans will work with Obama to fine tune the ACA and help more working families.

Thanks for the post.

[riversedge]

82. And it ended with the Fox Host saying

=get rid of it! Guess that is to be expected but still a jolt.

[Southside]

97. Hello fellow new member riversedge

The host tried to hide his contempt for the ACA, but still got in that partisan dig. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh continually contribute to the hostility in Washington.

All the best to you riversedge

[Cha]

7. Thank you, steven.. going into the Lion's Den

and routing the beasts!

[spanone]

8. k&r...

more great work!

[Scuba]

9. What a bunch of crap. Why would the President try to appease either branch of the R's?

It would have been great if you had said he should now push for a more progressive agenda, but you essentially conceded that he must somehow appease the Republicans. Why, why, why?

Oh yeah, Fox doesn't allow real liberals to speak on their network.

[stevenleser]

10. I think it says a lot about you that you parsed it that way.

We would all like to imagine that in getting an agenda passed, the President could ignore the fact that Republicans control the House by a large margin.

The only bills he can pass are ones that will get a fair amount of Republican votes in the House.

I've spent long periods with you on ignore precisely because I prefer not to engage on DU with people who ignore inconvenient realities. If we pretend we control both Houses by large margins, we can imagine all kinds of progressive legislation passing.

I can't afford to spend my time on unproductive fantasies like that. I have to deal with the facts as they are.

[groundloop]

18. But but but..... the President can make anything happen can't he?

Steve, I appreciate a voice speaking truth and sanity. It would be great if we could control both houses with comfortable margins, but unfortunately that's not the case. Hell, as effective as republicans have been using the filibuster we'd need 65 or 70 seats in the Senate to get any really liberal agenda passed there.

[stevenleser]

53. It's amazing that some people seem to think so, isn't it?

We just had a pretty jolting example of exactly the lengths Republicans will go to in order to get their way.

I have no idea what allows some people to think the President can simply pass some kind of progressive agenda and get it through the current House of Representatives.

[Scuba]

21. Nice try, but still a fail.

Why pass bills that hurt our cause just because they are "passable" with the R's in control of the House? Better to show them for the obstructionists they are - roll out some progressive legislation and let them further hurt their credibility by standing in the way of progress.

Capitulation never achieved anything for the American People. Pretending that the President has to cow-tow to the Tea Party is hardly a progressive/liberal stance, but then that's why Fox keeps inviting you back.

[stevenleser]

23. LOL, yes, by all means, lets assume folks willing to destroy our economy to get their way will do

what we say if we really scream loudly enough.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

[Scuba]

25. Yes, I carefully monitor what I say and write. Did I say the the Teabaggers would do what we say?

No, I didn't. I said let them continue to obstruct progressive legislation and further erode their support.

Do you read what I write? Do you really think you're representing progressive/liberal ideals when you go on Fox and state that the President needs to mollify the Republicans?

[stevenleser]

26. No, you don't. There is a huge gulf between reality and where you think things are. nt

[Scuba]

29. My reality isn't defined by Fox. That seems to ber where we diverge.

[stevenleser]

33. I'm glad to see you have given up and gone ad-hominem. Its your admission of failure.

I accept your admission of failure.

[Blanks]

95. I commend you for your ability to remain calm...

When dealing with a bunch of dicks.

Whether at Fox News or here.

[99Forever]

74. Agree 1000%.

Capitulators like this self-promoting ummmm ... "journalist," are the problem, NOT the solution.

[Scuba]

77. If this is the best our side has, we're screwed.

[Dawgs]

80. Thank you so much.

Bragging about being a token liberal on Fox News is all I need to know about them.

[Vashta Nerada]

39. I agree with you, Scuba.

+10

[DJ13]

41. I agree also

[reACTIONary]

62. Who has passed bills that "hurt our side"? And why would anyone do that?

None of the legislation passed by Obama has "hurt our side".

[Scuba]

66. My point exactly. Why appease the Republicans? The President's hand has never been stronger.

I could argue that continued tax breaks for the wealthiest and renewal of the Patriot Act have hurt our side, but my post related to the future, not the past.

[reACTIONary]

67. You seem to believe that Steve was advocating...

... passing anything just to pass something, even if it would be detrimental to our side. In fact, I had the impression that you thought this was what was done in the past, since in the (recent) past Obama has not had as strong a position as he now has. I had the impression that you were advocating attempting to pass legislation that was bound to fail in the house in order to expose the Republicans as "obstructionists".

Now I get the impression that you believe it is possible to pass progressive legislation, and get it through the house, that would advance our cause. This would seem to be a different goal from proposing something that is very progressive but bound to fail in order to make a point.

What is it that you are advocating?

I didn't get the impression that Steve was advocating passing anything at all just to pass something, regardless of whether it would or would not hurt our cause. I think he was giving his honest assessment of what it would take to pass legislation that would help our side. He may be wrong about that, it may be easier than he thinks, but I don't think he was saying "pass something !!! anything !!!".

[Scuba]

71. What Mr. Leser said was the President "now has two negotiating partners instead of one ....

... he's got to think 'is this policy, this thing I'm going to propose, acceptable to the Tea Party Wing, is it more acceptable to the centric establishment wing of the Republican Party' ...".

Hardly a liberal progressive statement, in fact, quite the opposite.

The teabillies are without any support except for their nutters back home, and the "centric establishment" Republicans have the lowest approval rating in history. Why should the President's proposals have to be acceptable to these losers? Only on Fox.

[stevenleser]

72. LOL - It has to be acceptable to one of those groups because of how that voting thing works

Remember that whole voting thing that congress does to pass laws? Specifically the House of Representatives which has more Republican members than Democratic ones?

That's if Boehner and whatever committee heads we are talking about even allow a vote on whatever law you are talking about. They don't even have to allow it to come to a vote.


But you clearly don't understand all of that, so here is some help:

[Scuba]

75. Again, you're arguing that passing something "acceptable to the Tea Party" is better than ....

... not passing anything.

Your condescending suggestion that I don't understand how bills are passed is pathetic. If you're going to go on Fox and pretend to be a "Democratic strategist" why call the teabillies "a negotiating partner"? You really think they are a) willing to negotiate, or b) a partner?

But then you're the same guy who said he has "no opinion" on an article that states "absent any reforms in the social safety net to arrest cost growth - something President Obama has taken insane hits from liberals for suggesting - the deficit will begin to grow again" totally ignoring options like cutting defense spending or raising taxes on the wealthiest. Really? Cutting the social safety net is an issue on which you have "no opinion"??? As I said, no wonder Fox invites you on so often.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3707872

If you are indeed helping the Democratic Party prepare strategy on an official basis, then the Party must have totally abandoned the traditional ideals that once made it strong.

[stevenleser]

78. No, you were wrong as soon as you typed "tea party" and "better than" in your subject line.

What is "better than" is if the House was in Democratic control.

There is no "better than" with Republicans in control of the House.

[Scuba]

79. Now you're reduced to word salad. Please don't go on Fox to "represent" the Democratic Party again.

You're making things worse by giving credibility to the teabillies.

[stevenleser]

81. LOL, and with that, I'll simply thank you for keeping my OP kicked. nt

[reACTIONary]

85. RE: "Hardly a liberal progressive statement"

The statement is an observation concerning legislative tactics and strategy given a certain circumstance, not a statement concerning correct policy or ideological fidelity. Assessing the facts correctly and proceeding in accordance with the reality that exits certainly IS in accordance with liberal / progressive ideas and, in general, is the only way to achieve liberal / progressive goals. Basing legislative tactics and strategy on wishful thinking isn't viable. That's what the tea baggers did in this show down and they lost big time. I don't consider them to be an example worth considering.

Now, it may be true that Steve's analysis is not correct - but that doesn't make it any more or any less liberal / progressive. It may not point to as aggressive a strategy as you would like, but it is perfectly compatible with progressive / liberal goals and policy objectives.

You seem to believe a more aggressive strategy could be viable, and you may be right. However, it seems the teabilly caucus in the house has an effective veto on any legislative effort. If the goal is to pass liberal / progressive legislation, the President's proposals have to both lean liberal / progressive and (in some sense) be acceptable to the teabillies.

[Scuba]

88. Giving credibility to the teabillies by referring to them as a "negotiating partner" ...

... will certainly get Mr. Leser invited back on Fox News.

I wonder if he's paid by Fox to do that? His "Democratic Strategist" introduction suggest that he's being paid by the Democratic Party. If that's the case, the Party is wasting its money.

Perhaps Mr. Leser will let us know who pays him.

[reACTIONary]

89. "Now is ze time on Sprockets ...

...vhen ve dance."

That is, now is the time on DU where we start questioning the "hidden motives" of those we disagree with rather than assessing their judgment against the facts.

I personally don't care who is paying Mr. Leser, as opposed to whether or not his analysis is correct and useful.

[Scuba]

90. Motives and loyalties are important indicators when determining whether or not to trust someone.

Besides, he's wrong on the analysis.

[reACTIONary]

96. If, he's wrong on the analysis....

... you don't have to worry about his motives, just point out how he is wrong. If he is right on the analysis, you don't have to worry about his motives either. In other words, his motives aren't very relevant.

As far as whether or not the teabillies have been weakened by their recent defeat, it depends on the circumstances and the issue. Strength in a negotiation is your best alternative to what is being offered. In the recent case, the teabillies best alternative was being blamed for the total destruction of the US and world economy. Verses the status quo.

Given their best alternative, they were in a pretty weak position. And they did damage themselves. But that doesn't mean they are weak given other issues and alternatives.

For instance, take comprehensive immigration reform. The house teabillies best alternative to accepting a liberal/progressive policy would be the status quo. For them, that's not too bad. Accepting a liberal/progressive reform, however, would hurt them in their districts. So any policy proposal that would overcome their "veto" would have to be very attractive to "establishment republicans" who are more worried about business interests being able to hire cheap labor. So liberal/progressive policy gains are not out of the question, but won't be possible without some creative legislative craft-work.

[stevenleser]

102. The easy answer is, No guest gets paid on political TV or Radio shows.

My only politically related income is from my radio show.

If you are watching/listening to any political show, you can tell if someone is a guest, and therefore unpaid, or a paid person. A paid person is an employee of that network. They will rarely appear elsewhere as they are essentially owned by that network. They are introduced at the beginning of each segment as either a host/cohost or analyst or contributor of that network.

You are absolutely right to say though that the person you are arguing with is ignoring various facts and realities while grasping at straws and dancing as fast as they can in order to hurl crazy accusations at me.

[stevenleser]

73. You're arguing with someone who thinks Boehner and the GOP controlled House will pass progressive

legislation despite the lesson in just how unreasonable they can be that we were all just given where they nearly crashed the economy to get their way.

You're trying valiantly but when the person you are discussing things with doesn't acknowledge some pretty obvious realities it's tough to get through to them.

[tkmorris]

92. No he doesn't and he has repeatedly said so

I am finding your army of strawmen debate tactics to be quite distasteful.

What he said was that any legislation that results from negotiating with the Tea Party is bound to be legislation that is worse than doing nothing. I am paraphrasing and simplifying of course. If you wish to debate the point then address that directly. Or don't.

[stevenleser]

103. Yes he does and it is apparent with every reply. That person's position involves magical thinking.

They expect progressive legislation to be put forth by the Democratic senate and the White House and they expect it to pass the House of Representatives.

[reACTIONary]

30. +10 (nt)

[Scuba]

34. This must be your admission of failure, eh?

[stevenleser]

36. If you thought so, you wouldn't have continued the thread, would you? LMAO! nt

[Scuba]

42. Keep grasping at those straws; it's good exercise.

[stevenleser]

47. In the alternate reality you live in, I am sure it seems like that. nt

[Scuba]

49. Ad hominem.

[Fumesucker]

54. Oh the shame of being called unserious by a Very Serious Person

A Very Serious Person on Fox News in fact.

[stevenleser]

57. It really amuses me when all someone can do is throw the "Fox News" bogeyman at me.

Virtually every elected Democrat and most Democratic pundits have been on Fox News at least once.

Do you really intend to throw them all under the bus because you can't find anything else to attack me with?

[stevenleser]

65. LOL, just got to DU and embroil yourself in this stuff right away, eh? Enjoy your stay...

... as long as it lasts.

[sheshe2]

13. K&R

Thanks Steve.

[samsingh]

15. kick

[Playinghardball]

16. K&R

[Quixote1818]

17. You looked like Ninja in there. Smooth, smart, sophisticated and on message.

These kind of extremely well articulated appearances slowly chip away at Fox viewers and start bringing them over to our side. Great job!

[mazzarro]

19. You astutely chose the better and maybe the best of Faux Noise talking heads' show to appear

He was far more reasonable than I had expected and your co-guest was reasonable as well. I was surprised neither of them tried to shut you down nor talk over you. Congratulations for the "edjumacation" that you imparted to the Faux Noise audience.

[Scuba]

22. They don't shut you up when you're stumping for their side.

[mazzarro]

27. Our DU'er was less fiesty than I would have liked

But presume that his intention was more to educate and engage them in matured and reasonable discussion - that I will never discourage. And I will never concede to surrender any ground to them when they are wrong - which he did not do in this case.

[Scuba]

31. He's there to show that our side has no argument.

[tkmorris]

93. It's a living I guess

Hey, it worked for Alan Colmes.

[Scuba]

94. Perfect analogy.

[stevenleser]

105. As I have said many times, guests on talk shows do not get paid. I am a guest. nt

[tkmorris]

108. It's free advertising for what you DO get paid for

Which is why you do it. Let's not pretend we don't know why you do these appearances.

[stevenleser]

109. So your contention is disproved and now you happily move the goalposts. Gotcha. nt

[stevenleser]

35. You're arguing with someone who exists in an alternate reality, one where Progressive legislation

passes this Republican House of Representatives.

I doubt you are going to make much headway.

[Chiquitita]

83. What you did was great in my opinion

You hammered in the fact that the Republicans are divided and weak. That they are fractured. It made the host upset, and I was glad to see that.

[Nay]

24. Thanks for jumping in there and getting the message out! nt

[ChazII]

28. Another K&R

along with a "Thank you, Steve.".

[Botany]

32. You had them stumbling

[stevenleser]

37. Love that movie, love that scene.

Thank you!

[underpants]

38. Good analysis on being "primaried" - they are scared of their own shadow

They went away from their playbook (a running team throwing the ball - a folk band going electric) of no internal strife and getting their "product" to market first. It backfired on them because their angry mob, which was just supposed to initiate a fear of change, won't go away. They used the tea party to shine the light on themselves after a disasterous 2 year election span (2006-2008 elections) and they created a shadow. The only way to get rid of a shadow is to stay out of the light. In today's instant media you have to keep yourself in the light.

Now the shadow (an empty representation of reality) can actually beat the host by making reality out of the empty representations of the host. They actually embody the representations and the viewers could "primary" out the host in favor of the shadow. The best way to prevent that is to step out of the light....which the host can't do.

Nominating shadows vs. real people tends not to bode well but the gerrymandering since the 2010 census could hold things off. Only 17 House seats need to flip to change the majority. Banking on a shadow is shadowy business. Creating the shadow starts the process though.

Good luck battling your own shadow.


Well done Steve

[BlueStreak]

40. Very well done. If there were more discussions like that on Faux, I might even watch

Last edited Sat Oct 19, 2013, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

I applaud you for having the stones to do that, and for presenting a very solid set of arguments. The host even said he was in favor of making improvements to the ACA by the end of that segment. Of course, what you didn't say is that one of the most beneficial improvements would be to require Medicare to list a bronze plan in all the exchanges -- at their actual cost of providing that coverage. I would even be OK with having Medicare list their public option at 8% HIGHER than their actual cost, with the extra 8% going into the Medicare trust fund. That would give the insurance companies an opportunity for 8% profit margin, which is very good money in most industries. That would offer a MUCH better deal for everybody, including the Federal government (which would have smaller subsidies to pay) and those those folks over 400% of the poverty level you mentioned.

And maybe we only introduce that at first for people over 50 who are the ones struggling the most to get jobs. Or maybe we introduce it only in states where there is little real competition in the exchanges today. However we do it, that is the one thing that can have the biggest positive impact on the most Americans, while simultaneously reducing the Federal deficit.

Keep it up man. By about April, 2014, maybe these improvements will be openly discussed an Faux and all the other national networks. I think you are absolutely right to portray this as a program that is open to improvement. We welcome improvement. We won't have any discussions about delaying or de-funding it. But if somebody wants to make it work better, bring it on. The gauntlet is down now. Republicans need to come to the table with something besides "No".

[grantcart]

43. You so outclassed them that to make it even you should suggest that they get

two more Republicans to balance it out.

[barnabas63]

45. "...that or get rid of it." UGH

They can't be civil for more than 2 seconds, can they?

[stevenleser]

51. This is the exact reason I started my own radio show.

No matter what network I was on, or what show I was on, if its not your show, someone else controls the discussion and adds their spin and gets the last word.

I needed a place where I got to do that. It's worked out pretty well!

[barnabas63]

52. Where can I listen to it? nt

[stevenleser]

58. Right here...

This link will always have the most recent 6-8 shows. If you live in the Los Angeles Basin, you can also listen to it on 1050am Mondays at 2pm Pacific time.

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/p/latest-radio-show.html

[Turbineguy]

46. Looks like they made sure you were surrounded!

Thank you!

[ucrdem]

76. Super job Steven!

You had 'em both agreeing with you and you did it in a pleasant way so they won't blackball you, lol. Also thanks for the ACA update which sounds reasonable. Thanks for posting it too!

[bravenak]

48. More democrats need to go on Fox News and try to teach these people how the government works.

If we get the house back, we will not have to give them anything and can replace whatever we give them now. As of now , we have no way to pass anything without their help. It's a tired, miserable hell we live in. It's nice that you're trying to explain reality to them.

[IdaBriggs]

50. Oh my goodness -- AWESOME!

You had everyone acknowledging the civil war in the GOP, pointed out he has to "negotiate" with "two factions" while threatening everyone who isn't a lunatic with getting "primarried", had the GOP guy agreeing with you, got the $60K figure out there (ROFL!), and had the Fox guy stuttering in shock ---

WOW! GREAT JOB!!!

[blue14u]

56. K & R

[okaawhatever]

59. Excellent. Another GOP mouthpiece full of soundbites and a Dem one articulating

policy and position. Good lord. I have to say, the GOP guy did come around in the end after he realized the interview wasn't going to be the usual soundbite fest and he looked like a moron. I'd love to see you opposite Palin.

[Hoyt]

60. Good work.

[madrchsod]

61. you`re a better man than i...steve leser!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. GOOD JOB!!!

Nice!

[dchill]

69. K&R - Bill Hemmer: Talking Head...

That is all.

[B Calm]

70. Good job Steven! K&R

[BlueCaliDem]

84. Calm, cool, and informative. Very well done, Steve! K&R! eom

[grahamhgreen]

91. Nice! My 2 cents:

As a TV pro, watch your hands, and try to get return in your monitor so you can see when they are being effective.

Also, I'm hoping all you guys read 'conservatives without a conscience' so you can understand that the minds of right wing authoritarians are simply unable to process compromise; they see compromise as admission of defeat. They simply want to be told what to do by the President. And punished when they fail to do it. They know they are being bad, like children pushing boundaries.

Nice job though, I could never be on that side of the camera, lol

[MrScorpio]

98. Why do Republicans always go out of their way to sound like complete jerks?

It's as if the guy was trying to incite an argument instead of having a frank discussion.

Do they believe even half the crap that comes out of their mouths?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

99. I feel like screaming and throwing things

every time I hear the Republicans (or any number of mindless pundits) start in on the "President Obama isn't leading" meme and somebody really needs to call them on it IMHO. I know that you have only limited time to respond during interviews but can you try to call them out next time they start in on it? The truth of the matter is that President Obama can lead, has lead, and will keep on leading this country but he can't do anything with the Republican Tea Party when they consciously decide to be obstinate and obstructionist. Nobody can make a**holes decide to stop being a**holes and you can't "lead" them anywhere if they are bound and determined to fight you every inch of the way on EVERYTHING. There is so much evidence out there now that Republicans weren't going to give President Obama so much as the time of day from the beginning. I wish that the people pushing this "lack of leadership" meme were required to give an example or two of concrete things that President Obama could do differently to get the Republicans to listen to him though they probably couldn't actually come up with anything if pressed. Also, anybody whom seriously believes that President Obama hasn't done enough to bring everybody together and hasn't been "post-partisan" enough hasn't been paying enough attention during his Presidency to what he's been doing and/or saying.

[Whisp]

100. great job!

[stevenleser]

101. Thanks so much to everyone who responded to offer support, it means a lot!

[renate]

104. thanks for going into the lions' den

... and making sense!