You Can't Fool All the People All the Time
Truth appears to be on an extended holiday, but with about fifty days left in this election cycle, this isn't the time for handwringing.
What's the best strategy when your opponent lies? It's not a simple question. The obvious move is to call them on it, but analyses of viewers reveals that "he said, she said" arguments leave observers confused and apathetic. "There they go again," seems to be the reaction, and they tune out the substance of the debate. This hurts us a lot more than them, because we need the electorate to focus on substance; they need them to focus on nonsense.
It helps if there's a referee to cry foul when the lies are proffered, but the media has been inconsistent at best, compelled to feign "balance" even when doing so means implicitly endorsing the lies.
Like this Wednesday AM, when I made the mistake of turning on CNN, where I witnessed a series of intense arguments and interviews about lipstick-gate, including the clip from the speech in which Obama made the lipstick comment, with not a hint, of course, of what the speech was about.
Let's just pause for a moment here and look at this moment under a microscope. It is one of the best examples of Rovian politics I've ever witnessed. This is the sentence in question--the one that ended with the "lipstick on a pig" comment:
"John McCain says he's about change too. And so I guess his whole angle is: 'Watch out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington!'"
Now, it's clear that the McCain strategy has shifted from stressing "experience" and "country first"--both causalities of his choice of Palin for his running mate--to the old Rovian move of hitting your opponent where he's strongest, in this case co-opting Obama's message of change (re Kerry, they swift-boated his military cred, which should have been his critical advantage over GW Bush's chicken-hawk military "career").
Of course, the McCain agenda unequivocally contradicts their new message, which was Obama's point, but the opposition managed to completely avoid that part of the debate, while their dupes in the news media amplified their message by focusing exclusively on the lipstick smear. They took a potent attack on the hypocrisy of their agenda--McCain/Palin's plans on the war and the economy are, if anything, Bush on steroids (more war, no timetables, far more tax cuts for the wealthiest than even Bush has dared to propose)--and turned it to their advantage.
So how do you beat these folks? At times it seems like we're fighting the bad guys in a science fiction movie: "resistance is futile." But I don't think it is. In fact, I think they've exposed a weak flank, and while it's a race against time, the stakes are so high that we've got no choice but to devote all of our energies to establishing this simple meme:
They're telling lies, and liars make fatal leaders. I don't just mean fatal in terms of fiscal recklessness and more economic failure. I mean fatal in terms of decisions that could cost people their lives. Sound familiar?
It may also sound over the top, and there are caveats that I'll stress in a moment, but it's true. Krugman had this exactly right the other day:
"...the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.
And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class..."
Palin didn't say "thanks, but no thanks" re the bridge to nowhere. Her state got and spent the federal money. On this point, the media's been pretty good, but she keeps repeating her mantra. Obama's tax plan provides a larger break to the middle class than McCain's--about $1,100 vs. $300--the polar opposite of what the McCain folks keep saying. Obama didn't promote sex-ed for kindergarteners. McCain's campaign is run by the very lobbyists he consistently inveighs against; Palin's aggressively and effectively pursued Congressional earmarks.
We all know presidential politics are a nasty business, but they've taken it to another level. The untruths we're used to are conceptual, fuzzier, more ambiguous, stuff you can't easily prove or disprove, like, "we'll pay for our tax cuts by cutting spending (and don't worry, we'll only cut the wasteful stuff that nobody outside of a few crooks really wants)." Or "by cutting taxes on the wealthy, we will free the invisible hand and unleash untold riches that will trickle down to all." Or the stuff about victory in Iraq, whatever that is.
The McCain squad touts this stuff too, of course, and we can and do have good arguments over their validity. But the lies they're telling now are different. As Krugman said, they're "making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again."
(The caveat I mentioned is that they're not all lying. Doug Holtz-Eakin, a leading McCain economic advisor and an acquaintance/fellow traveler for whom I've always had great respect, has a history of speaking truth to power. I suspect he's not too comfortable with a lot of the stuff he has to sell these days...see here for an example of what I mean.)
So why is resistance not futile? Because the lies could form their campaign and candidates' persona, and that could hurt them big-time. It's becoming a negative, mainstream theme. Jay Leno's making fun of it. The mainstream media is starting to come around. Obama's team is hitting back harder. You really can't fool all the people all the time.
The lying persona could become their 'Dukakis in the tank,' Papa Bush at the scanner, Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it"--the meme that defines a deep and fundamental weakness that reaches voters in their guts and just gives them a bad feeling about this ticket.
And given the last eight years, that may be enough to tip the scales. Not, of course, with the evangelicals allegedly charged up by the Palin pick, but with the independents in the swing states who will likely decide the outcome. They may be unfamiliar with someone like Obama, or too familiar with someone like Biden, or unable to sort through the fog of misinformation to assess with any clarity the campaigns' positions on the issues that matter to them. But if the truth about these naked lies is out there in a palatable way, they'll know they're being lied to, and they won't like it.
And then, they can honestly use that phrase that's been so misleading repeated over the last couple of weeks:
McCain/Palin? Thanks, But No Thanks.
Hey, that might be a neat bumper sticker, no?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The MSM, with the possible and intermittant exception of MSNBC and Rachel Maddow in particular, has done a wonderful job of taking McCain's low budget internet releases and giving them veracity by repeating over and over again. I was afraid the election might be lost but I'm beginning to be more hopeful as the lies are finally starting to command some attention.
I never thought the internet was going to be a good and Democratic means to convey communication and what has been happening with CNN and FOX in particular, the ability to pick what is most sensation and run it in perpetuity is, for me, unfortunate verification for that belief.
Skysails
OMG...Just saw McCain steal another one. He's on CNN saying "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" Obama comes up with the great lines, McCain steals them, blurs the sound bites.
Sounds like "Slick Willie" on welfare reform, doesn't it?
It's certainly true that the McCain campaign deliberately mis-interpreted Senator Obama's "lipstick" comment. As one who plans to vote for McCain/Palin, I was not pleased or supportive. Still, we're not watching a tea party here; it's a presidential election. McCain's comment about how long we might need to keep military forces in Iraq was similarly mis-interpreted. Both sides will continue to play "Gotcha" politics as they hope somebody on the other side misspeaks. I think McCain should have anticipated how his comment might be received, and he should have used more care. Similarly, I think Obama should have known the risk involved in using a "lipstick" reference when there was a woman on the opposing ticket, a woman who had used the lipstick image herself a few days earlier. In any case, I don't think many Americans bought the attack on Obama, just as I don't think they bought the attack on McCain. Voters who bought into either of those attacks are too easily swayed, and how can any pollster predict how they will vote. The next 6+ weeks leading up to the election will certainly include more of this "silliness," but I think serious discussion of important issues will also emerge. The two candidates and their parties have very different ideas of how the country should proceed; I'm comfortable that the vast majority of the electorate will understand those differences and vote accordingly. I'm optimistic about America.
I must say you are the first republican blogger I have read on these posts who sounds reasonable. I am still voting for Obama/Biden and am watching the electorate closely. I too have hope. Maybe we should turn off our TV's and read more.
Excellent idea!!
My nose is getting a little stretched out from having it pulled in so many different directions
Oh come on... Obama's a smart guy. He knew exactly what he was doing when he made the lipstick remark.
But, really, who cares?
Come on, the conversation wasn't about Palin so you are of an ill-informed opinion. Stick to the facts. Unless of course you are a Bushie.
Unfortunately the campaign manager of your candidate said this election isn't about issues.
"You cannot fool all the people all of the time" .. it depends on which people you are talking about.
If it is the American electorate today, the unfortunate answer is that yes, you can. A place where
intelligence and intellectual thought are discredited breeds a society of fools, and that is what we are seeing today. 2000, 2004 and now 2008.
The great Irish comedian wrote in 'Puckoon' : "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, which is just long enough to get elected President of the United States of America."
That is a trickle down effect of our failed public school systems or our claustrophobic private school system.
Like Dubya said "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me again .....er...
Contribute (no matter how small). Volunteer. Write your editor. Call your TV and radio stations. Talk to your friends and neighbors. Get out the vote.
we're doing that like mad here in TX, but the US is composed mostly of backward idiots that voted for Bush twice! i don't doubt that they'll vote for a third Bush term.
Calling Americans "backwards idiots" will get Obama a lot of votes. Keep it up.
Jared Bernstein's groping search for the proper response to McCain et. al. is another installment in a long line of pundits trying to figure out how to to get voters to focus on substance, "because we need the electorate to focus on substance," Bernstein writes.
Bernstein.
Elections are not won on substance but rather on narratives. The prevailing Political Narrative favors Republicans and Democrats only saw victory in 2006 because sex scandals and corruption scandals destroyed the prevailing Political Narrative. Democrats must go back to sex scandals and corruption and attach them to Republicans in general. See this article for further explanation:
http://www
Great points! But let's face it, here at HuffPost we're all pretty much preaching to the choir (and I don't mean preaching about Alaska being a safe haven when the Apocalypse comes or about asking parishioners to pray for a pipeline). We need, I mean NEED, to get these messages out to the general public. That is, the ignorant, misguided, and uniformed. We've got to get people to bury this ridiculous concept of identity politics. I don't want someone like myself to be VP; I want someone smarter and more knowledgeable. WE NEED TO DRIVE THIS MESSAGE HOME!! And we need to convey to people how vehemently the McCain camp is trying to manipulate us with smear and fear and outright lies. So, please, I implore everyone to spread this message to battleground state newspapers and other media outlets. We need to do all we can to win this election. And with 50 days left, I'm starting to get really, really scared.
Smears and outright lies. The ink was not on Sarah Palin's nomination before they started. Have Obama or Biden's families been slandered like Palin's. No. Did anyone in the main stream press question the legitimacy of their children? No. When McCain questions Obama's thin list of accomplishments it's a smear tactic. When Palin's are questioned it is trying to get the facts out. What about smear headlines like Monster in a box, Tina Fay as Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin not Dis-unlying, Sarah Palin Naked, or Palin Doctrine..
You need to understand the difference between a smear and reporting the facts. Sarah Palin put her family front and center. There is a great deal of obvious disfunction there. It does make you wonder what kind of person she is. Remember the right wing mantra "Character Counts"? Obama's family has been attacked by the right. Michelle has been called a "whitey" hater, even though the citation of her thesis in college as proof was proven to be false. That canard is still being prated on these blogs. The attack on the Obama's for their membership in Trinity Cof C was a guilt by association that is still going around. Biden is a family man, and there is little to attack him on as far as his personal life goes. Palin is a joke in the media, because she has made herself rediculous with the lies and exagerations that she has continued to tell after she has been proven to be lying. So, sorry if you are offended.
Remember, we lefties tried to tell you that George Bush was a liar before the 2000 election and again before the 2004 election, and you got nasty about how wrong we were. Well, events have proven that we were not wrong then, and we are not wrong now.
First of all Obama and Biden have been thoroughly vetted, McCain lied - Palin was not vetted, they just took notes. Second of all there is no conflict of policy and family life with Obama or Biden and when there was with Michelle's proud comment, she was thoroughly vetted and as a matter of fact, ripped. There was no controversy about their children (ie - bad judgment against their parents will and policy objectives). Third, Obama and Biden did not bring a legislative investigation in regards to misusing or abusing their political power to their tickets with them, like Sarah Palin did. Nor have they refused to cooperate with federal investigators. They didn't try to hide their actions from the public. Palin has already lied more times on the stump and in AN interview (1) than Obama has talking points. Fourth, SNL does what SNL wants to do with whom ever they want to do it with. Bannorhill, I do not know what the heck you are comparing her situation to but it sure ain't Obama or Biden. You can more easily connect your dots to George W. Bush, Karl Rove and Dick the "ShotGun" Cheney. Where is your sense of awareness. Wow MY FRIEND, you are definitely out of touch - on the wrong track and sounds like, IN the McCain/Palin camp no matter how many times they lie IN YOUR FACE. Good luck with your vote - SCARY
The biggest lie has to be Obama claiming 95% of taxpayers will get a tax cut. Ther are not that many Americans that pay taxes. So what you really mean is that people who don't pay already will get MORE money from people who do pay taxes.
It is also important to remember that Obama plans to give everyone health insurance. You cannot tax the wealthy enough to pay for that!
It might be a good idea for you to look at the fantasy your side calls an agenda. You cannot keep taking from the producers to give to the people that don't even pull their own weight. The quickest way to help the poor is to stop giving them money. How many of the uninsured that I keep hearing about have 100 dollar a month cable and internet bills for their big screen TV's and new computers? I have some experience with this group and 99.9% of the time their situations are dictated by poor decisions just like the mortage crisis. The mortage crisis may have a small percentage of people who were mislead but the majority wanted and purchased more than they could afford.
If you never have to pay for a mistake, you will continue to make the same mistakes over and over.
Murf, without reading the rest of your post or anything about this issues—so I’m not passing judgment on the rest of what you wrote or Obama’s plan,
Here's your ABSOLUTE MATHEMATICAL MISTAKE:
According to you, Obama said "95% of taxpayers will get a cut." You wrote that "Ther are not that many Americans that pay taxes."
There are X number of Americans that pay taxes (however many there are doesn't really matter because the issue is percentages, but to continue), and Obama is saying that 95% of X will get a cut.
Not all pay taxes. Of those that Do Pay Taxes, 95% will get a cut under Obama's plan.
Actually an independent study group reported that Obama's economic plan would give an 80% tax cut to median income households over time. It was rated a better economic plan by this group than McCain's. Great article in the Economist on Obama's economic message for those who like to be informed.
95% of us may get a tax cut from Obama, but 100% of us will be paying higher prices when big business passes on Obama's corporate tax raises.
So, in essence, Obama will be raising all of our taxes.
Does anyone really believe that corporations will not simply pass on their tax increases to the middle- and lower-classes?
The economy is in shambles because of the liberal lending policies of the last several decades.
We have one chance to avoid depression. Cut government spending and stop lending money to put off the collapse of the financial markets.
This is not Bush's fault (at least not all of it). Yes, he should have let the economy tank in 2000. The .Com bubble that propelled prosperity under Clinton was a sham. The Housing Bubble that propelled recovery after the .Com collapse was a sham.
The last thing we need to do is open more lines of credit to the banking industry. The longer we put off the inevitable, the worse it will be.
Stop trying to make this a partisan issue. All Washington politicians are to blame.
If we keep applying band aids to this severed artery, we will die. the time has come for major surgery, recovery will be slow and painful. But if we don't bite the bullet soon, we will see a depression that will make 1928 look like a party.
Too bad so sad. You lose.
You write:
"The biggest lie has to be Obama claiming 95% of TAXPAYERS will get a tax cut. Ther are not that many Americans that pay taxes."
I capitalized where you don't seem to understand. 95% of TAXPAYERS is not the same as 95% of AMERICANS. Not only is around half the population underage and not working, but around another 20% are making too little to pay anything. However, under Obama's plan, 95% OF THOSE WHO DO PAY TAXES will be paying less!
If your numbers are correct, only 30% of Americans pay taxes. If thats true, your saying Obama is only going to raise the taxes only on the top 5%. My point exactly, it will be just like when Clinton got in office. Remember the "I worked as hard as I could to not raise your taxes, BUT". It will be the same.
The problem is that the government never reduces, it only grows. And politicians keep getting elected by giving something away. Sooner or later there will be nothing left for them to give.
Sooner or later we have to say no.
Obama did not say he was going to give anybody anything. What he did say, which was slightly different from Hillary on health care was, if you have insurance on your job, keep it, if your job does not or you do not have any health insurance, the gov will help you finance or locate insurance , not the exact wording , but similiar. The government do not give people money, you must qualify for anything you get, especially if you are American. It is McCain, who just about cried last year when trying to get the amnesty bill passed for all illegals and to provide social security for those who were here illegally. If he gets in, this is where your and my money will go. How soon you all forget.
I may be being paranoid, but the Democratic party claims it's goal is universal healthcare and I can't believe thats not where this is headed. We've played this game before like with the "Family Medical Leave".Rem
And I believe the qualifications you talk about are far to low. People will reduce the number of hours they work to get some kind of government benefit when they could work a little more and buy it themselves. But they think they're getting something for nothing and its a game far too many play.
And yes, I disagreed with McCain on the immgration issue. But is the Democratic side advocating something different? He at least has moved away from that stance and I am happy with that.
My main fear is having more people riding than pulling. And I fear we may be there now.
Actually, an independent study group pointed out that overall 80% of americans would benefit from Obama's tax plan over a median time frame. It is far more complex than some black and white answer republicans would like and so to find the truth of who will benefit americans more economically you have to dig through articles and read material you may not otherwise read. Right now I have friends who make over 250,000 a year who pay the same amount of taxes that I do and I make significantly less. This is about evening out the game. I too am of the impression that people made grave mistakes when purchasing their homes, I made some too when I purchased my first home but learned from that. The blame game needs to stop. Home buyers were naive, yes, but Mortgage companies were not being honest either. They will tell you anything to get you into a house and make that buck. Obama does not want to give everyone health insurance, his plan is not the universal healthcare plan so please be informed. He wants to make it more affordable so that everyone can buy it.
Also an excellent point. But your comparison to people who make a lot more than you points to the need for reform in the manner of a flat tax. I am however curious, do you refer to dollars or percentages? And are you refering to individuals with small businesses who claim profits personally?
Also, any of us can point to a study that will back up what we believe. I am more interested in the basic principle of how much is enough. As I'm sure you know, when the tax rates are lower there is more economic activity. More economic activity means more jobs and more tax revenue. So I put it to you, how much money is enough?
And don't forget, you automatically penalize a person who works lots of hours or two jobs because he makes more income than someone working 40 hours a week or less. Fair?
As to the healthcare, how will he make it more affordable by adding government between our money and the people you intend to help. The administrative cost will be enourmous I'm sure. And if you believe it won't be universal by the time they are done, I think your being naive.
And thank you for not responding with calling me names. I enjoy the debate but not the name calling.
What is the saying -- Definition of insanity- Keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I certainly hope we don't put the McBush in the White House.
Electing McCain/Palin would be the definition of insanity.
We have had 8 years of disaster after disaster. Stop this madness.
Obama wants change Washington but he voted with his party 97% of the time in a do nothing Senate. Obama wants to raise taxes on the big oil and give it to the taxpayers. Sarah did that in Alaska but she lacks the experience to deal with energy issues. Obama wants ethics reform but has not introduced one bill in Washington to change the way things are done. Palin had the Alaskan Republican Chairman thrown out of office for ethics violations. Obama says she does not have the experience to reform Washington. Obama wants change but he selects a 6 term Senator as his VP. McCain picks a Washington outsider.
If we keep sending the same do nothing Senators to Washington nothing will change. Of the four candidates only Palin is not one of the good old boys.
By your definition to vote for someone other than Palin would be insanity.
Factcheck would use you as a poster child.
Really, the Senate has been do nothing? Okay, I can accept that. Of course, the REASON why they haven't done anything is because YOUR precious REPUBLICANS have filibustered pretty much EVERYTHING that comes across the floor!!!!
Jared, I agree; however, someone needs to stand up and speak the truth. The MSM has allowed the McCain camp to go far too long unchecked. This he said, she said needs to be happen and America needs to wake up and listen. This country can not and will not survive if it continues on as it. It will fall apart slowly at first but will pick up speed as time progresses plunging us into another economic depression potentially worse that the 30's. Someone with a back bone needs to step up to the plate and get this undercontrol. We do not need people like McCain telling us the economy is just dandy, when it is not. That kind of thinking is what got us in this fix in the first place. We need an honest borker in the White House that is going to be honest and tell us we can fix it. All thought the process will be painful for many, it can and will get better if " WEALL PULL TOGETHER" and work it through.
Right on target. We are in deep trouble. Global Capitalists are ripping away the foundations of our country: of these..... civil rights ( suspension of habeus corpus...r
Obama's campaign slogan should be: "Haven't we had enough lying in Washington?" Or "Liars are dangerous to your health and wealth."
I agree with Jared Bernstein that the Dems must confront the dishonesty issue head-on. Once a person's credibility has been lost, it is nearly impossible to get it back. How many Americans still believe anything that comes from the mouth of George Bush or Dick Cheney? Other than the wing-nut crowd, I would say there are very few.
Everyone, from Obama on down to the 527s and the blogosphere, must start working full time to destroy McCain and Palin's credibility. Stay on point, and don't be distracted by the controversy of the week. They lie and cannot be trusted to guide the nation in these troubled times.
John McCain’s long touted plan for social security is to privatize it. Using the same Wall Street companies that are going under. Do you trust your future to Wall Street! Do you trust your future to John McCain and the lobbyists that are advising him and running his campaign? Here is a list of all of his major campaign workers and the special interests they represent.
http://mcc
Giving contributors choices on how to invest PART of their contributions is NOT privatizing social security. You say that as if you believe the republicans want to take all the money from social security and invest it in the stock market, so untrue.
And really, when Bush tried to get congress to at least try to reform social security, the Democrats said it was fine. So let's just do nothing to fix social security and it will die a slow death, around 2020 or so.
At least the republicans want to do SOMETHING about social security.
The democrats seem to want to keep their heads in the sand and then blame the republicans when it falls apart.
Just so we are on the up and up. Here is Obama's message about social security.
Despite the many smears of his opponents, Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he is considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now and is similar to the rate increases floated by John McCain’s close adviser Senator Lindsey Graham and that McCain has previously said he “could” support.
Why? Why should they be allowed to invest part of it? Are you allowed to choose how to invest part of your life insurance? How about your health insurance?? Auto??? Homeowners
The fact of the matter is that Social Security is NOT a retirement program, it has never BEEN a retirement program, and it will never BE a retirement program. It is an insurance program. You pay in to it throughout your working years, and when you can't work anymore it pays out. That's why it's called OASDI, which stands for Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.
The whole point of it is to take some of your current earnings aside to use on a rainy day.
It's not necessary to fool all of the people all of the time.
The GOP have realized that as long as you fool some of the people all of the time and fool all of the people some of the time, then you will win all of the time.
The following excerpt is not getting any press, but is highly revealing about the Bush/McCain Administration's policies and Palin's understanding of them:
"GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option."
In other words, Palin acknowledged that the current policy is one in which war is the first option!
WHERE IS THE AD?????
Yes. Folks tune out when it's a he said she said argument. Unfortunately, they also tune out when a candidate goes into detail about his policies and agenda.
I recently wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in our daily paper (Canon City Record, Saturday). It was a sarcastic piece that I ended by saying,"Vote for the party of god in November". Right next to my letter was one written by someone who said that McCane's choice of Palin was "prompted by God".
What's scary about this interaction is that the "prompted by god" guy probably read my letter and thought of it as another endorsement of the Republican ticket.
That's what we're up against, folks. The Republicans are running this campaign like another Dark Ages Crusade. They've got their fodder to march for them, all of whom not knowing what awaits when they get to Jerusalem.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
--- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
When the McCain camp was asked why are they running a negative campaign, they said they did not care. So, when they or if they get into office, they (reps) will probably say the same thing, We do not care. The rep. party knows there are a lot of people out there that listen to this type of crap and we can not let this happen. I do not for one minute believe the American people do not care enough about themselves, our troops,country to put this man and woman into the highest job in the land. Look at the financial markets today. Whose next?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
