Politcs Plus - Mike's Blog - Victoria Advocate

Politcs Plus - Mike's Blog - Victoria Advocate http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike I will be writing the 2008 presidential election and anything political in between. Although I am a Democrat ,come on in and tell me where I am wrong. lol I will be writing the 2008 presidential election and anything political in between. Although I am a Democrat ,come on in and tell me where I am wrong. lol en-us A constant battle..Does it have to be? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7925 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7925 The recent issue of Times had an interesting article titled “The New Patriotism” by Richard Stengel.  The author said patriotism has always been the most abstract of American values.  Conservatives and liberals have been arguing the definition of patriotism for years, even in our local forum.  Republicans say that they hold that mantel; accusing the Democrats of being ashamed of America.  Democrats say Republicans wrap themselves around the flag and prevent America from living up to its ideals.  Of course both sides exaggerate their stance.  We should accept our country's greatness, but we must realize what it takes to create and sustain greatness.  Torture, civil liberties, and habeas corpus come to mind.<o:p></o:p> The flag pin is considered to be symbolism by liberals, but that could be the difference between winning and losing an election.  Perception matters and conservatives know that.<o:p></o:p> The author went onto say, conservatives’ grade on a curb when it comes to evaluating America.  They know America has its faults, but they compare us to other nations, and they feel like we are the still the greatest.  Liberals like to accept the fault, correct, and become better for it.  Conservatives continue to follow the Reagan "Morning in America"  theme with the image of a paperboy running his route, the mother watching her daughter get married in church ,and  the elder gentleman hoisting up an American flag.  Liberals do not want America to rest on its laurels.<o:p></o:p> Liberals and conservatives look at handling terrorism differently. If some terrorist were to bomb the downtown Wells Fargo building, conservatives would be content to send them to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite harsh interrogation. Liberals have full confidence in our justice system.<o:p></o:p> Today's discussion is on the non-action of the Harris County grand jury against Joe Horn.  I believe Jonathan Turley of CNN had it right when he said “If you live in a rural area, you're likely to side with Joe Horn and against him, if you're from a big city.”  I was born and raised in continue to live in rural Victoria, but at heart; I'm a big city slicker.  In this issue, conservatives are usually pro-law enforcement, but are more self-reliant, when it comes to home intrusions.  They want to put the bad guy away. Liberals will dial 9-1-1.<o:p></o:p> I wonder if we will ever become,a give-and-take, or continue fighting the same old battles.<o:p></o:p> What are we afraid of? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7743 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7743 The Supreme Court recently ruled that the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay can have the opportunity to challenge the accusations in a court of law.  The court restored the centuries-old habeas corpus.  The court did not say that United States could not hold the prisoners indefinitely.<o:p></o:p> This ruling angered the president, John McCain and several other conservatives.  In fact John McCain and Lindsey Graham are going to introduce legislation to establish a national security court, because they are afraid of the justice system we have in place.  Newt Gingrich said we will lose an American city because of the ruling.  John McCain's anger at the decision does not make any sense, because he wants to close Guantánamo Bay.<o:p></o:p> I know the administration does not want the tortured prisoners to tell their story.  They  should just kill them rather than make a mockery out of the justice system.  Some of the prisoners have plead guilty and asked for the death penalty.  We also know that a few the prisoners were found to be innocent.<o:p></o:p> The court also ruled that American citizens have the right to habeas corpus,when they are in government detention, no matter where they are detained, and how they are labeled.  This overturned the president's “international authority” as a way to deny habeas corpus to American citizens abroad.<o:p></o:p> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">I was astonished to learn that Supreme Court justices Roberts, Alito,Thomas, and Scalia voted against giving the detainees the right to be heard, because it would somehow weaken us.  Their job is to interpret the Constitution not help the administration circumvent it. Not that important? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7710 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7710 On military matters, I usually give John McCain the benefit of the doubt, because he is a true American hero, and I would never question his support for the troops.  He has tested my beliefs, recently.  When the senator was asked if he had an estimate for when the US troops might leave Iraq he said “No, that's not too important” he went onto say "what's important is casualties in Iraq.”  Giving McCain the benefit of the doubt still does not explain why, third or forth tours are not that important. It is to the troops and their families.  That comparison to South Korea and Germany is not resonating with me.  This is the Middle East or the sandbox as the soldiers call it,is not a place where a soldier can roam Baghdad unharmed.  Religion does not play a big role, when there is violence in South Korea or Germany.  Ten casualties this month this month, with four to be identified, and when we withdraw is not important?<o:p></o:p> Perhaps Senator McCain is not being up front with us by giving us the larger picture.  Are the troops in full force, because we are planning to attack Iran, if Obama wins the November election?  Are they pulling out all stops to preserve the Bush -McCain legacy?  Is it to man the proposed 60 new bases?<o:p></o:p> McCain said we ought to wait until July, when General Petraeus’s report comes out to see where we go from there. I don’t see a political reconciliation in one month. It will be a carbon copy of the others. Give us six more months.  He keeps saying the surge is working, but we always knew if we send more troops and got more Iraqi troops trained, and in the field the violence would go down. It’s that second part, political reconciliation that we need to get to.  The military victories have not taken the Sunni and Shia to the table.<o:p></o:p> McCain continues to say Obama is waving the flag of surrender, by wanting to start the responsible withdrawal when he gets into office.  If victory is really just around the corner; I'm sure any president would allow that to happen.  McCain predicts gloom and doom him if we choose a timetable for withdraw, but he is also the one that predicted that we would be greeted as liberators, and it would be a short successful war. Only thing we know for sure is that there is no is no truth certain either way.<o:p></o:p> Finally http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7640 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7640 The Senate intelligence committee found Iraq intelligence exaggerations. I have been waiting for this report for three years.  Nothing new to me in these findings, but it should take all the talking points used to justify this war of choice; off the table. <o:p></o:p> Will this report make much difference?  I doubt it.  People will be more interested in social or economic issues. John McCain's experience did not see the contradictory evidence for going to war; he supported it from the very start and vows to continue it.  We all know the Republicans will sweep it under the rug, and a few Democrats that voted for a resolution to go to war, will try to do the same.  At the very least we should all read the findings and be a little more skeptical.  the next time an administration wants to go to war. Especially now, since only less than one half of 1% are doing the actual fighting.  Will these findings ever make it to page 1 of the New York Times or the lead story on the evening news? We shall see.  This is what really gets my goat,instead of saying "no comment" they continue to make excuses or blame someone else...No accountability. From today's news conference: In today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was dismissive of the report, explaining that President Bush made false statements before the Iraq war simply because he was kept in the dark: <blockquote> PERINO: That dissent amongst experts within the intelligence community at some level did not reach the president. </blockquote> A cut & paste from today's New York Times 6/05/08 WASHINGTON — In a report long delayed by partisan squabbling, the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday accused President Bush and Vice President Cheney of taking the country to war in <a title="More news and information about Iraq." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo">Iraq</a> by exaggerating evidence of links between <a title="More articles about Saddam Hussein." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Saddam Hussein</a> and <a title="More articles about Al Qaeda." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org">Al Qaeda</a> in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.<o:p></o:p> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/washington/05cnd-intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin#secondParagraph">Skip to next paragraph</a><a name="secondParagraph"></a>“The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” Sen. <a title="More articles about John D. IV Rockefeller." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/john_d_iv_rockefeller/index.html?inline=nyt-per">John D. Rockefeller IV</a>, the committee’s Democratic chairman, said in a statement accompanying the 171-page report.<o:p></o:p> The committee’s report cited some instances in which public statements by senior administration officials were not supported by the intelligence available at the time, such as suggestions that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and <a title="More articles about Osama bin Laden." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Osama bin Laden</a>’s al Qaeda were operating in a kind of partnership, that the Baghdad regime had provided the terrorist network with weapons training, and that one of the Sept. 11 hijackers had met an Iraqi intelligence operative in Prague in 2001.<o:p></o:p> But the report found that on several key issues, including Iraq’s alleged nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other top officials before the war were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates of the intelligence agencies, though the statements did not always reflect the agencies’ uncertainty about the evidence. All the weapons claims were disproved after invading troops found no unconventional arsenal and little effort to build one.<o:p></o:p> Republicans on the committee sharply dissented from some of its findings and attached a detailed minority report that listed pre-war statements by Mr. Rockefeller and other Democrats describing the threat posed by Iraq.<o:p></o:p> “The report released today was a waste of committee time and resources that should have been spent overseeing the intelligence community,” said the minority report, signed by Sen. <a title="More articles about Christopher S. Bond." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/christopher_s_bond/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Christopher S. Bond</a> of Missouri, the committee’s top Republican, and three Republican colleagues. <o:p></o:p> A second committee report, also made public on Thursday, detailed a series of clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranian dissidents in Rome and Paris in 2001 and 2003. It accused Steven Hadley, now the national security advisor, and <a title="More articles about Paul D. Wolfowitz." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/paul_d_wolfowitz/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Paul Wolfowitz</a>, the former deputy defense secretary, of failing to properly inform the intelligence agencies and the State Department about the meetings.<o:p></o:p> The two reports are the final parts of the committee’s so-called “phase two” investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq and related issues. The first phase of the inquiry, completed in July 2004, identified grave faults in the intelligence agencies’ collection and analysis of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. <o:p></o:p> In order to complete that initial 2004 report, committee members agreed to put off several of the more politically volatile topics. Sen. <a title="More articles about Pat Roberts." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/pat_roberts/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Pat Roberts</a>, the Kansas Republican who was then chairman, nonetheless declared nearly four years ago that the phase two effort was “a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done.”<o:p></o:p> But a lengthy standoff ensued. Democrats accused Republicans of dodging their demands to complete the inquiry in order to protect the Bush administration from damaging revelations. Republicans insisted that they were not dragging their feet and asserted that the findings might well turn out to embarrass Congressional Democrats. <o:p></o:p> In September 2006, the committee issued reports on two parts of the phase two study, one on how pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs and links to terrorism compared with post-war findings and another on the intelligence agencies’ use of information from the Iraqi National Congress, the controversial opposition group to Saddam Hussein.<o:p></o:p> In May 2007, the committee, now led by Democrats, put out a third part of the phase two review, this one examining pre-war predictions by the intelligence agencies about post-war Iraq.<o:p></o:p> But it would take another year to complete the most delicate part of the planned inquiry, the look at pre-war public statements by executive branch officials. In the end, the Republicans chose to issue their own dissenting report, aimed at showing that some Democrats who have been eager to attack the administration had themselves made bellicose comments about Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed.<o:p></o:p> The Senate Intelligence Committee, once seen as a relative refuge from the political maneuvering and brawling that characterizes many other committees, has been mired in partisan dispute for most of the last five years. Thursday’s reports and the polarized comments accompanying them are unlikely to improve relations between Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Bond and their party colleagues on the committee<o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p> Bill O'Reilly v Scott McClellan http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7615 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7615 Last night's Scott McClellan's interview with Bill O'Reilly had to be the worst ever. It was more of a hit job, or a stern lecture from Bill O'Reilly, than it was an interview. O'Reilly seemed more concerned with George W. Bush's reputation, and Scott giving information to the dreaded NBC and the Bush haters, as he called them. Scott McClellan went toe to toe with the mighty mouth, because O'Reilly did not know the facts. Bill used that "everyone knew he had WMD line" but that talking point was debunked several years ago, because contrary evidence was ignored. O'Reilly tried to clobber Scott for saying Karl Rowe leaked the identity of Valerie Plame. Karl Rove did leak Valerie's name twice; once to Bob Novak, and then to a Newsweek reporter. The fact that Richard Armitage was the first leaker does not let Rove off the hook, because he leaked the name to other sources. Evidently Karl Rowe lied to the president, and Congress wants to hear more. Later OReilly summoned blogger Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams to back up his talking points. The showed ended with the body language expert, praising Scott McClellan for standing up to the mighty one, Bill O'Reilly…..LOL To my surprise, Jon Stewart got more out of Scott McClellan than Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, and Anderson Cooper. Jon Stewart separated a well intended talking point from an outright lie. John said if the president said he wanted to let the people decide, but intentionally left out contrary points of view, then that was an error of omission and an outright lie. I still see Scott McClellan as a weasel for giving the press propaganda on a serious topic like Iraq. I do see the premise of his book. Scott is trying to make amends and deliver an important message. Scott is taking a strong stand against the politics of a permanent campaign. Whoever wins in November should reach across party lines and compromise on the serious problems of the immediate future. Scott only made $75,000 in advance for writing this book (paltry by today's standards) and he has promised to give some of the proceeds to the families of  the fallen veterans of The Iraq war. He debunked the ghost writer conspiracy by backing up every statement in the book.     A little late, Scott McClellan http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7547 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7547 Scott McClellan blamed the so-called liberal media, saying it was too differential to the White House, while they were selling the propaganda to go to war in Iraq.  Scott pedaled the administration's garbage as press secretary from July 2003 until April 2006.  Now he wants to profit from it. He was a weasel then, he's a weasel now.<o:p></o:p> Paul O'Neill said the administration had a plan to invade Iraq from day one, Richard Clarke backed up that claim. Mr. Clarke said the administration ignored Al Qaeda, because they were fixated on Iraq. Colin Powell said all the evidence, he presented to the UN and the reason for attacking Iraq was bogus. All these facts were dismissed. Now, Scott McClellan wants to clear his conscience by telling us George W. Bush was not well served.  When does the President of the United States stand up, and say he was taking in because, (as Matthew Dowd said in his tell-all book)he is not up to the job.  Matthew Dowd was George W. Bush's former chief strategist, so he should know. Who takes the blame for more than 4000 dead troops and 30,000 wounded?<o:p></o:p> Of course, Fox's Sean Hannity gave Karl Rove a place to state his denial. Karl Rove went onto say Scott McClellan’s book sounded like a left-wing blog.  Danna Perino called McClellan a disgruntled employee. Didn’t Scott learn the lesson?  You can lie to the FBI and a federal grand jury, and this administration will praise you, and eventually give you a pardon.  You could continue the lie and hide behind executive privilege. Tell the truth and they  will slam you from the White House press room podium, right-wing blogs and talk radio.<o:p></o:p> Scott McClellan said the administration's first week of hurricane Katrina was spent in denial, Dan Bartlett had already said that he had to show the president, a DVD of the nightly newscast before he knew the severity of the hurricane.  We now, know  Karl Rove staged the fly over, of the devastated area for a photo op to sell to Republican donors.  Karl Rove’s excuse for the president not stopping on his on his way back to Washington. The president did not want to divert resources from the rescue efforts. Funny, that does not match Dan Bartlett’s version.<o:p></o:p> So when will the two sources of the story below come forward? Are they going to wait until their book publishers, tell him it's time?<o:p></o:p> Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August' By Muhammad Cohen NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.<o:p></o:p> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html<o:p></o:p> Chuck Hagel for VP http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7489 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7489 No, not as John McCain running mate, because even though they were once good friends, these two Vietnam War veterans are different as night and day on foreign policy. Chuck Hagel has been a thorn in George W. Bush and John McCain side because of their stance on the Iraq war.  Chuck Hagel blasted McCain recently for his rhetoric on diplomacy, and exaggerating Barack Obama’s foreign policy stance.<o:p></o:p> Chuck Hagel is a conservative Republican senator from Nebraska.  He currently sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but he will not run for his Senate reelection.  Ronald Reagan made Chuck Hagel the deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration.  He resigned that position because the director of the Veterans Administration was intent on cutting funds for the VA. Chuck Hagel is a man of principle.  When a reporter asked Mr. Hagel about the rumors of Bush going to war with Iran, the maverick Republican said “We have the power of impeachment, impeach him."<o:p></o:p> Barack Obama does not need a yes man, nor does he need another co president.  This man of principle will tell it like it is, and not how Mr. Obama wants to hear it ,or as much as he thinks Obama can process. Chuck Hagel has the stature to convince other Republicans to give Barack Obama a fighting chance.<o:p></o:p> Chuck Hagel is the  cofounder of  Vanguard Cellular ,so  he could be helpful on domestic and foreign affairs.<o:p></o:p> I'm still in favor of Barack Obama adding other prominent Republicans to his administration, as the first step in finding bipartisan solutions to the very serious problems we will be facing.  Hillary Clinton could have passed a health care plan a long time ago, but she kept insisting on her plan without input from others.  Keeping Republicans and Democrats away from the decision table made it easy for the lobbyist to use all their resources to kill her healthcare bill.<o:p></o:p> Want to stay in the party and set up the next president.  I wish the Democrats would consider Jim Webb a Republican turned Democrat, Senator from Virginia.<o:p></o:p> Change is about new ideas and new players.<o:p></o:p> it's the message/messenger http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7477 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7477 In this information age, an amateur poster can claim to be a historian, climatologist, or a political guru by citing WWW.com as a reference. I've noticed a few posters are saying we don't have a viable candidate running for president. Do they really mean, it's not who they would have chosen? 75,000 people showed up at a hot and sultry weekend rally for Barack Obama. Can we convince the people of Oregon who went to that rally, that we don't have a good candidate running for the office? Perhaps they know that we have a democracy, not a dictatorship. The president is just one human being who will have to convince congress that his course of action is the right one. It's all about the message and the messenger. Global warming discussions often end as political disagreements. I like to break down the subject in the smaller workable pieces. Is the polar bear becoming extinct? Recently, our government, put the polar bear on the endangered species list. Is the government in on the conspiracy or just being incompetent? Is the warmer Arctic water causing the polar bears to swim longer distances for their food? Is the warmer Arctic waters, causing some of the bears prey to move to cooler waters? Are the glaciers melting? Can you look someone in the eye and say for certain Al Gore is benefiting from a hoax, and completely dismiss the fact that oil companies want reports of man-made warming to disappear? We have two presidential candidates with sincere and different opinions on foreign policy. John McCain wants us to believe that the present policy is working, but needs a little more time, and we will benefit by his approach. Mr. Obama believes that McCain's has a failed policy of the past, and we should use more carrots and sticks to achieve our objective, rather than constant war. Mr. McCain has an excellent foreign policy resume, but in our system of government the voters will choose the message and the messenger. I do find it ironic that those that engage in keyboard wars of the forum take their complaint to the Victoria Advocate claiming "Everyone is out of step but Willy." If we were all in agreement, would there be a need for a forum? Just the facts Kevin James http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7456 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7456  I have been wanting pundits to do their job;make Republicans and Democrats tell the truth, If they don't, call them on it. Kevin James is a right wing talk show radio host from Los Angeles,obviously,using Republican talking points instead of facts when Chris Matthews kept asking him what the Neville Chamberlain reference was about in the president's speech.Kevin James finally admitted he did not know. Please go to UTUBE, and look at this vid clip, because it will remind you of some of the local posters who have their blogosphere labels down pat, but they offer very little substance. Sounds good to the low information reader, but this election is showing a well-informed voter, who will not fall for the usual fear and smear politics. White House spokesman Dan Perino has said the president was not talking about Barack Obama when he invoked Nazis and the actions of Neville Chamberlain into a 60 year anniversary of the founding of Israel speech. If anyone believes that, I have the Guadalupe River bridge I will sell them pretty cheap. This tactic backfired, especially since the Defense Department's Robert Gates is having diplomatic talks with Iran as we speak. This tactic was meant for the Evangelical end-time prophecy Christians(Pastor Joghn Hagee) and, to cause skepticism among the Jewish voters, who usually vote for Democrats. Yesterday, John McCain jumped on the bandwagon saying pretty much the same thing,the president was implying. Thanks to this 24/7 news cycle a  two year old news clip appeared;showing John McCain bashing the Bush administration, saying we should have meaningful talks with Hamas. Yet,another flip-flop Mr. McCain.If you remember in the debates,Barack Obama said talks with Hezbollah and Hamas would not begin ,until they seized their terrorist ways, and recognized Israel. The Republican Party thought Obama was easy prey, since he's relatively new on the national scene. Take notice Barack Obama is the only major candidate that has not gone broke, and his campaign will not be swift boated, as you can see by his instant response. This man has shown to be a quick learner,a quality; I what in the next president of the United States.   This election is not about ideology http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7433 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/Mike/7433 Finally, Republicans and Democrats are listening to the voters. James Carville famously said, "It's the economy stupid." Americans tuned out the far left views of Dennis Kucinich (big government giveaways) and the far out solutions of Ron Paul.  Voters turned up in record numbers, because they know this election is very important. They tuned out the gimmick of a gas tax holiday; because they know pandering is not a solution. It was reassuring when the voters of North Carolina and Indiana did not think the Jeremiah Wright issue was important enough not to vote for Barack Obama, now West Virginia, needs some help in that area. Perhaps Barack Obama will plant, Bill and Hillary in that state. The Democrats have picked up three consecutive conservative House seats, not because the Democratic Party is so great, it's because when the GOP was in power that did not provide the solutions. The Democrats are merely renting that congressional district. I heard Ed Rowlings and Pat Buchanan say that the Republican Party needs to focus on the needs of middle-class down, rather than talk about a capital gains tax, or they will be trounced in November. They can still stick to the smaller government, cut spending, and defense funding platform of old without losing voters. The voters do not want to hear what we are going to do for the corporations; rather what we can do for the middle class. This election not about liberals, conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, because 82% of Americans think this country is going in the wrong direction, so that dissatisfaction runs across party and ideological lines. This new multicultural country is a mixture of thoughts, beliefs and voting preferences. When this election is over; that blue state/ red state map will have to be modified because most of it will be colored purple.Our Representatives will not be able to hide behind party or ideology;they will have to actually listen to all the people and come up with a solution.