Observations follow below the cut:
9:58–wound up watching on PBS. The guys on CNN wouldn’t shut the hëll up.
I remember exactly where I was when watching the first Obama speech back in 2004: At Bill Mumy’s house. We watched it together and were both blown away by it.
Somehow it always seems to me that Obama’s latest speech is always the biggest speech of his career. Anyone else notice that?
10:01–Great. A video. Ah, the MTV generation, which can’t relate to a major speaker unless it’s introduced by a video.
10:05–the video works on addressing the knocks against him. The notion that he is some elite snob is countered by emphasizing his down home, Kansas roots. Both Obama and his wife comment on his name, which generates much scorn and skepticism from pundits and ignoramuses trying to equate his name with terrorism.
10:12–I wonder if Paul McCartney will come out.
10:13–I love all the signs that say “Change.” If I were there I’d keep throwing quarters to people and say, “Here you go. You don’t have to beg.”
10:14–Anyone counting how many times he said “Thank you?”
10:15–Smart. He’s acknowledging Hillary right up front.
10:16–Hmm. Tepid cheers for Bill Clinton. Ted Kennedy got a larger response. Bigger cheer for Joe Biden.
10:19–“We are better than these last eight years.” Good line.
10:21–“Eight is enough.” They should get Ðìçk Van Patten for a commercial that says that.
10:23–Thus far, rather than going for high flown rhetoric, he’s going for a fairly straightforward assault on Bush and McCain. Not sure if this is a good thing, since what has distinguished him is his ability to rise above standard issue attack. On the other hand, he’s going to have to be willing to go head to head with the sort of attacks the GOP will doubtless mount.
10:26–the question is, is he going to get into specifics of what he wants to do to change things?
10:29–He’s basically presenting himself as an example of what can happen when the government assists people in need. Not a bad way to go.
10:30–still hasn’t reached the soaring rhetoric of 2004’s keynote speech.
10:32–okay, good. Specifics.
10:33–a direct attempt to battle the GOP notion that Democrats=tax.
10:34–Ending oil dependency should be a major issue. Safely harnessing nuclear power, though; that could be problematic.
10:35–Somewhere Al Gore is smiling over the emphasis on alternate fuels.
10:37–that’s pretty sweet health coverage, what Congress gets.
10:38–Oh, I think Obama’s daughters opportunities will be pretty promising no matter what.
10:39–I am dubious over the prospect of his going over the budget line by line.
10:40–What, there’s no such thing as absentee mothers while fathers are doing their best to raise their children?
10:41–“if we have them in our sights.” Well, that’s the problem when it comes to Bin Laden, isn’t it. He’s used the “won’t follow him to the cave he lives” line before.
10:43–That’s true enough, that this isn’t the change America needs. McCain’s bellicosity isn’t what’s needed. And Bush et al didn’t merely squander the legacy that was built. They squandered the opportunity to build a genuine global coalition after the catastrophe of 9/11.
10:46–He’s trying to take the patriotism weapon out of the GOP’s hands. This is the first point in the speech where he’s really starting to reach the rhetoric levels of previous speeches.
10:48–Actually, no, we can’t agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, because many of the “no abortion” advocates don’t want birth control. And no, we can’t agree on the Second Amendment because yes, gun advocates really DO want everyone to be able to have AK-47s if they’re so inclined.
10:50–“If you don’t have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from.” Nice.
10:51–“This election was never about me. It’s about you!” Well…no. It’s about him.
10:53–I like the “I’ve seen change” riff. Sounds like a cross of JFK and MLK in oratorical stylings.
10:54–Why did he suddenly start whistling his “s”s?
10:55–And now he actually invokes MLK. Wonder if he’ll bring up JFK.
10:56–Now he’s rolling.
Ðámņ. Wouldn’t have minded a few more minutes on the level of the end of the speech. Always leave them wanting more, I suppose.
He had to walk a fine line: on the one hand, if he went for the soaring inspirational style that marked his 2004 Keynote speech, he’d be slammed for being vague and unspecific. On the other hand if he remained solely focused on down-to-earth considerations, then he sacrifices the sort of inspiring rhetoric that remains his strength. So he tried to strike a balance. the result was that the speech was a bit unfocused, trying to be all things to all people and accomplish all manner of things. There’s a reason the Gettysburg Address remains so memorable: It was ten sentences long. Talk about focused.
Overall a B+.
PAD
• 
Jason M. Bryant: It’s not really biding time, that’s his stated position. He says he’s for strong civil unions and not marriage, but he thinks states should decide. So effectively he’s not going to do anything.
Hrmmm…strangely enough, I think I’m ok with that. I mean, it’s not like the president has the power to legalize gay marriage anyway, short of signing into law what Congress delivers to his desk–and since we know Congress will never get around to it without any real pressure coming from the states, that’s why I’m starting to think the courts are the best way to go.
It would certainly be helpful to have a president who says “I support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry,” but saying it doesn’t make it happen–which is why we shouldn’t be waiting for the president’s approval. Like Obama said, change has to come to Washington, not from it.
I’m generally of the opinion that the federal government has too much power, so I’m rarely going to dislike a President saying he’ll leave something up to the states.
Generally, when they say that it’s not because they don’t want the power, but because they want to avoid a tricky issue. I’m fine with that, too, because it let’s controversial stuff improve gradually. We’re not going to get the whole country to approve gay marriage tomorrow any more than we could get the whole country to approve inter-racial marriage all at once. So if one state does it, then another, then a few more, that gives the rest of the country a chance to catch up, until every state does it in a race not to be the last dufus to hold out.
Luigi Novi: ??????? Um, Tim, have you and Lisa moved to New Jersey when we weren’t looking, or something?
We’ve been in NJ for a little over three years now, Luigi. I figured you might have picked up on that when Peter mentioned going with us to see Billy Joel at Shea…
TWL
We’re not going to get the whole country to approve gay marriage tomorrow any more than we could get the whole country to approve inter-racial marriage all at once.
Um, except that we did. It was a Supreme Court decision called Loving v. Virginia that pretty much ended the remaining laws against interracial marriage.
Except that we didn’t. It started being struck down in states almost 20 years before Loving v. Virginia. A 20 year span isn’t all at once.
Initial reaction to his comment about oil dependency? That’s going to hurt him.
Then I remembered that voters tend to have nearly uselessly short memories. Otherwise, they’d remember how politicians were crowing that, after the first ‘energy crisis’, yet *thirty four YEARS later* someone sneezes in Kabukistan and the price at the pump skyrockets. And what can he do in ten years, that preceding administrations – Democrats as well as Republicans – haven’t in thirty four?
What have the previous administrations even attempted to do? I know that sounds snarky, but I’m actually drawing a blank.
The main thing Obama is proposing is to reduce the amount of oil we actually consume. That really isn’t something that anyone was pushing during the last few administrations when gas was cheap. It’s entirely possible, there are advances being made regularly, and more funding for research would definitely help.
In fact, it’s possible to significantly reduce our oil consumption without any new technology. My Honda Civic gets 35 MPG and it’s not even a hybrid. I get annoyed when I see car commercials talk about how great their 28 MPG cars are. That’s not great, that’s a little better than average. Just passing regulation requiring the auto industry to raise its average MPG would significantly reduce our oil consumption.
Peter,
How is your life worse the last eight years, than it was the eight years before that.
It sounds like McCain’s running mate is coming out of left field. If the rumors are true, after reading about her on wikipedia, I’m excited. I’d never even heard of her and I like her already.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
I really can’t see McCain’s VP pick being Sarah Palin.
She’s three years younger than Obama. She’s only been governor for two years. How could McCain continue to push the experience argument against Obama when he picks someone with less experience as his backup president?
She was even a Miss Alaska runner up, so the celebrity ad against Obama would become instantly ironic. That’d be like Obama accusing McCain of spending too much time watching basketball.
She might be a good candidate, but she’s not a good match for the campaign that McCain has been running against Obama.
I didn’t watch the speech but listened to most of it on the radio (I’m in the process of moving, and have had a small radio tuned to the convention while packing), so I wasn’t distracted by any of the visuals. What I heard sounded good, but I wasn’t able to give it my full attention.
For what it’s worth, on Morning Edition this morning a Republican and Democrat (each political strategists, I believe) gave the speech overall high marks. To what degree Obama’s acceptance speech (and likewise McCain’s next week) helps or hurts his election chances, who can say?
Rick
Steve: Peter, How is your life worse the last eight years, than it was the eight years before that.
Luigi Novi: Well, our civil liberties have been trampled upon, thousands of our brothers and sisters have been killed in Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with 9/11, much of the world is against us, bin Laden has not been caught or confirmed dead, huge sums of money thrown into an unjustified war have hurt the economy, gas prices have skyrocketed, etc.
Tim Lynch: We’ve been in NJ for a little over three years now, Luigi. I figured you might have picked up on that when Peter mentioned going with us to see Billy Joel at Shea…
Luigi Novi: Geez, shows you where I’ve been! (It wouldn’t happen to be Wyckoff, would it? 🙂 ) I probably didn’t fully read the Billy Joel thread, since I’m not that into him. But moving from CA to NJ? Me, I dream of the opposite move, at least for the winter (you know, find a nice little home in an area where it’s warm in the winter).
Good to have you in the Garden State, sir. Are you two still teaching?
And as soon as I speak, I’m proven wrong.
MSNBC is saying that they’ve confirmed Sarah Palin. Makes no sense to me, but there it is.
The plan is to cut taxes for the middle and lower income earners and jack them up for the high-income earners to offset the cuts.
See here for details. It remains to be seen if he can get this past the legislature.
I always dislike these types of statements. They assume that taxing the heck out of a few thousand ‘rich’ guys will raise more taxes than small amounts off of the huge number of ‘regular’ guys. Class envy, pure and simple
Charlie
Class envy and practicality.
The uber rich guy isn’t going to lose his home if he pays 25Mil in taxes out of his $50 Mil income, the guy barely making 40K can’t afford to pay anymore with the cost of living going up.
Personally, I’m looking forward to the upcoming class warfare when the poor and former middle-class take up arms against the ultra-wealthy and drag them to gallows…
MSNBC is saying that they’ve confirmed Sarah Palin. Makes no sense to me, but there it is.
The choice of a female running mate makes perfect sense to me. He’s going for the democrats who don’t care for Obama (there are a few of us) as well as the female vote.
It’s going to be an interesting election. Either way we will end up with a first.
Jason – They already passed legislations raising MPG in the aftermath of that original ‘crisis’, not to mention the ballyhoo about pollution. Oil use and pollution are still rising because there are so many more cars on the road than back then, so many more homes needing heating/cooling and so many more gadgets needing power (some of which is generated by burning fossil fuels). And that’s the crux of the matter. Hardly any amount of ‘conservation’ will work in the long run until we, as a species, admit we can’t keep going on breeding like rabbits without it coming back to bite us some day. But good luck finding a North American politician who’ll run on that basis.
Sigh. I had really really hoped ( months ago )JM would have tried to convince Colin Powell run as his running mate. Ah well.
Starwolfe, I think they could raise MPG minimums significantly higher than they are right now.
You’re right that conservation isn’t a long term solution, but it’s a considerably better short term solution than more drilling. Raising the average MPG by 2 would save a heck of a lot of oil.
Which brings us to long term solutions. McCain is backing more nuclear power and a cash prize for someone who makes a battery good enough to be a real solution for an electric car. Meanwhile, Obama wants to fund more research into alternative fuels. Neither plan is guaranteed, but I like Obama’s better.
Geez, shows you where I’ve been! (It wouldn’t happen to be Wyckoff, would it? 🙂 )
Nope — we’re living in West Orange and both teaching in Montclair (me at MKA, Lisa at MSU).
TWL
Christine, I get that he’s going after disgruntled Hillary voters. But I just don’t see how that is worth all the other trade offs.
Palin is *really* different from Hillary Clinton. On my first glace at their resumees, being female seems to be the only thing they have in common. It seems odd that such an obvious pander could get much traction. But I guess we’ll see how well it works.
Palin is a fascinating choice, but in a lot of ways she seems to undercut a lot of McCain’s current message.
Experience? She’s been governor even less time than Obama’s been senator, and was a mayor before that for a shorter time than Obama was state senator.
Celebrity? She came in second place in a beauty pageant.
She’s certainly not going to annoy McCain’s base, being pretty far to the right, but I don’t see this as having a huge appeal to independents.
I think he’s trying to grab the Hillary supporters who are still bitter. It might work, but I’m doubtful.
But boy, the VP debate should be interesting!
TWL
She’s three years younger than Obama. She’s only been governor for two years. How could McCain continue to push the experience argument against Obama when he picks someone with less experience as his backup president?
He’ll argue that being governor for 2 years gives you more experience than being Senator for 4. I’d agree only I might be tempted to bump the number up a bit. I’m not sure that being a senator prepares you for much of anything other than being an older Senator…but one of these guys is going to win.
She was even a Miss Alaska runner up, so the celebrity ad against Obama would become instantly ironic. That’d be like Obama accusing McCain of spending too much time watching basketball.
It would be a HUGE mistake to play up the Miss Alaska thing too much. Obama does not want to pìšš øff women.
She might be a good candidate, but she’s not a good match for the campaign that McCain has been running against Obama.
I think it might be a startlingly brilliant choice. I did not expect McCain to be this bold. The one mark against her is an investigation into a questionable firing…though if the wikipedia description of this event is to be trusted there isn’t very much to this. Pro-lifers will love that she gave birth to her last child even after finding out he would have Downs Syndrome. She eats mooseburgers and has smoked pot.
She’s also good looking. Not first lady of France hot but easier on the eyes than Biden. Biden would have eaten Romney for lunch–can he attack her with the same fervor?
Wow. Whoever wins in November we are going to break new ground. Yay us!
Also, her being relatively little known guarantees that the next few days are going to be a wall to wall news scramble about her, effectively knocking Obama off the lead story at his very moment of triumph.
Agreed with the “yay us!” comment, and that she’s cute in a Tina Fey sort of way.
And following up my idea from last night, the omen could be in the acronym:
PANIC MAC NIL.
I really should be prepping my classes…
TWL
I’m not saying that Obama will use her pageant days against her. It just weakens McCain’s message. I give even odds that either The Daily Show or SNL makes the comparison between pageants and the celebrity ad.
Bill, you may argue that being Governor of one of the lowest population states is worth twice as much as being a Senator, but don’t expect McCain’s campaign to make that argument. That’s instant backfire material.
It’s certainly bold. He didn’t have much chance with a regular running mate, so he chose someone who makes everyone rethink things. Okay, I can see the logic in that.
Something that’s not been mentioned yet:
Palin is an advocate of teaching creationism in the classroom.
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/
Now, that’s obviously going to appeal to some people (Iowa Jim, for one), but for me it’s a deal-killer.
TWL
I just had an interesting thought. I think this will pretty much clinch a McCain win unless Obama does something hugely brilliant and McCain doesn’t something hugely stupid. I’m also thinking McCain will only run for a single term.
That would mean there was a very good chance the 2012 election would be two moderate women (one leaning left and one leaning right) running for the top office in the big two parties.
Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin
The mind races.
No, I don’t think McCain will try to overemphasize her experience…I think they are hoping that Biden will try to do it and then they will have some snappy comebacks. I don’t know that choosing her negates the experience card as much as some Democrats would like to think. If McCain says that Obama doesn’t have the experience to be president on day one and they try to come back with “Neither does your Vice president”…well, that’s not a great comeback, is it? When someone calls you ugly it doesn’t really take away the sting to snipe back “So’s your sister!”
Also, they can make the claim that Palin will be learning on the job while Obama has to hit the ground running.
It WAS a bold choice…but keep in mind, none of the other choices seemed all that great.
It’s funny–I’d always figured that the first black president or VP would be a republican and the first woman president or VP would be a democrat. Whoever wins, they prove me wrong. Oh well. That’s why they call it politics (From the Greek pulustakas which translates to “You really don’t have a clue, do you?”)
There are an awful lot of ifs in that prediction, Scott — but you’re right that IF McCain wins, the odds of a Clinton-Palin election in 2012 just went up considerably.
Interesting times…
Bill: “I think they are hoping that Biden will try to do it and then they will have some snappy comebacks”
Considering that experience is such a big part of McCain’s campaign, I think the odds are heavy that it will be the other way around, Bill.
I don’t think Palin will change things that much. Any hope that she would steal Hillary voters will evaporate, considering both how much Hillary threw her support behind Obama and how different Palin and Hillary are. And will moderates and independents really be lured to the Republican side by a pro-life NRA member? (There’s also an unresolved scandal involving her using her influence to get a police officer fired — but since that didn’t derail the vetting process it seems unlikely that will blow up in everyone’s face.)
Her husband is an Eskimo. How cool is that?
Her oldest son will be in Iraq in September (isn’t one of McCain’s kids and one of Biden’s already there?)
Palin is an advocate of teaching creationism in the classroom.
Ugh…well…I’m glad you provided the link to that article though. It says:
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.
I mean, I can’t argue with that. Hëll, it came up in my Earth Science class today. I don’t just shut the kid down with “We don’t talk about your silly superstitions in SCIENCE CLASS, mister man!” I mean, it isn’t like I’m afraid I’ll lose the argument. I’m not exactly debating St Augustine, more likely a kid who just wants to put down the answer “Because God wanted it that way” to every question.
Let me offer a more specific example.
For a long time McCain hassled Obama for not having been to Iraq recently. Obama had been, just not recently enough.
Has Palin *ever* been to Iraq? Has the governor of Alaska ever been to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or anywhere else?
I see the points you guys are making. In 2004, Bush got 55% of the married women vote. There’s definitely an opportunity to expand that large demographic. There are other ways that having a lifelong NRA member, pro life, pro drilling in Alaska running mate can help.
I can’t wait to see what Hillary Clinton has to say about her.
I know what you’re saying in terms of the interview, Bill, but as soon as someone talks about “teach the controversy” it’s obvious code wording. She may not be all that explicit about it, but I think intelligent design is on her educational agenda.
Now, having said that, the only source I’m finding appears to be this one article or things making references back to it. We shall see.
TWL
I can’t wait to see what Hillary Clinton has to say about her.
I don’t think Hillary will be able to show any support but Geraldine Ferraro said on FOX News that this is the right choice for McCain to capture the disenfranchised Hillary voters.http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2008/08/geraldine-ferraro-likes-the-palin-pick-video/
I think Palin is an great choice. She is adamantly Pro-Life. So often the abortion debate is framed as Pro-Life men attempting to control Pro-Choice women. It clearly has never been that simple. Most of the Pro-Lifers I know are women. Take a look at the crowd that marches on Washington in January to protest the Roe v Wade decision. Unless those are transvestites, there are a lot of women in that crowd.
Unless those are transvestites, there are a lot of women in that crowd.
Well, there was that one year that Rudy Giuliani marched with them…
I don’t think Palin will change things that much. Any hope that she would steal Hillary voters will evaporate, considering both how much Hillary threw her support behind Obama and how different Palin and Hillary are.
I think you’re wrong there. Obama is getting some votes because some are voting for him based purely on his race. The same will hold true here. There are some who will vote for her purely because she is a woman. Any of the Clinton supporters who were supporting her for that reason will jump over to Palin in a heartbeat.
With all this talk of Palin…
So, it’s 2008 and now we have a non-white with real chances to be President. As a thought experiment, how many years more you guys think we’ll have to wait to have a non-religious person with real chances to be US President?
(And I mean someone openly non-religious here.)
As happy as I am that a black man has a shot at the Presidency, it’s a little disturbing to think that this celebrated diversity can be (literally) skin-deep. Like, you can be a fine American no matter your appearance, but you still gotta believe in the invisible sky-daddy.
It’s too bad Obama voted to eavesdrop on every conversation I make home as a Peace Corps volunteer serving overseas. McCain did too, but he really has very little chance of getting my vote.
I seriously can’t vote for anyone who supports eroding our already significantly eroded freedoms.
The phrase “Freedom isn’t free,” isn’t a lie. Sometimes you have to take torches and pitchforks to Washington and reclaim it (which is also why I am a Second Amendment supporter).
It’s too bad Obama voted to eavesdrop on every conversation I make home as a Peace Corps volunteer serving overseas. McCain did too, but he really has very little chance of getting my vote.
I seriously can’t vote for anyone who supports eroding our already significantly eroded freedoms.
The phrase “Freedom isn’t free,” isn’t a lie. Sometimes you have to take torches and pitchforks to Washington and reclaim it (which is also why I am a Second Amendment supporter).
He doesn’t have to eavesdrop, Brian — you’re posting it so many times that you’re yelling in his ear. 🙂
More seriously, I completely understand that objection, and it gave me a lot of pause as well. This is a case where I agree with a lot of other things he’s proposing, so I support him in general — but his pro-wiretapping vote is not, not good from where I sit.
Well, whoever they are, it might help not to tell believers they believe in the “invisible sky daddy.”
I think the big problem an atheist would face is the fact that any president who does not believe in God, Aliens or some Higher Power of Your Choice is, in their mind, the most powerful entity in the known universe. People get nervous about that. Sure, you can get in as much trouble with someone who is willing to do anything, secure in the notion that God is right behind him, cheering him on, but people like their world leaders to have some degree of humbleness along with the power to blow us all to smithereens.
Frankly, as bad as some have been, it’s better than we ought to expect. Toss 100 power rings randomly around NYC and my guess is that you’ll get a lot of Guy Gardners.
back to Palin– (is it pronounced PAY-LIN or PAL-IN?) This is the most excited the republicans have been in a while. The glow will probably fade once that new car smell wears off but with only a few months left to go before the election I’ll bet McCain is hoping that Palin will be what Obama has been–the new fresh face, the groundbreaking new talent that inspires the faithful and intrigues the curious.
Of course, if she flubs her introduction to the world stage it could backfire badly and she’ll be regarded as the female Dan Quayle.
I think the big problem an atheist would face is the fact that any president who does not believe in God, Aliens or some Higher Power of Your Choice is, in their mind, the most powerful entity in the known universe.
Come again? I mean, I’m about as atheistic as they come, and I sure as hëll (sic) don’t see Bush as the most powerful entity in the universe, known or otherwise.
Personally, what I’d like to see way down the line is someone in the White House who’s had real scientific training and understands which questions are valid and which ones are idiotic. Most politicians confuse the two on a regular basis.
Toss 100 power rings randomly around NYC and my guess is that you’ll get a lot of Guy Gardners
Very well put, if a disturbing image.
And I also agree with you that Gov. Palin runs the risk of becoming the female Dan Quayle — I hope for everyone’s sake that that’s not how it turns out, but we’ll see.
TWL
And that biographical video introducing Obama WAS narrated by David Strathairn. HA! I say.
I was going to post about my take on Palin and ID and this that and the other thing. Not gonna. Other people more qualified can do that.
The only question that needs, no, DEMANDS an answer is how Mulligan knows that Palin smells like a new car.
Personally, what I’d like to see way down the line is someone in the White House who’s had real scientific training and understands which questions are valid and which ones are idiotic.
His name was James Earl Carter and he was the former commander of a U.S. Nuclear Submarine. You don’t get to be there without real scientific training. I think it showed in his energy policies. He had some really bad luck as to when he became President IMO, but I can’t think of anything he ever advanced that was stupid from a scientific POV. Of course I was nine when he took office, but I’ve never heard any valid criticisms of his science chops. He was also a born-again Christian, but I don’t think that ever got in the way of his maintaining residence in the Reality-Based Community.
I sure as hëll (sic) don’t see Bush as the most powerful entity in the universe, known or otherwise.
With the press of a button he can launch more thermonuclear missiles than any single person on this planet. He need answer to no politburo or party apparatus to do so. Just his own whim and 3/4 of the world’s population dies and the rest probably end up envying them.
Zeus only dreamed of such power. The president, whoever the may be, can effectively end human civilization as we know it and even have a reasonably good chance of surviving the carnage, living out the rest of their lives in an underground lair while the rest of us resort to cannibalism and maybe even canned beets.
If that’s not the most powerful guy in the world who is?
hey! they say Palin named one of her 5 kids after Willow from Buffy! Cool.
The only question that needs, no, DEMANDS an answer is how Mulligan knows that Palin smells like a new car.
Well she hunts moose and, as we know, new cars are supposed to smell like a dead moose.
They aren’t?
Bášŧárdš! At least I got a great deal on the undercoat rust protection.