ChrisWeigant.com

Dialing Down Expectations For Biden's Agenda

[ Posted Thursday, November 12th, 2020 – 17:23 UTC ]

While Democrats are rightly excoriating President Donald Trump for his extended hissy fit over the election results (who's hiding in his basement now, Mister President?), they should also be in the process of dialing down expectations for what Joe Biden will be able to accomplish as president. Because in all likelihood, Democrats are not going to win both Senate seats in the Georgia runoff elections. It could happen, but even if it does it will still mean lowered expectations for what comes next.

I realize this is not a fun thing to contemplate, but it is the reality of the situation. Let's say Democrats do win both Senate races in Georgia, as a best-case scenario. They will then have 50 senators caucusing with them, and with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie, they will gain control of the chamber. But this puts them in a situation where any one Democratic senator can upset the applecart with his or her vote. Remember Joe Lieberman? That's what Democrats will face for each and every vote. And there are some rather conservative Democrats in the Senate (Joe Manchin immediately springs to mind). So grand plans to get rid of the legislative filibuster or tinker with the Supreme Court are almost certainly not going to succeed.

Then there's the other big scenario, where Mitch McConnell retains control of the chamber. Which sadly means nothing at all will get done for the next two years, besides the absolute bare minimum of passing a budget. Nothing else will move forward, because McConnell will fully control what gets a vote on the Senate floor -- and he's already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he plays the hardest of hardball politics. Joe Biden may be able to nominate federal judges, but Mitch can just sit on these nominations forever and leave them vacant, in the hopes of a future Republican president being able to fill them. And McConnell is a strong believer in the Hastert Rule, where no legislation gets a vote unless "a majority of the majority" wants it. This would preclude any attempts by Joe Biden to peel off a few GOP senators to support any of his agenda items. It won't matter if Biden talks people like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski into supporting a bill if the bill is never going to get a vote, in other words.

If the Democrats do win both races in Georgia, at least they'll be able to move legislation forward. Then peeling off moderate Republicans would indeed be possible. But remember -- it's a longshot. Two longshots, in fact. And even if Chuck Schumer is in charge, if he can't manage to kill the filibuster off, the Democrats will need ten Republicans to get anything of substance accomplished other than the budget. That's a pretty tall order.

Biden will, of course, use executive orders to accomplish a lot. He'll be able to overturn all of Trump's executive orders, just to begin with. Then he'll be able to sign his own proactive executive orders to move the country forward again. These will cover a vast range of things, and all of them will wind up constituting Biden's biggest achievements in his first 100 days in office.

But you can't do everything by executive order. You can't pass COVID-19 relief. You can't increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. You can't effectively tackle climate change. You can't solve the institutional racism problem. You can't expand Obamacare with a public option.

Joe Biden has long been a moderate politician. This was why he was nominated, because he was seen as the safest choice to defeat Trump. This worked as planned, thankfully. But during the campaign (after he had secured the nomination), Biden started waking up to the possibilities of instituting major reforms in all kinds of places. He spoke of being a transformational president along the lines of F.D.R., in fact. Now, admittedly, all Democratic presidential hopefuls occasionally see F.D.R. looking back at them when they look in a mirror, but Biden was correct in determining that the country was experiencing so many crises at once that America would likely have welcomed large sweeping changes designed to get us all out of the crisis period, just as F.D.R. did to get out of the Great Depression. That now no longer really seems possible. Even just getting the pandemic relief bill that Nancy Pelosi passed half a year ago doesn't seem possible with a Republican Senate next year. And that was just supposed to be a downpayment on Biden's legacy, not the end-all, be-all of his agenda.

Some see this situation through the politics of cynicism (or perhaps "partisanship for partisanship's sake" is a better way to put it). Since Biden won't be able to get big things done, this way of thinking goes, then perhaps there won't be a voter backlash against big radical changes which wipes out the Democrats in the midterm elections. But this is somewhat of an endless waiting game. We can't pass progressive legislation now so that later we'll have more Democrats in Congress and then maybe we can get something done. This is nothing short of incrementalism taken to the extreme.

Joe Biden saw the opportunity to be a transformational president during the campaign. He started talking about bringing about much bigger changes than he had ever campaigned on during the primary season. And he still has a rather naive belief that once Trump is gone the Republicans will all start acting normally once again, as they did back when Biden was in the Senate. Compromises will be struck, and legislation acceptable to both sides will move forward. This is a pipe dream, really, with Mitch McConnell in charge. McConnell is the same man who dedicated his party to the goal of making Barack Obama a one-term president, please remember. So why would anyone expect him to change in what will essentially be Obama's third term in office?

McConnell's Republicans have no new ideas of their own at all. They have become the party of "No," plain and simple. Even when Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the White House, all they could agree on passing was a gigantic tax cut for the wealthy. That's it. In two years of absolute control of Washington, that's all they managed to do. And that's when they were in full control of the political agenda, without even having to worry about what Democrats wanted. Now that McConnell's Senate will be the only lever of power the GOP has for the next two years, it is inconceivable that suddenly Mitch will want to sit down at the table and compromise to give Democrats lots of big political wins. That is just not the way he works, period.

This is depressing to contemplate, but it is just as real as Biden's victory. Any Democratic dreams of a wildly progressive agenda or fundamental reform went up in smoke on Election Day. We've all been consumed with the drama over the presidential election, but once Trump's sorry "poor me" story plays out, Democrats will have to face the new reality that most of their ambitious agenda items are simply not going to become law any time soon. Maybe there will be the silver lining of doing better two years from now in the 2022 midterms, but that's a big letdown from where most Democrats wanted things to be with a new president.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

53 Comments on “Dialing Down Expectations For Biden's Agenda”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I realize this is not a fun thing to contemplate, but it is the reality of the situation. Let's say Democrats do win both Senate races in Georgia, as a best-case scenario. They will then have 50 senators caucusing with them, and with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie, they will gain control of the chamber. But this puts them in a situation where any one Democratic senator can upset the applecart with his or her vote.

    Yeah? Well, let those progressives just try to upset Biden's applecart. Just let them try!

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So grand plans to get rid of the legislative filibuster or tinker with the Supreme Court are almost certainly not going to succeed.

    I think I'm with the conservatives on that one, so ...

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Then there's the other big scenario, where Mitch McConnell retains control of the chamber. Which sadly means nothing at all will get done for the next two years, besides the absolute bare minimum of passing a budget. Nothing else will move forward, because McConnell will fully control what gets a vote on the Senate floor -- and he's already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he plays the hardest of hardball politics.

    Biden better have a solid plan to deal with Mitch. I believe he does. Biden can play hardball politics with the best of them and he does it while flashing that signature Biden smile. Mitch won't know what hit him.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If the Democrats do win both races in Georgia, at least they'll be able to move legislation forward. Then peeling off moderate Republicans would indeed be possible.

    So, when does the massive public education campaign, for lack of a much better phrase which I can't think up right now but I'll work on it, begin in Georgia wherein every single voter in the state will be presented with arguments in favour of Democrats winning those two seats, arguments that a majority of those voters will find very difficult to ignore and not act upon?

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And even if Chuck Schumer is in charge, if he can't manage to kill the filibuster off, the Democrats will need ten Republicans to get anything of substance accomplished other than the budget.

    Biden and the Democrats will have to get creative in way never attempted before and go directly to the people.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden will, of course, use executive orders to accomplish a lot. He'll be able to overturn all of Trump's executive orders, just to begin with. Then he'll be able to sign his own proactive executive orders to move the country forward again.

    I suppose there will be lost of EOs - hopefully, he doesn't make a Broadway production out of it and rather just does a press release or, perhaps, mention it within the confines of a speech or press briefing.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can't pass COVID-19 relief [by executive order]. You can't increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. You can't effectively tackle climate change. You can't solve the institutional racism problem. You can't expand Obamacare with a public option.

    True.

    But, you can try to mobilize enough voters to make the Republicans squirm.

    Of course, then you'll have SCOTUS to worry about.

    Right, well, nothing is going to be easy. Then again, nothing easy was ever worth doing or something like that. Heh.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So why would anyone expect him to change in what will essentially be Obama's third term in office.

    Okay, enough is enough, already with the 'Obama's third term in office' mantra.

    On January 20 will begin Biden's first term in the oval office, thank-you very much!

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    McConnell's Republicans have no new ideas of their own at all. They have become the party of "No," plain and simple. Even when Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the White House, all they could agree on passing was a gigantic tax cut for the wealthy

    Precisely.

    Which should give Biden and his Democrats all the ammunition they need if they have what it takes to pull the trigger. Ahem.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [All of this] is depressing to contemplate, but it is just as real as Biden's victory.

    But, it really doesn't have to be that way.

    Not if Democrats fight like they've never fought before and bring back the lost art of persuasion before it's completely dead.

    Democrats have the facts and the interests of the people on their side, after all.

    I'll bet that Senator Sherrod Brown knows how to lead the way ... but, it will take ALL Democrats on the same page for the duration.

    Who knows, Democrats might just realize a blue wave in 2022. Stranger things have already happened, on a near daily basis.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words, the last thing I'll be doing is dialing down my high expectations for Biden's first term! :)

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just remember, guys, there has never been anything that America hasn't been able to get done when Americans come together and, with a laser focus, just do it.

    You know, it's like a million ripples that form a wave that can break down the mightiest walls of Republican malfeasance.

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris

    McConnell is the same man who dedicated his party to the goal of making Barack Obama a one-term president, please remember. So why would anyone expect him to change in what will essentially be Obama's third term in office?

    I could actually answer that question, but there are multiple reasons why I won't. Suffice it to say, there is more than one way to skin a koshka.

    Obama's third term in office? Seriously? All due respect, explain to me why we shouldn't call you out for journalistic laziness with that nugget. A lot has happened since the Obama administration, and we were all here for it... including you. :)

  14. [14] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    CW - I think this a little too pessimistic. Lets assume Dems win in GA, Schumer has been schooled by the master of hardball, Moscow Mitch, and I believe he will be able to hold his caucus together. If Manchin tries to go rogue there will be not no postal service or anything else in West Virginia. I expect Chuck to be as ruthless as LBJ was. The most important thing for the Dems to accomplish is election reform. We need a National standard for registration and voting, we need to simplify and standardize vote counting protocols. I think there is appetite for this after this last election. No one, red or blue, wants another four days of high anxiety. If this gets fixed before the mid terms the Dems can solidify their control of the reins of govt. Then we can get the really big stuff accomplished. But we simply must have fair elections no longer can the Dems face an election that is so tilted toward the other side.

    Of course if we lose Georgia then....

  15. [15] 
    dsws wrote:

    The Senate is a problem. The House may be worse. Republicans gained in the state legislatures, which essentially appoint members of the House (in a bizarre reversal of what the Constitution said until the seventeenth amendment). It's possible to gain a Senate majority by winning elections, but not until 2030 will it be possible to regain a majority in the House, once the redistricting kicks in.

    I'm pretty sure the Republican gains this time were incremental, but over the last decade I think they've been catastrophic.

  16. [16] 
    dsws wrote:

    Just remember, guys, there has never been anything that has been able to get Americans to come together and, with a laser focus, just do it.

    FTFY

    The closest case would be WWII, which is a pretty good one. But the war was won by the Allies jointly, rather than being something that the US did. We played the leading role at the end, but the Russians did most of the dying, and the British Commonwealth stood pretty much alone for quite some time while Russia was on the ropes. And our involvement wasn't entirely a matter of Americans coming together, given that there was an isolationist movement strong enough to keep us out until we were actually attacked. And given that a substantial number of Americans, rather than getting to come together, were rounded up and put in internment camps for being of Japanese ancestry.

  17. [17] 
    dsws wrote:

    (I almost slighted Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, by typing "British Empire".)

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I noticed that. But, you did mention the British Commonwealth, so, there's that.

  19. [19] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Well Weigantia, what the hell happened to Russian interference this go-round? We were assured constantly all the way thru the runup to the election that the Russians were even harder at it this year than they were in 2016, right??

    So why didn't it work this time? Could it possibly be that Russiagate was a big lie right from the start, manufactured by Dems/libs frantic to rationalize the fact that they had nominated the only person in the Democrat party capable of losing to the likes of the orange moron?

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    19

    Could it possibly be that Russiagate was a big lie right from the start, manufactured by Dems/libs frantic to rationalize the fact that they had nominated the only person in the Democrat party capable of losing to the likes of the orange moron?

    Sure, old man. Before the election had even taken place, the Democrats forced Donald Trump, Jr. and multiple members of the Trump campaign into having 200+ meetings with agents of Russia and made sure their own computers were hacked by the GRU and the contents then disseminated to the world via multiple cutouts including WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Jerome Corsi, Roger Stone, and others who coordinated with multiple members of the Trump campaign to release the said stolen email... just in case Trump happened to win the election multiple months later.

    Are you seriously this damn dumb? Rhetorical question.

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    Well then, (checks watch) 200+ hours after Fox News called Arizona for Biden and Donald Trump and the MAGA collective had an epic meltdown because people that know these things knew what that call meant, Arizona has just now finally been called for Joe Biden by "everybody else."

    In case you were wondering, Stucki, this was all part of Donald Trump's calculated plan to throw the election to Joe Biden and then blame Fox News for him being a bigly loser... and executed flawlessly by The Donald a.k.a. Fat Donny. *shakes head*

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, look! Joe Biden has over 78 million votes and still counting:

    Biden... 78,008,805

  23. [23] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [13] & [20]

    I do love it when I discover that you have beaten me to the punch -- and did it so much more ”eloquently” than I could have! (that word means ”bluntly”, right?)

    -R

  24. [24] 
    andygaus wrote:

    A lot of Republican senators are up for re-election in 2022. I think the most realistic hope is that if we capture a few more Senate seats in 2022, some of what Biden can't do in the first two years of his term may become possible in the last two years. Truman ran against a "do-nothing Congress," and we will need to do the same.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Could I have a show of hands - who thinks a vaccine coupled with mask mandates will shut down the virus in the US?

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It didn't take long for the excuses to start.

    Once again I am way ahead of the rest of you as my expectations from Biden are already at rock bottom.

    And I also have little expectation that CW will be any different than McConnell in the possibility of CW changing his tune and start actually addressing reality.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.

    Get Real.

  27. [27] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    OK, Kick has straightened out the whole Russiagate thing for me.

    When the Reps win, it was all Russia's doing.

    When the Dems win, Putin had no involvement!

    How could I have been so dumb to miss something that logical?

  28. [28] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [25] To answer your question, I would need for you to be a little more specific.

    Would this vaccine be like a measles vaccine or a flu vaccine? Should I assume that people would actually take it? Would people be able to freely ignore these mask mandates w/o consequence?

  29. [29] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Stucki,

    Your either/or nonsense is nonsense.

    Clinton lost for a number of reasons.

    * She was a bad choice for the Dems to nominate since the GOP had demonized her for 20 years.
    * She is just not a good campaigner.
    * Drumpf colluded with Russia.
    * Comey
    * She's a woman in a woman-hating country.

    The fact that there were other factors does not negate the fact that Fat Donny and his crime family colluded with Russia.

    How could I have been so dumb to miss something that logical?

    You try hard?

  30. [30] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    I don't think the vaccine, with or without a mask mandate, will shut down the virus in the US or anywhere else where it is widespread. It will probably be a long haul, requiring vaccines--quite likely more than one kind of vaccine--masks, distancing and some lockdowns, protection for essential workers in contact with the public, better understanding of what social conditions are safe or safer and how to restrict the rest, support for people who really must isolate for safety, just for a start. Oh yes, and better financial support for people who otherwise have to work even in unsafe conditions. As I said, just for a start.

  31. [31] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re Kick's claim of "200 plus meetings with Russian agents" to get Putin to hack the DNC emails.

    And that's not even counting the time when he went on national TV to urge them to do it!

    No gawdam wonder he got caught at it. You can't put anything over on those sharp-witted Dems, right?

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    vaccines and masks and social distancing will all help, but the main things we need are time and collective will.

  33. [33] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Stucki,

    You seem to be minimizing the fact that hack = steal.

    Does overt criminal behavior not concern you?

    Regardless of whether or not you believe it affected the result of the election, Russiagate was NOT a big lie right from the start, manufactured by Dems/libs.

  34. [34] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Finally...'A mandate'

    As Trump might say, 'A landslide Electoral victory'...

    Trump will need the TARDIS to change this outcome.

    LL&P

  35. [35] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    ...I should point out, Trump, being an unbeliever in DR's won't have an easy time in securing the TARDIS for use in this event.

    LL&P

  36. [36] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Well, it seems that Friday the 13th is actually unlucky. Fat Donny is going to going to break his silence in about an hour from now.

  37. [37] 
    dsws wrote:

    Re [25], I'm not optimistic about us keeping mask mandates in place long enough. The course of the epidemic will depend on how good the vaccine is.

  38. [38] 
    John M wrote:

    Please keep in mind people:

    The current vaccine being talked about, the one that is farthest along, by Pfizer:

    1) Needs to be kept or stored at a very low temperature

    2) Requires 2 separate doses or shots over time, in order to be effective.

    That is going to be distribution both slow and expensive.

    Not many people are going to want to take TWO vaccination shots, and not many places have enough fridge space to store that much vaccine.

  39. [39] 
    John M wrote:

    Joe Manchin has already said that he will NOT support

    1) Doing away with the filibuster and

    2) Adding members to the Supreme Court

  40. [40] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Manchin, (not the beloved cartoon, 'Fairy God Parent's ManChin) the ludicrous Joe, can say what he wants...

    Food fight.

    LL&P

  41. [41] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Hey...is it my eyes, or did Trump go grey this week?

    LL&P

  42. [42] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Hey... Also, was it just me, or was President Flypaper on the verge of saying '... the incoming administration' during his grey-haired look unavailing...?

    LL&P

  43. [43] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Another portfolio goes down to a Trump lackey...thankfully, it's not an especially important one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCLp7zodUiI

    LL&P

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    To answer your question [in 25], I would need for you to be a little more specific. Would this vaccine be like a measles vaccine or a flu vaccine? Should I assume that people would actually take it? Would people be able to freely ignore these mask mandates w/o consequence?

    Well, let's say the vaccine(s) is 60% to 75% effective (I find it hard to believe that the Pfizer vaccine is 90% effective) and absolutely safe and recommended by all of the reputable scientists. And, let's assume that the vaccination rate is better than the average for vaccines, in general. I don't think that enforcing a mask mandate with penalties is advisable or even doable. It's better to keep trying to persuade people through effective public education campaigns.

    So, what do you think? Are mask mandates and vaccines enough to shut down the virus in your country?

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks everyone for replies to [25] - we have the makings for a very good discussion.

    I was listening to one of the WHO virtual press conferences the other day and they were talking about what the successful countries have done to shut down the virus and did they have any common elements that the rest of the world could learn from.

    It was a fascinating discussion - nothing we all haven't heard before and the answers are brilliant in their simplicity.

    JFC hit on one of those elements that successful countries had going for them - a high level of compliance from their citizens which, of course, went along with a high level of trust in their governments.

    Anyway, after I grab some dinner, I'll detail what Dr. Ryan, WHO Health Emergencies Programme Executive Director, had to say about this. I have learned so very much just listening to his very long and detailed answers to reporters' questions ...

    It might be a good idea to keep this discussion in this thread instead of taking it over to the FTP column just to keep it all in one place, if that makes sense??

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, just started going through my notes and realize that I'm going to have to transcribe the comments made by Drs Ryan and Van Kerkhove and won't get that done tonight ...

    But, I'll quickly answer my own question in [25] and supplement it later - maybe in the FTP column ...

    I don't think mask mandates, even if most Americans complied with them, along with vaccines, even if they are pretty effective and a good percentage of the population takes them, are anywhere near enough for the US to shut down this virus.

    The WHO Director General always says, 'Do it all!' ... and therein lies the real answer to how the US can shut down this virus.

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    23

    I do love it when I discover that you have beaten me to the punch -- and did it so much more ”eloquently” than I could have!

    I don't know about that, you are much more eloquent than I, but we are definitely peas and carrots... oh, wait... not carrots... we are peas... but not peas with the little onions... just peas.

    (that word means ”bluntly”, right?)

    That word "koshka"? Koshka is how they say "cat" in Russia. There is more than one way to skin a koshka... a cat like Mitch.

    Take care of yourselves up there. That is an order! :)

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    26

    Once again I am way ahead of the rest of you as my expectations from Biden are already at rock bottom.

    Yes, Don, you are the definite board champion in the race to the bottom in everything. You vote for yourself and encourage everyone else to do likewise even though it is not possible in the majority of states. You are the king of the political bottom dwellers hanging out on the swamp floor and trolling to be noticed.

    And I also have little expectation that CW will be any different than McConnell in the possibility of CW changing his tune and start actually addressing reality.

    Yes, Don, you are likewise the board champion of low expectations. Your real problem, bottom feeder, is that CW refuses to give a microphone to your ridiculous delusion that a lone fish like yourself withholding his support is going to get noticed by a politician in a sea of ~160 million other fish willing to engage in the political process.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.

    Swim toward the light, bottom feeder. :)

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    27

    OK, Kick has straightened out the whole Russiagate thing for me.

    When the Reps win, it was all Russia's doing.

    When the Dems win, Putin had no involvement!

    You seem married to the ignorance of a zero-sum game and determined to dumb yourself down... and here you keep claiming to be an economist! It's almost cute.

    How could I have been so dumb to miss something that logical?

    Right-winger types are painfully slow to "catch on" to sarcasm yet blazingly fast to just make up stupid shit.

    Any more questions, just ask. :)

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    29

    This, JFC! :)

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    31

    I agree your original post was weak. I too would have attempted to clarify my weak position if I were you; I just would have endeavored to clarify my point rather than add more evidence to the idiot pile.

    Also, I'm still not a Democrat no matter how many times dipshits like you post that fabrication. Simple-minded fools tend to fall back on that Party affiliation spew because it's so much easier than developing critical thinking skills. :)

  52. [52] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [44]

    I think we need for everybody to take one of those paper strip spit tests every day. They may not be 100% reliable, but if we're doing it every day, it's good enough.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    An effective testing regimen is a good start!

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]