E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
In a USA Today op-ed that will run tomorrow, Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) says he will vote against Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Last week, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) said he was opposing Kagan's nomination.
McCain's primary beef: Kagan's policy toward military recruiters when she was dean of Harvard Law School. "While Kagan is entitled to her opinion, she was not entitled to ignore the law that requires universities to allow military recruiters on campus under terms of equal access with all other recruiters."
In fact, Kagan instructed Harvard Law’s Office of Career Services to stop helping military recruiters only after the 3rd Circuit ruled that the Solomon Amendment -- the law McCain is referring to -- was unconstitutional. Kagan and Harvard reversed course after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 3rd Circuit's ruling.
McCain's opposition to Kagan isn't surprising -- especially given the competitive GOP primary he's facing in August. McCain also opposed President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.
Yet the Arizona senator voted for Bill Clinton's two Supreme Court picks, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
In a speech during the 2008 presidential campaign, McCain justified his votes for Ginsburg and Breyer.
"Why?" he said. "For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make."
*** UPDATE *** McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan emails us this reminder: that McCain also opposed Kagan's nomination for U.S. solicitor general.
Leave a Comment:
Does anyone really care what John McCain thinks or says anymore?
One only has to be reminded of who it was that McCain picked to be his VP running mate. That's all anyone needs to consider when answering the question above.
Too bad Kagan is not a pit bull with a hockey stick, or a hockey puck with lipstick or whatever that saying was.
Pig with lipstick.
Thanks Mark: Might want to put a red dot on the delete button.
Pandering, pandering, pandering. That's all McCain knows how to do. I have to believe Arizona voters are smart enough to recognize pandering when they see it. Time to send John back to his ranch in Sedona.
Is John McCain still talking? I hadn't noticed. Moreover it's hard for me to imagine he still thinks there's even a point in continuing to talk. Not that it's stopped Newt Gingrich, for example.
I realize Sen. McCain is playing politics (it's all he ever does), however, I can't help but sit back and watch the GOP's behavior all these many years and it's unfortunate that their behavior is sifting through our society. The message these so-called responsible adults in Congress continue to send throughout our country is the same, over and over and over - show no respect toward anyone, including their spouses.
Young teachers, police, military, etc. - They're not being shown one bit of responsible behavior. Anywhere.
What they are being shown is that when you do get into a responsible position, you need not earn your paycheck. And you can't tell me children, teenagers, young adults aren't picking up on this.
Turn on the radio, turn on the tv. Listen to the politicians who refuse to govern. Simply refuse to govern while our country bleeds.
Disrespect at every level. From adults. Just when we need them most.
We even saw that disrespectful attitude from Gen McChrystal and his staff.
Pat,
Well said, this gets a vote.
No Jody what we saw from General McChrystal was a man who knew the man playing Commander in Chief was playing to his left base and politicizing the war effort in Afghanistan. McChrystal knew that he was getting no where fast (how long did it take Barry to meet up with the General? and even after the General told him what he needed to win the war hee was given half the manpower and a deadline?) dealing with the CiC so he did what any truely honorable military supervisor would do for his troops. He "took one for the team".
Once McChrystal knew that the normal chain of command wasnt going to work he did what he needed to to get the man playing CiC's attention.
Though, as a vet myself, I am not sure I would have done what he did, I am glad he stood up to the President and let him know that his "strategy" wasnt working!
Thank you General McChrystal for your 30+ years of service to this country!
The General and the Community Organizer
by Paul R. Hollrah
June 24, 2010
Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystal's top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads in the Western World, was that they are all wrong… dead wrong. What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.
The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded for days.
In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was "very aware" that his comments would find their way into print. He said, "McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record." Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, The Runaway General.
As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting. Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was "a 10-minute photo op." He went on to say, "Obama clearly didn't know anything about (McChrystal), who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f— — _ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."
As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are.
General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent, thoughtful, highly educated, patriots… graduates of West Point and other fine universities… who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country. To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic… at the very least. To think that men who are trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension.
I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing.
From the day that he became the handpicked "spear carrier" for Obama's unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McChrystal's life had been one of constant frustration. After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.
The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties). Obama's ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire. One videotape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening.
Under Obama's politically correct ROE, our soldiers and Marines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.
A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released. A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.
But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restrain in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously? McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity.
I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he'd had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation. It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him.
They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform. To make the most of that opportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully.
They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obama in front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story. But they could not take a chance that a mainstream media reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.
During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices… both bad. He could declare McChrystal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.
In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He chose the latter of the two options.
But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services… from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.
That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted.
From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man's man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a… community organizer. Well done, General!
Larry - The only thing that sticks out to me in your skreed is "That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted." That is all the republican party is about these days, think up as many wild accusations as they can and keep repeating them until the uninformed GOP masses believe them to be true. If you people would hold your own party to the standard you set for Obama, we may be able to get something done in this country. But we know that will never happen now don't we...
hmm...didnt see where larry mentioned hes a republican..dont see democrats either
Larry, A-1....Agree 100%
Wait a minute... Didn't John McCain propose the immigration bill that he voted against before proclaiming that Obama has dropped the ball on immigration? Didn't John McCain say that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong?" Didn't John McCain forget how many houses he owns?
Why do we ask John McCain about anything or listen when he speaks? I already know where his big money puppet masters want him to vote. We can see right through Mr. Maverick. Oh, wait... I almost forgot. John McCain NEVER referred to himself as a Maverick. ROFLMAO!
This guy is so two faced he can carry on a conversation with himself! Flip flop? Yeah, that would be John McCain right there next to the picture of footwear. lol
Yes, he worked with Ted Kennedy on that legislation. It is one of several that he worked on and then voted against.
He would get on stage and sing I'm a "little teapot short and stout......" if he thought it would help his next campaign.
Thank goodness she doesn't need his vote to win confirmation.
The once distinguished 'Maverick' has been dimished to a 'gelding' with a severe case of laminitis...
Time to give up Johnnie Boy!
Not to mention I can NEVER forgive him for releasing the Wasilla Hillbilly upon the rest of us...
Yeah Johnnie Boy!
You are not to be trusted after unleashing Sarah Palin ("that woman is an idiot") on the public. She is the one who said out loud last week that Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College in Eureka, California!
Anybody that cynical should just retire and stop stealing the taxpayer's money! He is collecting a military pension, a paycheck from Congress and anticipating his pension from Congress.
What did we do the deserve this!
What did we do to deserve this? We voted Bush into office,- not once, but TWICE! After that, people like McCain figgured we'd bite on anything.
Did anyone expect anything different from this guy? I'll go out on a limb and look into the crystal ball and predict the majority if not all of the current lot of Republicans will vote against her.
What the hell is the point of this "news"? Based on the unanimous responses...none whatsoever...Are we even trying to find interesting news items folks?
Wasn"t this crazy old cracker " for her" before he was against her? Or is he to old to remember ?
I've said it before...the respect I once had for Senator McCain is completely gone. The man has lost his moral compass. I'm not just talking about the Kagan no vote but rather more his refusal to work at fixing the problems of this country. It is frustrating to watch GOPers decide they would rather see this country fail than give one inch that might allow the other side success. I watched them play this game with Clinton but even then, there were those who recognized that compromise and working together was for the good of the country. Now it is good for "me" or good politics. McCain once helped write immigration reform rules but now panders to the Tea Party crowd who have nothing to offer except fear and a return to the past. McCain has become an empty suit. How sad.
When I returned I caught a few earlier posts--some rousing debates going on.
Ron, you're right--it must be midwestern thinking because I believe The Whale will be a great help; and I trust that the Obama government is doing everything they can.
The Gulf. Last night Keith O gave some good facts that are counter to the often made comments stating the Obama team hasn't allowed other countries to help and, of course, the Jones Act chatter. Last week there were 24 foreign ships from 9 different countries working at and near the spill site. Not surprising that the media never reported that fact or for that matter much of anything the Obama administration was doing.
Rachel Maddow. Her show from Afghanistan was terrific last night and I look forward to another one tonight. Richard Engel always provides excellent reporting and his knowledge of the area is substantial; the trouble is, he rarely is given enough time on air to really get into detail.
MSNBC, NBC, please do more one hour specials like Rachel's to keep us informed because these wars are largely under reported in the news--the American people need to be reminded that we are fighting two wars. Please give Richard Engel 30 minutes or an hour every month for a Dateline report. I have watched his specials when they're on.
Wasn't Barry Goldwater also from Arizona. Isn't the U.S. government sueing the State of Arizona.
I beleive it is the people of Arizona that is the problem, they might be drinking the same water that the people of Texas is drinking. That water is probally coming out of the Gulf of Mexico. Did the people of Louisiana really vote for a Jingle Dingle for Governor? Did the Republician Party really evolve from the Tory Party? I can beleive they did.
Of course McCain objects! Is anyone surprised? Just wait until tomorrow, and he'll probably change is mind again. Ever since McCain chose Palin and lost the election (thank God!), he will object to anthing and everything that Obama asks for. Sure wish this old hero would grow up, think of our country first, and get over himself.
He's in the opposition party and he's opposing her nomination. Not exactly news, and not exactly unexpected since that's what the party out of power ALWAYS does. I suppose when there's a Supreme Court candidate nominated by a Republican president (and we don't know when it will happen, but it will certainly happen) you'll all be supporting that candidate, right? After all, that's what you expect the GOP to do here.
Until the late 80's, it wasn't this way. Both parties respected the President's choice and almost always voted yes. We saw this change a bit when Nixon nominated some judges who were anti-civil rights, opposed Brown vs Board of Education, etc. Democrats blocked a couple of those nominations, some were withdrawn--the blocking was for legitimate reasons. Then under Reagan we watched the social issues of abortion, religion, gays enter the discussion and suddenly, the topic was activist judges--liberal or conservative. Unfortunately, republicans then started blocking with little reason and democrats did the same.
Alito and Roberts are the most activist judges on the bench.
Maybe Kagan should have attended Wallisa Community College instead of Harvard.
No. Kagan just should have "read everything they put in front of her" and then "winked at a few key viewers" in the audience and the GOP would have been eating out of her hands...
"No. Kagan just should have "read everything they put in front of her" and then "winked at a few key viewers" in the audience and the GOP would have been eating out of her hands."
..........and had a passel of young 'uns. And if one turned out at a little bit of a disadvantage, physically, she could tote him/her around like a broken rag doll and garnered some sympathy from those among us that are at a little bit of a disadvantage, mentally.
Jody, Iowa:
One may not agree with Rachel's politics (which she herself states are obvious) but it is also obvious that this is a person who works very hard at her job, collecting information and attempting to use factual data in support of those things she feels very passionately about. I have also seen her interview people with opposite points of view and to do a good job of 1) letting them speak without interrupting them, 2) treating them with respect and 3) ending such segments with a handshake and smile and thanking them for agreeing to appear on her show. Maddow is obviously very intelligent, is well spoken, has a appealing childlike passion for many things, shows sincere concern and empathy for her fellow human beings and gives the impression that she would be a person who most could enjoy her company as reflected in her sense of humor and an apparent giddishness and certain excitement for life.
Definitely! Agree with everything you said. I don't always have her same views but listen anyway because it is important to hear other views. She researches her facts and when she gets it wrong, she says so. She is one smart person. Like Keith Olberman's Fridays with Thurber, I enjoy her Moments of Geek.
I (also, too) find Rachel Maddow to be one of the most erudite journalist of her generation. She is very humble in that she does not tout the fact that she has a Ph.D in International Studies. No one addresses her as "Dr. Maddow." That would be too pretentious for her.
She takes her job as a journalist seriously though not herself and that quality along with her intellect is so endearing.
We need an investigative reporter with her skills to get the real story on AZ "papers please" because the federal lawsuit is not going to stop this madness.
Sheila MD, about Rachel Maddow, I agree with you one hundred percent. However, you called Palin an IDIOT? I take offense to that. Why do I? Because I am an idiot!
And toted the 'sack of potato's' ooops... I mean baby around as a prop!
These "clowns " in the senate are the very reason we need "Term Limits" 2 in a lifetime retroactive...they wont allow the American people to bring it to a vote ...but we can kick out these "BUMS " on a state by state level . And do a proposition to be voted by the state to do term limits ...
KeepN it Real:
These people are not clowns. Even clowns can be funny. These people are, well, slugs come to mind.
We do have term limits -- the power of the vote; trouble is too many voters are afraid of change and don't use it.
Jody,
The problem with the power of the vote is this---the incumbent usually squashes any real good candidate with vast amounts of campaign contributions that the challenger can't overcome and therefore we get stuck with the same old crap. Usually the challenger that we end up with is not that great so people settle and re-elect the incumbent. I have been advocating for quite some time now that we actually do need term limits in order to eradicate this problem of an incumbent being so rich and powerful that we can't get them voted out.
In my HR district, GA 6, 30% of population vote. I am not sure what that means but I think the vote is not a good term limit. The high seniority in Congress, shows term limits are needed. It is the only way we can end professional politicians and possibly preserve our democratic-republic.
Terry, good points. Another problem is the encumbent has name recognition, plenty of campaign cash and little difficulty raising more.
I have mixed feelings about term limits because there are some legislators who are truely dedicated to their constituents and their knowledge is hard to replace every few years. It is like work experience--the longer you're there, the more you can contribute; it is not irreplaceable but knowledge gained of the system, rules, over the years is lost. That said, term limits might help eliminate undue influence by lobbyists because the money wouldn't be critical to re-election. Plus, there are some who are useless so term limits would be great.
I don't really care why McCain is voting against Kagan. I have e-mailed my state's senators,(to no avail, I am sure); I am against Kagan for the same reason I was against Harriet Meirs-
she is unqualified.
Now, there are those who will leap forward with the American Bar Association ratings. I will remind you, before you start, that they gave 'very qualified' ratings to Meirs, as well. And, while we are on the topic, robert Bork got the highest ratings available. Remember him? A new verb was coined: getting borked.
So, yes, there is politics involved. Imagine that! In D.C., no less!
However, a lifetime appointment to the highest bench in the land should not be handed out to someone about whom we know little;the little we do know does not bode well for the job she would do.
By the way, you guys missed another story: the Daily News reported, over the weekend, that Justice Kennedy announced, adamantly, that he would NOT retire from bench before 2016. Seems somebody from the White House told him that he would benefit from spending more time fishing. Now, if Obama had been a republican and he tried to force a justice into retirement, just think how much fun you would have had reporting on it!
no joe:
Nothing wrong with being against a supreme court nominee if one thinks the person is not qualifed based on the specific qualifications for the job.
As for "Obama" being the one attempting to force Kennedy to retire please present the facts that it was Obama who was behind this attempt. You stated someone from the WhiteHouse. Who? And exactly what if anything did this person from the Whitehouse say to Kennedy beyond the statement that he may benefit from and enjoy doing more fishing. Sounds like a decent suggestion to me.
By the way, I have no experience on the bench but if a Supreme Court Justice it would be a fairly easy task using common sense to rule that you are making general statements about attempts to force someone to do what they may not want to do and attributing the source of those comments to be Obama without proof. So on this matter no joe, case dismissed. See no joe, one does not necessarily need to have bench experience to make an appropriate common sense decision / ruling.
"the Daily News reported, over the weekend, that Justice Kennedy announced, adamantly, that he would NOT retire from bench before 2016"
There's always those "Second Amendment" remedies. (Whatever those are - I really still don't know.)
Yes, I did read that article but your facts are a bit off:
"Justice Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years - through the end of Obama's first term, sources said."
And nowhere in the article does it even SUGGEST that the WH is trying to push him out - just that it "disagreed with his majority opinion in the Citizens United case."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/06/2010-07-06_holdin_court_at_73_justice_kennedy_tells_pals_hes_not_retiring_for_years__thats_.html#ixzz0t20A3z1Z
The end of Obama's first term is 2012 not 2016; 3 more years would be 2013.
Good job, Ursula.
Too much politician in Ms. Kagan. I fear her interpretations of the constitution.
And Chief Justice Roberts and Sam Elito (spelling) weren't political in their answers? Let's face reality the Supreme Court is supposed to protect all individuals regardless of how I feel about a particular issue.
"...petty, and partisan, and disingenuous" pretty much sums up John McCain these days, doesn't it?
Regardless of how you feel about Obama's performance as president (and as an Obama voter, believe me I have my share of disappointments) there's no denying that this country dodged a major bullet when McCain lost in 2008.
Pacific NW Mark... you remind me of someone... were you by chance previously from the East coast?
Regardless... you got my vote!
No ma'am - born in Texas but I've been a West coaster almost all of my life : - )
.... and (speaking as a veteran) let's not forget McCain's innate ability to turn his back on his fellow vets without so much as a hint of guilt .... he always has that little "smirk". Shame on him. He says ONLY what will enhance his chances for a win....he NEVER has the guts to actually help his constituents.
What happened to "Country First" senator McCain? Oh, I forgot, you lost the 2008 election, and never got over it. Wwwaaahhh (cry baby)! Much as I dislike JD Hayworth, I hope he whups your butt in the Repub primary coming up in AZ.
I think you could ask that same question to this current lot of Republicans, they sure don't care about this country, based on their own words and actions or shall I say inaction.
I agree. I dislike JD Haywired, but I hope he sends McCain packing.
Dodged more like a canon when McCain lost
Everyone is missing the real point here. Firstly, secure the border, and then you will have an ironclad case for passing Illegal ImmigrationReform. Until the border is secured legislation will not help one iota. Congress will be wasting their time and the taxpayers money for putting on another dog and pong show.
It doesn't mean a hill of beans what John McCain or any other politician says until the border is firstly secured. Secure it and I'll be the first to say "Pass Immigration Reform".
Until the border is secured, Illegal Immigration should not even be discussed. Arizona is attempting to protect the state and Obama is attempting to tear the state apart. It's that simple.
Like everything other, Obama puts the wagon before the horse showing how backwards he is. He has proved to be the the most inept and incompetent president ever elected in Americans long history. It has now been made public that he pushed the Federal courts to allow drilling for oil in the Gulf.
He is just one more president in a long line of presidents that have lied to the American public to further their agenda. All of them are rotten to the core. They make fancy speech's and promise us the moon but fail to deliver on any of it.
Megan McCain seems to be the only voice of reason in that family.
MCain and Lieberman should lock lips and head for the stars!
Makes me laugh to see how SCARED you libs still are of Sarah. And don't feed me that bull@!$%# about how dumb she is. IF that was the case..........aren't you progressives ashamed of yourself for making fun of someone with a disability?
Proud,
What makes you think we are scared of Caribou Barbie? Speaking only for myself, I would love nothing more than for Sara to be the 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate. I don't think we will get that lucky, but boy would I love it if we did!
Not at all...
In Sarah's case she wears her ignorance like some kind of badge of honor...
Disgusted,
Just look at all the post above. Like yours calling her caribou barbie. If you were not scared of her, and she is so unimportant as you all say.................why even discuss her?
Proud,
We discuss her because she is all Rush and Glen and Hannity & Co. can put out there as the face of the GOP. Who else speaks on their behalf besides Rush? Find someone with a brain and that can lead and I will be more than happy to discuss them instead. It is the GOP and the echo chamber that love to regurgitate all over themselves about how Sarah will save them and she is the hope for their future. Well, if that is the case, great and get used to us discussing her. Wait, did Sarah just wink at me??? Be still my heart!