LOL McCain's An Idiot And So Are You

Ah, yes, it's so wonderful watching the usual Republican water carriers lining up behind McCain, even as the silliness mounts. I hate being stuck driving between 3 - 6 as it is. Today, there was a full dose of Hannity abandoning any alleged conservative principles to shill for McCain. Then I get back on line and see this - see here for much more.

Lots of people are talking about John McCain's lunatic pronouncement that “there's strong evidence” for the proposition that thimerosol, a mercury-based preservative used in vaccines, causes autism. This is nonsense on stilts.

Why are people surprised? From Global Warming to the First Amendment, McCain doesn't need facts, or intelligent analysis - he just needs to be right. And being right to McCain equates to being in line with how he feels - just like with every other liberal I know. And the bottom line on McCain is he's really not all that bright.

For all the people criticizing me for not getting in line because he's the Republican's guy ... good luck trying to keep the lipstick on this pig through November. And it won't be coming off because he'll turn and kiss your conservative butts. It will keep coming off because McCain is exactly who he is, and who he is, is someone ill-suited to be president.

The man doesn't have judgment one can trust, but somehow he's magically more capable than either of the Dems? Sorry, I think not. And if the GOP can't give people serious reasons to vote for this guy, as opposed to why they shouldn't vote for someone else - don't be surprised when a large number of much needed voters simply stay home.

Comments

[Katablog]

LOL Dan, tell us what you really think of Juan McAmnesty McCain! Am I reading between the lines that you don't like him?

[WAHOO WILLIE]

So what do you suggest? The lesser of weavels, the third party wasted vote, stay home? Normally the third option is out of the question, I feel disallowed to complain, but looking at the lack of choice we have I wonder if I can do a write in.

[Beth]

"abandoning any alleged conservative principles to shill for McCain."

Really? I didn't realize Hannity wasn't a conservative, and apparently I'm not either!

I'm copying my comment from the Mitt post:

In fact, I'm probably as conservative as anyone, Rush Limbaugh included, and I'm fully in support of McCain and have been since Fred Thompson dropped out. It was an easy choice, too.

Frankly, I find it amusing that some think it's the "GOP establishment" or (as Rush says) "country club Republicans" who supposedly anointed (how, I don't know) McCain. See, I'm not even close to being country club, and I'm not GOP establishment either. I'm just a voter who thinks our military deserves a Commander in Chief who will do the job well, and who believes we grow conservatism by adding Republicans to the party, not by subtraction.

Dan, I don't understand why you insist on tearing down OUR candidate. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you *want* Hillary or Obama as President? 'Cause see, I fail to see how that qualifies one as a conservative. It *certainly* isn't, by Reagan's standards. Maybe by Ann Coulter's standards, but how many people has she converted to conservatism? I'd guess zero, and more likely her slash-and-burn style has turned people away. Personally, I resent the hell out of how she makes conservatism look angry, vengeful, and bitter to people who might otherwise be receptive to the conservative ideology. (Remember Reagan Democrats? They weren't Reagan Democrats because he was bitter and exclusive.)

I don't buy that "four years and we'll get a real conservative elected" nonsense, either. That's risible wishful thinking. Mark my words, it isn't going to happen that way--not this time. This isn't 1980, the political center HAS moved leftward, and there's no Reagan waiting in the wings. We need to repair the image of our party FIRST, and John McCain is the only one who can make it respectable again to the rest of the country. Scandals, political cowardice, and corruption have done us NO good, and McCain is exactly the right man to change that image. Even (reasonable) people who disagree with his politics respect him.

[Beth]

BTW, that autism story? Who cares? Unless he's planning on writing for medical journals as President, what does it matter? I don't agree with him on it, but I couldn't care less. Anyone who thinks he's going to be on some anti-vaccine crusade while in office is delusional. It's a pretty trivial issue for any President.

[BobInStamford]

Jesus hates vaccines and stem cells.

[Dan Riehl]

Beth, I haven't questioned your conservatism, so far as I know. What is it that makes McCain such a win as CIC? See, when Kerry was running, Hannity and Co. said - it doesn't matter that you served 30 yrs ago. It's your more recent record that matters most.

I don't see McCain's recent record as so good. Rather than keeping his feelings close to the vest, working with the admin if he felt the strategy should change - he went on Meet The Press and ran the DOD and Rumsfeld down to the world. He fueled the anti-Bush sentiment and abetted the Left in their worst efforts against our military because he can't resist showboating, or taking vengeance on someone who beat him, as Bush did.

As for Coulter, think what you want - at CPAC, there was only one person I saw fill a room up with "young" (much younger than me, conservatives - that was Coulter. She isn't my cup of tea, but apparently she has her role.

You seem to equate deterioration of the GOP brand with conservatism? Huh?? Deterioration of the GOP brand came about because the DC establishment wasn't conservative enough - on spending, on the border, on sticking with the Powell doctrine of over whelming force after the early days in Iraq. Bush didn't stay a conservative hawk - he tried to fight a PC war with a light footprint, instead of just winning the damned thing.

So the answer to rebuild conservatism is to now nominate someone with all the faults that have brought the GOP down, IE not being conservatism enough?

Good luck with that, my good friend. I am afraid I will have to disagree.

[rockdalian]

So Beth, when a Democrat Congress withdraws all funding for Iraq and President McCain withdraws the troops, what are you left with?
I see a liberal president that will decimate this country, leaning over backwards to sign liberal legislation. Don't think so?
He will sign any global warming legislation because he believes in it.
He will sign any amnesty legislation because he believes in it.
He will sign a new and improved "fairness doctrine" because he believes in it.
I could continue, but whats the point.
I will continue to hold to my values and that includes not voting for evil.
Yes, McCain is evil. He will use the power of government to take away my God given rights and that is evil to me.

[Cliff]

I think some people confuse being a republican with being conservative. I believe it is time to dump the GOP, hearing people refer to McCain as 'our' candidate make me feel ill.

[Beth]

McCain as CinC isn't about his Vietnam service, although it certainly doesn't hurt. He is respected by members of the military and he identifies with them, which is something you can't say about Jon Carry. It's about his vast depth of knowledge on foreign policy and his excellent judgment on military/FP issues. Hillobama don't even come close, and frankly, the other Republicans who are/have been running pale in comparison as well. Yes, even Fred, sad to say (I was a Fredhead too).

"So the answer to rebuild conservatism is to now nominate someone with all the faults that have brought the GOP down, IE not being conservatism enough?"

No, that's not the point. The point is, we aren't bringing in any new converts. What you're talking about, rightfully, are the conservatives who are upset with the party for not being conservative. That's a very valid point, imho. What I'm talking about, though, is that we haven't been able to sell conservatism because of the problems within the party (scandals, corruption, etc., not to mention the war, which I still support but plenty of others don't). We can't GET "more conservative" without support for our views, and the Duke Cunningham/Mark Foley/Larry Craig/Scooter Libby (unfairly)/Tom Delay (also unfairly, albeit less so) crowd have made conservatism unappealing to potential converts. I also say that people like Ann Coulter in particular have made conservatism unappealing. Sure, she packs the house with College Republicans, but she's preaching to the choir. She's not doing a damn thing to make independents think "hey, that sounds about right to me." Her role is the dancing monkey for young conservatives and VERY hardcore conservatives. She's entertainment in the same way that you don't go see Slayer in concert unless you're already a fan. But in the process, she and others like her in conservative media become the "faces" of conservatism. How many times have people trolled you and said you get your "talking points" from people like Ann Coulter? I'd rather we conservatives be associated with thoughtful well-known conservatives, because those kind are the ones to whom people will give a fair hearing. How many times have you considered the political views of Ted Rall or Rosie O'Donnell? Al Franken? None, I would assume. See my point?

As long as independents, undecideds, and "conservative" Democrats see the GOP and conservatism as being Coulteresque or scandalous, we aren't going to get any support for our ideas. There is no getting "more conservative" without the support of voters, and right now, we don't have it. We can't do anything about conservative media bomb-throwers (except not buy their books), but we CAN do something about the problems with elected officials--put Republicans in office whom potential converts will be proud to support. No, McCain isn't a pure conservative, but that's okay. He can make independents/undecideds proud to call themselves Republican. It's like religion--you don't convert until you've been in the church. We have to get them in the church first.

[Beth]

"So Beth, when a Democrat Congress withdraws all funding for Iraq and President McCain withdraws the troops, what are you left with?"

You think McCain would hesitate to exercise the veto? For the war? Um...NO.

[Beth]

Also, rockdalian - Well, I guess you can boast about how "pure" you are when President Obama MOST ASSUREDLY decimates our military, signs off on Kyoto, gives drivers' licenses to illegals, raises taxes, has tea with Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Hamas, and Ahmadinejad, brings back partial birth abortion and does away with the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, etc. etc. etc. Nevermind the last five years and thousands of American lives lost in Iraq, not to mention the unimaginable killing fields Pres. Obama will leave for Iraqis and their new Iranian overlords, and not to mention the mess we'll be faced with after that. It's much more important to be able to say you're pure!

[Dan Riehl]

Beth - The problem as I see it is this - you laid out all the problems with the GOP. Great, I agree. And guess who has been a part of that GOP in DC for the last twenty years? Yep, John McCain. The notion that such an ultimate insider with a liberal bent can somehow cure something when he is actually a big part of the disease just doesn't add up to me. All you end up with is a McCain influenced GOP (as prez he gets to staff the RNC) - which amounts to DNC-lite. After 4 yrs. of St. John conservatives won't just be debating a 3rd party. The fact is, if we don't then create one, we simply won't have any place to go. If that's tyhe route you want, fine, vote McCain. But say goodbye to conservative government, quite possibly for good, or until the country sees an upheavel on the scale of another revolution.

[Scrapiron]

So McCain makes a few stupid remarks, not to worry, they won't kill you. The democrats make remarks that if carried through will destroy this country and anyone with a brain should see that. "Just what is his stand on islam? Well, maybe this quote from his book, "Audacity of Hope", will give you a clue (HT Debbie at Right Truth here) ************“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”********
Debbie's entire article is well worth the read".
But I'm not a Muslim, BS.

[Dan Riehl]

Beth - I think you-re wrong in your last response to rockdalian. Two years of Obama or Hillary and you stand a good shot at a Republican House - and given the Senate seats coming open, possibly taking back the Senate, too. That alone checks the liberal storm you predict. Two years later, you'll get a good conservative nominee from the GOP. On the other hand, elect McCain and even the conservatives in the legislature won't be able to really fight his liber5alism because of DC establishment party loyalty. What conservatives there are in DC would be a check on a liberal Dem - not so much with McCain. We would have no one arguing conservative positions with McCain in the WH.

[rockdalian]

You think McCain would hesitate to exercise the veto? For the war? Um...NO.

Posted by: Beth | Monday, March 03, 2008 at 09:36 PM

Umm, McCain will have no veto over this. The Democrats will certainly add to their current majority and would be veto proof.

[Beth]

"And guess who has been a part of that GOP in DC for the last twenty years? Yep, John McCain."

What about those on the Hill who are devout conservatives who have been there for years? I suppose they'd be a problem too, then, by that standard.

The point is, again, you've got to bring the agnostics into the church to convert them. Certainly you don't deny his ability to do that, do you? And the strong conservatives aren't going to suddenly disappear from public service...unless, of course, conservative voters abandon them for a third party. (Just remember, even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't win *back* the Presidency running third party.) That's how you kill conservatism for good--by splitting off into a much smaller group that very, very few will support. Ask the Libertarians how much they feel like they've won on the issues.

[Dan Riehl]

Sorry but Iraq is a bad argument to support McCain guys. Look, stop buying just the campaign ehtroic, okay. The Dems are not going to run out on Iraq. By the time the Dem takes office in January, it will be much easier for them to simply coop victory. These people are liberals, they aren't all stupid. If you look closely you can already see how they are setting it up. They will withdraw over time just as we are under Bush and they WILL take credit for the win at the end. ANyone who honestly things you get an immediate withdrawal from Iraq with a Dem isn't reading their fine print and is simply buying the GOP talking points. It ain't going to happen friends.

Once they get the WH, their lunatic fringe will shut up and stop complaining. Iraq won't even be in the news. We'll withdrawal from there over time no matter who wins in Nov.

[rockdalian]

It's much more important to be able to say you're pure!

Posted by: Beth | Monday, March 03, 2008 at 09:47 PM
So what is your problem with people that have principles that they will not bend? Do you purport to have a higher degree of purity? On what basis do you seek to denigrate me? Just because I do not bow at the same alter as you?
I do not care if you disagree with me. Just use facts.

[Dan Riehl]

"The point is, again, you've got to bring the agnostics into the church to convert them. Certainly you don't deny his ability to do that, do you?"

Beth - think about what you are saying, please. So McCain (who isn't conservative) invites some folks into the "church." To "convert" them to what? He aint the preacher to convert anyone to conservatism. Reagan did just what you are proposing and he did it by being a "conservative" shepperd, not some watered down one. McCain will not create a single conservative. What he will do is continue to water conservatism down until it barely exists in recognizable form. It is YOU the conservative he seeks to "convert" and no one else. Sorry.

[Beth]

"The Democrats will certainly add to their current majority and would be veto proof."

Really? How on earth are you so sure of a veto-proof majority? And if that were accurate (which I dispute), then how on earth would you expect to have support for a "true conservative," if the electorate has moved leftward en masse?

"Two years later, you'll get a good conservative nominee from the GOP."

WHO? Hell, in 2004 I was absolutely certain we'd be talking about George Allen right now. Also, you can't bank on something like that happening. We all thought that in 1992, as well, and even Bill Clinton wasn't as alluring a cult leader as teh Obamessiah. He got re-elected despite his smarminess, and despite a new conservative GOP majority on the Hill with a wildly popular (among conservatives) leader, Newt Gingrich.
Who, Romney? Er...sorry, I like Romney fine, but it's not gonna happen. He's certainly not a "good conservative," anyway. That was my issue with him--I was simply not convinced at all by his election-season conservatism, and he didn't have credibility on the war like McCain (and Giuliani) do. Maybe if we needed a CEO rather than a CinC, I'd have felt differently.

And I'll say again, I'm simply not willing to sacrifice the lives of our troops in the meantime for that. I'm not willing to do that for ANY potential 2012 candidate, not even Reagan Reincarnate. They've sacrificed everything while the rest of us are at the mall. The difference between Carter and Hillobama is that we weren't at war then, unless you count Carter's fumbles with Iran (no need to repeat that disaster with his latter-day clones). The difference between Clinton's first term and Hillobama is also that we weren't at war, unless you count his fumbles with WTC '93 and elsewhere. And even after his first term, did we nominate a movement conservative? Nope. They ran, but didn't get the votes. It took TWO terms of Clinton to get Bush, and still people complained when he got the nomination that he wasn't conservative enough.

Look, I think it'd be spectacular having a true conservative as President, but Reagan was a rarity. Find another Reagan (not a clone, but someone with his power to make people WANT to be conservative), and he or she will have my vote when the time comes. In 2016, if I have anything to do with it.

[Beth]

"To "convert" them to what? He aint the preacher to convert anyone to conservatism."

I know that! I know, I know, I know, although he can sell some conservative values. Don't you think that once independents/undecideds have committed to a candidate and voted for him, they'll naturally see more of conservatives than they would have otherwise, just by virtue of being a part of the Republican Party? It's basic human behaviour; once they identify as Republican or Democrat, they begin identifying with others of the same team. They aren't going to vote McCain and say screw it, I'm a Democrat after all and just ignore the rest of the GOP (okay, some will--some always do). The people who have enough interest to *matter* will naturally be more intellectually curious about what the base of the party stands for. And again, hopefully the Coulters won't scare them away.

[Beth]

"Sorry but Iraq is a bad argument to support McCain guys. Look, stop buying just the campaign ehtroic, okay."

It's NOT a bad argument. McCain was right all along about Iraq, even when it was unpopular to have the opinion he had. I was mad as hell about what I thought was disloyalty when he wanted the Rumsfeld strategery tossed, myself, but you know what? He was RIGHT. To me, that made all the difference. A year ago, I was on the "Blogs For McCain's Opponent" blogroll (defunct now?). All was forgiven once he forced the Petraeus strategy on the Hill and the White House, and then I started to take a second look. I'm willing to compromise on some issues because frankly, the GWOT/Iraq is my single issue this go-around. He's right on other issues that are important to me (pro-life, gubmint spending, education) so it's not that much of a compromise. I'm not a hard-liner on immigration; it was/is not my pet issue--the extremists like Michelle Malkin and her VDARE allies turned me right off it. McCain's far better on illegal immigration than the Dems would be, anyway (this is why I faintly supported "shamnesty," because I saw then and see now no window of opportunity for anything better, and it can only be WORSE. As it happens, McCain has shifted his position slightly, although obviously not enough for many people. (Too bad for them, Tancredo got sent packing rather quickly. No tears shed here.)

[Dan Riehl]

Beth, I'm not an immigration extremist. I can accept an amnesty of sorts, so long as we seal the border first - which I doubt McCain really does btw. As for the WOT ... Beth, McCain wants to close Gitmo and he wants to bring enemy combatants into the US where they will get the full benefit of ACLU help. So, tell me, again, why is it he is so much better than one of the Dems? The fact is, yes, he was right on Iraq strategy - BUT had a total selfish way of going about making his points that only helped the worst of the Dems. And aside from being right on Iraq strategy, he's wrong on most everything else involving the WOT. Are you forgetting he's one of the guys calling our operators torturers?

Just what the hell is he so Right about on the WOT except you "think" he'll pull th trigger before someone else, when, in fact, there is really no proof of that at all. But there is proof he lines up with the Dems on just about every other WOT issue - and as a result, he's incredibly weak. No Gitmo, no advancer interrogation, etc. If he's right on the WOT, fine, tell me, what the hell is he so right about? Because he is no different than Hillary once you look at his actual, acknowledged positions.

[SJ Reidhead]

Beth, I call them Suicide Bomber Conservatives. They have no idea what Ronald Reagan was all about, and are only interested in ideology. I would refer them to Michael Reagan's Friday show.

Good luck dealing with them. Frankly, I question if they are truly Republicans. Give me a good Republican like John McCain anytime over a ideologue conservative who had no idea what it is like to be loyal to the GOP.

If conservatives do not vote for John McCain, then they are surrendering the SCOTUS. If they do not vote at all, frankly I think they should keep quiet until the next election when they do vote.

SJR
The Pink Flamingo

[Dan Riehl]

"Frankly, I question if they are truly Republicans."

Well, please allow me to put your concerns to rest. If you read here with any frequency, you'd know that I do not claim to be a Republican and never have. I am an American first - a conservative second - oh, and I have voted Republican since voting for Carter in my first election. And if any of you precious "Republicans" don't care about, or want my vote ... that's cool. It needs to be earned, anyway. And perhaps today's GOP simply isn't up to the task.

Unfortunately, it is as much your (Republicans) loss, as it is my own. But unless you can show me wherein the Constitution it states the importance of supporting a political party that has lost it's way no matter what, we'll just have to walk our different paths until time and circumstance bring us back together, assuming they do.

Funny how many conservative "Republicans" believe in something of a spare the rod, spoil the child mentality. Yet, because the misbehaving child in this case is the Republican Party and the rod is withholding an unearned vote, suddenly those supposedly discipline loving Republicans turn to mush. From my perspective, I cannot hope to see a better Republican Party unless I do the one thing I can to tell it it is off the mark - not support it.

And you fail to realize the real message here. I am under no illusions that I am important, or am going to sway a single other vote. Heck, I could even decide to vote Republican at the last minute because I follow politics so closely. But nothing I do will change the broader dissatisfaction with Republicans resonating throughout today's electorate. You need only look at turn out and fund raising figures to see that.

I am doing nothing here but giving voice to many people Republicans better hear and appreciate - generally conservative people who have had enough with corrupt career pols, sex offenders, and big gov. big spending types with an R after their name. If you want to brag on being a Republican, you'd do well to first take a look at what your party has become, as opposed to telling me it's chief asset today is not being as bad as the other guy. SOme of us may conclude that simply isn't enough to warrant our signing on this year.

[Dan Riehl]

Oh and SJ Reid, don't you dare come around here telling me I don't know what Reagan was about. He's the only reason I left the Democrats and started voting Republican in the first place. Maybe you'd be better advised to remind your precious party what Reagan was about. Because, from here, it looks like too damned few of you "Republicans" even remember today.

[Beth]

"conservative people who have had enough with corrupt career pols, sex offenders, and big gov. big spending types"

Well, we're on the same page with that. I've had enough of that crap too, and I think almost everyone has except for the offenders themselves. I don't think I can stand another scandal.
I guess I just don't understand how McCain even remotely fits in any of those categories. In fact, he's pretty much the antithesis of corruption--for all McCain-Feingold's faults, the entire premise was to fight electoral corruption, plus he's the lobbyists' nemesis--and big-spending (I'm sure you know of his war on earmarks), and of course sex offenders, which goes without saying.

BTW, don't take SJ's comments personally; I know her well and understand her frustration. She's doing just as you're doing--giving voice to those frustrations. It's been doubly frustrating when people who are your friends suddenly start acting like arch-enemies, much the way things were during the Terri Schiavo debate. Ever since that episode and a couple others like Harriet Miers, immigration, Gang of 14 (which I supported!), things have only gotten worse. Debates on individual issues are one thing, though; the Presidency is just so much more crucial, especially now.

One thing I can't leave alone, though, is about Reagan. He knew the way to get things done was to take what you CAN get, and not throw out everything. It's how he got conservative things done.

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. 'Compromise' was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.' If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

– Ronald Reagan, An American Life

[Dan Riehl]

Beth, I don't demand an all or nothing result - that's just it. But he's closer to nothing, than anything good. And Reps in the legislature won't fight him back as a Republican president. As I said, I'm for compromise on immigration and can compromise on many things. But contrast McCain with Reagan. McCain thinks gov. can and should solve everything - from restricting business for global warming, to restricting free speech to "save" democracy, he has criticized profit but never drawn anything but a gov. paycheck his entire life, he doesn't understand complex issues like bringing enemy combatants into the US. Won't push for drilling offshore or in ANWAR. Geez, do I have to go on? As I have been saying, what besides "he isn't a democrat" is the rationale for supporting McCain? He cant' even raise money he's so unpopular. He's 72 and would be the oldest first term prez in history. He loses his temper, makes emotional judgments and loves to trash conservatives and is vindictive. You really think he won't support Dem efforts to hurt right side radio, especially when they opposed him? Beth, I keep trying to give the guy another look. Money can't buy noseplugs big enough to block out this guy's stink. THAT isn't my fault.

[Fred Beloit]

Haven't seen a persuasive refutation of your position and rockdalian's yet, Dan. At least these folks went light on the 'you are acting like spoiled children' argument. That is a step in the right direction.

[Gary Gulrud]

McCain's candidacy is prima facie evidence that the GOP needs to be purged. If John's listening, I've one word of advice: sepuku.

[Mark]

DON'T BELIEVE THE "SETTLED" SCIENCE ON GLOBAL WARMING!

BELIEVE THE "SETTLED" SCIENCE ON MERCURY BASED VACCINES! (Because "no evidence of harm" == proof certain no link exists)

Who really knows? I am one who fully supported Mitt, but I think conservatives should try to change the party from within, not burn down the house and say "see, I told you so".

[seekeronos]

I have a feeling that the Lord will likely call McCain home before his term is up.

I do hope the RNC has the good sense to choose a solidly (and ideologically) conservative running mate for Johnny Mac.

Beyond that, I'm very narrowly willing to support McCain, if only if my useless NY vote has some chance of helping to prevent Queen Hillary or an Obamanation.

The US Constitution Party is having its convention next month, will be interesting to see who they wind up supporting (even if they haven't got NY ballot access).

[Aunt Sarah]

LUCKILY, for about 50 cents someone can tell the government that boys develop more slowly than girls and then EVERYONE will stop diagnosing infants which can't speak with anti-social behavior and then we can get a bigger tax rebate and McCain will be the President, RIGHT? I really need to know this because I already told my mom and my sister that the whole global warning thing was a way to say, "Look, if you (irrational liberals) want to talk about the environment, you have to talk about energy and the economics." (Please, please please don't make a liar out of me. I will have to wash so many dishes and floors.)