Skip to comments.A Message to Rudy Giuliani and His Supporters (VANITY)
Posted on 02/23/2007 7:45:02 AM PST by Alberta's Child
There have been quite a few threads posted on the subject of Rudy Giulianis prospective candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2008, and the endless back-and-forth on these threads has reached a fever pitch at times. Ive refrained from posting extensively on these threads in recent days because theyve started to get someone repetitive and tiresome, but also because Ive been compiling a lot of material to include in a thread of my own. I post my comments here without any cross-dressing photos or Rudy trading card images (though I do appreciate them, folks!), and without any personal animosity toward anyone, though many of you may know me as one who has strongly opposed his candidacy for quite some time.
I dont post vanities here very often (and usually only when Im looking for advice!), so I think my comments here are worth a read.
The pro-Rudy arguments typically fall along these lines:
1. Rudy Giuliani is really a conservative. Freepers who use this argument will often cite examples -- sometimes accurate, sometimes exaggerated, but occasionally even downright false -- of cases in which his mayoral administration in New York City pursued a particular course of action that most of us would agree is conservative from a political/philosophical standpoint. His well-documented track record as mayor of NYC offers plenty of such examples, some of which would include his administrations success in fighting crime (for all his baggage associated with this, as described below), improving the business climate in the city, etc. The biggest flaw in this approach is that his track record is only conservative if you focus entirely on these specific issues and ignore the rest of them. I believe this specific view of Giulianis background has been sufficiently debunked by substantial, accurate references to his public statements and actual record in public office.
2. Rudy Giuliani is not a 100% conservative, and its unrealistic for anyone to think a 100% conservative could be elected president in 2008. The underlying point here is valid in general, but the argument is usually accompanied by accusations that opponents of Rudy Giuliani are "100-Percenters" who insist on a candidates fealty to the entire conservative agenda. This would only be a legitimate argument if applied to a candidate who is conservative on, say, 70% of the issues -- but it is awfully silly when used to support a candidate who is conservative on about 20% of the issues -- especially the "defining issues" for so many conservatives. Calling someone who refuses to support a liberal candidate a "100-Precenters" is comical -- and certainly isnt going to get a candidate any more support among conservative voters.
3. Rudy Giuliani is not a 100% conservative, but hell be relentless in the "war on terror" (whatever the heck that means) and therefore hes the best GOP candidate in 2008. This is basically a corollary to Point #2, in which a Giuliani supporter who knows damn well that hes conservative on only 20% of the issues will try to transform him into a hard-core conservative by pretending that one issue is somehow weighted disproportionately to the others and therefore this 20% is magically transformed to 80%. That doesnt fly with me, folks. Basing your support of a candidate on your own assertion of "the most important issue" is silly, especially when you consider that most voters may not necessarily agree with (A) your presumption of the most important issue, or (B) your view of which candidate is in the best position to address this issue.
4. Rudy Giuliani may only be 20% conservative, but thats better than Hillary/Obama/Stalin/Pol Pot/etc. At least this argument is based on an honest assessment of Mr. Giulianis political philosophy, but this is no way to win elections. Yes, a "20% conservative" is better than a "10% conservative," but then pneumonia is a terrible affliction except in comparison to tuberculosis, too. Supporting an unabashed liberal candidate is basically a complete abdication of our principles on the altar of "pragmatism," and while this is one thing when were talking about the minutiae of tax policy, entitlement reform, etc., it is entirely different when we are dealing with political principles that serve as the underlying foundation of our political views.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY I HAVE BEEN ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO GIULIANIS CANDIDACY FOR SO LONG. ILL LIST THEM ALL HERE, AND THEN FOLLOW THEM UP WITH A MORE GENERAL PERSPECTIVE AT THE END.
Reason #1: The Pro-Life Issue
Rudy Giulianis background and public statements on this issue have been well-documented here on FreeRepublic in recent months. Its bad enough that legitimate conservative opposition to him on this issue is dismissed so readily by lumping it together with social issues (as if the protection of human life is nothing more than a social construct and not at the root of any functioning culture that intends to survive over a long period of time), but what is particularly preposterous is that Giulianis views on this issue represent a radical, left-wing extremist position that even many pro-abortion Democrats find completely unacceptable (Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, and Tom Daschle were three of many Democrats in the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Federal late-term abortion ban in 2003). Some people right here on FreeRepublic -- for some reason that baffles the hell out of me -- have even go so far as to suggest that his obfuscation on this issue makes him something of a sort of pro-life candidate. His track record particularly with regard to the issue of late-term abortion illustrates how utterly absurd this is.
Keep in mind that the Republican Party has not had a pro-abortion presidential candidate since Gerald Ford ran and lost in 1976 -- which means no pro-abortion GOP candidate has ever won a presidential election. In fact, much of the partys success at the voting booth over the last 30 years was attributable to its ability to capitalize on pro-life Democrats who had become utterly repulsed by their own partys stand on this issue. The Republican Party ought to think long and hard about turning its back on the pro-life movement right now.
Reason #2: Illegal Immigration
This issue has been a hot topic of discussion over the last 12-18 months in the mainstream media as well as right here on FreeRepublic, and any candidate who ignores it does so at his own peril. Unfortunately for Giuliani, it is impossible for him to reconcile his track record with anything other than the most permissive open-borders policy imaginable. While mayor of New York City he was an unabashed supporter of illegal immigration, and even went so far as to maintain a sanctuary city policy regarding illegal immigrants in direct violation of those provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that specifically outlawed this type of crap. His actions with regard to that Federal law were particularly disgraceful in light of the fact that he himself had been a Federal prosecutor at one time, and with this one issue he has effectively exposed his "law & order" reputation -- which people might otherwise consider a strong asset -- as a complete fraud.
It also made him terribly weak on other issues -- especially in the aftermath of 9/11. If the mayor of New York City could take it upon himself to blatantly ignore key provisions of this Federal law, would it be acceptable for a mayor or governor to knowingly and egregiously violate terms of the Patriot Act for purely political reasons? Would it be acceptable for the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan to harbor militants from Hamas and Hezbollah in his city? Would it be acceptable for mayors of other cities to ignore the various Federal laws that Rudy Giuliani himself called for incessantly when he was the mayor of New York City?
Reason #3: Gun Control
That last statement is a perfect lead-in to my third point. I thought the pro-life movement would be the most difficult hurdle for a Giuliani campaign to overcome, but the backlash among gun owners here on FreeRepublic to his recent appearance on Hannity & Colmes was pretty shocking. Watching Giuliani twist himself into knots while engaging in that pathetic display of political gymnastics even made me embarrassed for him. As with the pro-life issue, this is one in which his background and well-documented track record cannot possibly be rationalized from a conservative standpoint.
And for all the silly nonsense Ive heard about how tough Rudy Giuliani would be against terrorism, the reality is that he has an extensive track record of opposing the most effective means of protection Americans have at their disposal against the kind of terrorism they are most likely to encounter in their lives -- e.g., a couple of homosexual Muslims driving around the D.C. suburbs shooting people at random, some loser Muslim from Bosnia shooting people at random in a Salt Lake City shopping mall, an Iranian-born jack@ss driving his car onto a crowded sidewalk in North Carolina, etc.
And in the one specific case before 9/11 where Rudy Giuliani had to deal with a terrorist attack as mayor of New York City -- the case of the Palestinian malcontent shooting people on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in 1997 -- Giuliani was complicit in the media cover-up of the incident (in which the perpetrators political motivations were brushed aside, he was portrayed as a mentally unstable loner, and the gun he used became the primary culprit). His public statements in the aftermath of that attack contained no mention of terrorism at all -- and in fact he went so far as to use the attack to support his public anti-gun campaign. His statements in the days and weeks after the incident have been posted here a number of times, and ought to be a shocking, disgraceful warning sign even for his strongest supporters here.
Tough on terrorism, my @ss.
Reason #4: If You Can Make it There, Youre Disqualified
In one sense, Giulianis approach to law enforcement, gun control, etc. was perfectly acceptable when he was the mayor of New York City. But it was for all the wrong reasons when it comes to presidential politics. In some ways his no-holds-barred approach to law enforcement (selective as it was, as I have pointed out above in Reason #2) and blatant antagonism toward the Bill of Rights would appeal to some folks the same way they would find the streets of Tokyo or Singapore safe and clean, or the same way they might be quite comfortable with Alberto Fujimoris strong-arm tactics against the Shining Path militants in Peru. But Tokyo is not an American city, and Peru is not the United States . . . and nor, quite frankly, is New York City. People who walk around New York City can take some comfort in the notion that there are 40,000 police officers in that jurisdiction, and that few of their fellow pedestrians are permitted to carry guns. The city is just a place to do business, and for all intents and purposes these people arent even Americans anyway (Rudy Giuliani himself formally acknowledged this when he climbed his pedestal as an unabashed champion of illegal immigration) -- so who really cares? New York City might as well be an international protectorate, and the political climate there is such that anyone who can win an election in that city has no business leading this country. Conservatives ought to be no more willing to trust this man to uphold basic principles of constitutional law than they would trust Michael Bloomberg.
Its no coincidence that there hasnt been a New Yorker on a successful national ticket since a nearly-deceased FDR won for the last time in 1944 -- a period that now exceeds 60 years even though New York has been one of the three largest states in the U.S. in terms of electoral votes for that entire time. Most of the issues that occupy the minds of voters in New York are completely alien to ordinary Americans -- which is why the Big Apple has been at the forefront among big cities in almost every recent story involving the intrusion of a big, nanny-state government into the personal lives of its residents . . . from smoking bans, to laws against trans-fats, to the latest half-baked idea to hit the airwaves: the prohibition against the used of cell phones by pedestrians.
None of this should come as any surprise to us, since New York City has long been detached from reality when it comes to American culture and politics. The American Revolution was fought throughout most of the Thirteen Colonies, but was won largely the South -- New York City having remained in British hands throughout most of the conflict. Mass immigration from Ireland and Wales made it a foreign city even as far back as 160 years ago, and the Eastern European immigration of the early 20th Century introduced an element -- radical secularism and (later) communism -- that has only grown stronger over time. Almost every rabidly anti-American ideology at work in this country can trace its roots to New Yorks academic and cultural institutions.
Today, much of Rudy Giulianis media support is coming from big-city, cosmopolitan neo-conservatives who have a long history of supporting interventionist foreign policy (I would have to devote an entire thread to this one issue), but have never been much for supporting traditional American values and often give some pretty clear indications that they have never even read the U.S. Constitution (the New York Post has a long-held editorial view in favor of gun control, and have the words Second Amendment or the phrase right to keep and bear arms ever been printed in the Weekly Standard?
These people have an agenda that is not mine, and any lapdog in the neo-conservative media -- and that includes Rupert Murdochs mouthpieces at Fox News, the New York Post, etc. -- who goes out on a limb to support such a radical left-wing candidate (that means you, Sean Hannity and Deroy Murdock) has basically lost all of his/her credibility as a conservative commentator.
. . .
What this all comes down to is that each and every one of us is either a Republican or a conservative. Because the Republican Party platform has been quite conservative (and downright hard-core right-wing, in comparison to the Democratic platform) in recent decades, weve managed to delude ourselves into believing that Republican and conservative are always synonymous. Rudy Giulianis prospective candidacy for the GOP nomination in 2008 should put this tenuous relationship between party affiliation and political philosophy in the proper light. We are either Republicans first, or we are conservatives first -- there is no middle road here.
Regarding one other item related to Rudy Giulianis campaign that pops up on these threads repeatedly (Ive steadfastly tried to avoid mentioning it, but it cannot be overlooked) . . .
Anyone who has the time to do some research on Rudy Giuliani might want to sit down and do an extensive search through old newspaper articles, internet articles, etc. -- and try to find any such article where Mr. Giuliani is doing something that anyone would consider manly in any normal sense -- and by this I mean engaging in physical activity, playing a sport, or doing just about anything that most normal people would associate with manliness. Ive looked long and hard for this, and I simply cant find one. I mean, even something staged as a photo-op for PR purposes -- like Ronald Reagan riding a horse or chopping wood on his California ranch, George W. Bush clearing brush on his ranch or driving around Crawford in that big white Ford F-350 Super Duty truck -- is nowhere to be found.
If the cross-dressing photos of Rudy Giuliani arent necessarily bothersome in and of themselves, they raise some serious warning flags in light of the points Ive mentioned above. I suspect this is what Giulianis own campaign staff had in mind when they referred to the weirdness factor as a potential stumbling block in an election campaign. And its very important to note that this warning was documented all the way back in 1993, not 2007 -- which means it dates all the way back to his second mayoral race in New York City. Anyone who comes across as weird in New York City would be a bizarre freak according to the standards of at least 95% of the people in this country.
Call me paranoid, and call me judgmental, but something about this whole thing just aint right. Run down the list of all those things that ought to be setting off warning bells in the minds of normal, decent people . . . the cross-dressing . . . the public statements extolling the work of Planned Parenthood and eugenicist Margaret Sanger . . . the enthusiastic support from NARAL . . . the hosting of those Gay Pride and Stonewall Veterans Association events . . . those bizarre marriages.
Perhaps Freud had it right when he postulated that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. (General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, 1952)
The last thing this country needs right now is an effete, dysfunctional weirdo from New York City serving as its chief executive.
And lest anyone think Im an unreasonable man, Id like everyone to take a look at the article posted below. I wrote it in the turbulent aftermath of the 2000 election, and posted it here on FreeRepublic when the election results were finally certified in mid-December of that that year. (The link below is a re-post of that article from 2004).
The Triumph of Little America
You can be sure that the passionate (but also extremely objective) conservative who penned those words in December of 2000 will never support Rudy Giuliani in 2008. Ive traveled across this country too many times -- and know too much about what this country is really all about -- for me to support a big-government, liberal globalist from New York City in a presidential race, regardless of his party affiliation.
And anyone here who works for the Republican Party in any capacity -- and anyone regularly browses through various threads here on FreeRepublic on behalf of a GOP candidate or a GOP media outlet -- should heed this message . . .
IF YOURE TRYING TO SELL A PHONY CONSERVATIVE, THEN THIS FELLA AINT GONNA BE YOUR CUSTOMER.
America is even more socialist now than in 2000 and 2004..
Hitlery WILL BE elected because of that in 2008.. no matter who survives the primarys,
even Newt or Duncan..
Bush has fractured the party like an auto windshield.. because of immigration and fiscal faux pas.. He(Bush) barely won in 2000 and 2004.. 2008 is another story.. America is getting itself brain washed.. and as 2008 gets closer the propaganda will get much more intense..
Already Ellen DeGeneres and Oprah are linking up.. Letterman and Leno are already working daily.. 2008 is another animal.. Republicans mostly are clueless.. or in denial..
You know.... Ostriches...
Please do FReepmail me when you hear back from Hunter.
Alberta's Child, YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!
"and nor, quite frankly, is New York City. People who walk around New York City can take some comfort in the notion that there are 40,000 police officers in that jurisdiction, and that few of their fellow pedestrians are permitted to carry guns. The city is just a place to do business, and for all intents and purposes these people arent even Americans anyway "
When I was a little kid growing up in New Jersey many years ago, after many visits to New York City, I EVEN THEN concluded that America began at the Hudson River.
Sadly, due to the diffusion of liberal New Yorkers into the Garden State, and in some cases, even PA, America now begins at the Delaware River. Not that ALL New York City residents are liberals - but the voting record and election results over many decades indicates that a great many of them - the vast majority - are.
This is a GREAT piece. It deserves to be on FOX News, or Hannity or Mark Levin or in the National Review. You very cogently make the case against Giuliani and lay out clearly and logically why he is not the personality he is attempting to morph himself into.
Like most people here, I'm a conservative first, which explains why I am a Republican. I will work very hard for a conservative Republican like Hunter, or Gingrich. Should the unthinkable happen and Giuliani, Romney or McCain get the nomination, I certainly will never vote for the Democrat, but I will have to do some serious soul searching about voting for any of the latter three candidates. But what I decide will have little impact on the repsonse in America's heartland to any one of these three loosers. Enough of the conservative majority of the Republican base will fail to support them, guarenteeing a Hillery victory. (And I don't for one minute believe Obama or anyone else in that party can compete effectively against a dup who made Arkancide a word in the English Language.)
My prediction is that Giuliani will get nominated due tot he number of candidates running. Hunter will get exposure as a viable conservative alternative. History will repeat itself and, as with the case with Ford, Giuliani will loose to Hillery. Hillery, with the help of the Democrat Congress and RINOs will turn America into a living hell - a leftist basketcase. In 2010 the Repubs will take back the Congress and then in 2012, the Presidency. Hillery, lacking the sleazy finesse and oratorical skill, as well as the pragmatism of her consort, will be a one-term President and in her last two years will be crippled by a hostile COngress.
Quit making sense!! You are spoiling the thread! :)
Well, some of us read the threads for the articles.
There's a substantial discussion upthread about the posting of the pictures. You apparently missed it.
I think he used to be our Governor or something...
An excellent post which sums up the reasons why I, and others who think like me will never be talked, bribed, cajoled, or threatened into voting for Rudy. Now his supporters may make a calculation that there simply aren't enough conservatives who care about the issues you cite to make a difference in an election. Perhaps they are right. In my estimation, if Rudy is nominated because there's a split in the conservative constituency among several candidates, Rudy will lose the general election by historic proportions...and rightfully so.
"I'm a Rudy Supporter. Not sure how I got pinged."
So, what did you think of info in this thread? Make you want a stiff drink?
You need to see the other reply after this one to you. I am not a Newt supporter.
I disagree with the idea that one must be in the race already, or two full years before the election.
IMO, the globo-corporate mediot purpose of running Rudy Giuliani is to assure that Hillary gets elected. If he wins the nomination, many disheartened conservatives stay home and she wins. If a conservative is nominated, Rudy's campaign will have fomented the RINOs to turn to a McCain third party run or the equivalent. If we want a prayer of having a conservative in the White House, we need to end this charade EARLY.
IMO, that means promoting the only unambiguous conservative with cross party appeal in the race: Duncan Hunter. His stands on trade and illegal immigration are likely to enlist a great many cross-over votes.
Well yes, the Anti-Rudy Oompa Loompas* do seem to be fascinated by them.
*AROL: Anti-Rudy Oompa Loompas - necessary to the story, but they sure are annoying...
Those purges drained half of the blood from this forum.
Don't worry. We'll evolve more.
Good post. It's way past time to put this country back on track, which means NO LIBERALS of any sort.
If Rudy (or any other Rino) gets the nomination, FreeRepublic will be his biggest supporter. I saw the transformation Robinson went through when Bush became the chosen one. I have no reason to believe it will be any different this time. Everyone should get it out of their systems now.
The point is that you should look at all the information not just his accomplishments. Most everyone knows all of Rudy's good points. That's the problem. I was ready to crown him King of America after 9/11, but like most people I had no idea of what his views on ALL the issues were. I just saw the (R) after his name and thought he was a conservative on most issues, but now we see he isn't and people need to know that.
You might be tired of seeing these views expressed in many different threads, but new people log onto FR every day and this might be the first and only thread they see that shows them a more complete view of Guiliani. If you disagree with anything said then you should post and give your opinion, but there needs to be pro and anti views expressed on all the candidates so we know the pros and cons on all of them.
Like most Anti-Rudyites out there, there's the diatribe, then silence.
If you don't like Rudy, then who do you like that has a ghost of a chance of winning?
Sheraton San Diego Hotel and Marina
You are welcome.
Wouldn't THAT be convenient for those misguided folks who are openly campaigning for the most liberal Republican presidential candidate in history on a conservative forum?
Heck, why don't we open up forums for campaigning for Hillary and Obama too!? That would be more "fair" - right?
Maybe we could start a forum here for conservative bashing - which seems to be your particular bent ever since the start of the California governor's recall election. Would that work for you too? You could collect all of the anti-Duncan Hunter photoshops you churn out (you've posted some already and it is obvious that you're just getting warmed up in the conservative-bashing department) and plaster them all over the place. I'm sure you could come up with some really good ones to bash on Tancredo and Gilmore too. No conservative would be able to escape your derision.
Or maybe, just a thought, we could stick with the original plan here and promote conservatives and conservatism while exposing the liberals and doing damage to liberalism. On a site dedicated to promoting conservatives and conservatism, all candidates - Republican or otherwise - are not created equal. And when you're talking about a pro-abortionist, gun-grabbing, globalist, anti-first amendment, pro-radical gay agenda liberal like Giuliani, he's going to get what he deserves.
The reason posts like mine are inserted by myself and others into Rudy threads has been explained to you by myself and others. Similar factual posts attacking other liberals and their positions are inserted into posts about people like Hillary and Obama. No difference. We've done that for years here. But, suddenly, when it effects your favorite liberal, you get all whiny about it. And it really is whining. Most of the threads you're talking about are hundreds of posts in length - some are into the thousands. Two or three posts exposing Rudy's odius liberalism and history amount to less than 1% of most of those threads. So, quit whining, stop bashing the conservative candidates, knock off the attempts to demoralize the supporters of the conservative candidates, and try rooting for a conservative candidate for a change.
(I'll do the courteous thing foryou and ping the Freeper you mentioned by name.)
Glenn prognosticated: If Rudy (or any other Rino) gets the nomination, FreeRepublic will be his biggest supporter. I saw the transformation Robinson went through when Bush became the chosen one. I have no reason to believe it will be any different this time. Everyone should get it out of their systems now.
Most Rudy threads go into hundreds of posts. 2 or 3 of those posts may be repeats containing factual information designed to educate FReepers and lurkers about Rudy. Do the math and quit your whining.
Did you read the post? Obviously not.
AC said he would be away from the keys for a time.
You are wasting my time. I know full well how an election campaign is conducted. Go argue your Rudy-rot somewhere else.
Actually, it is said in Post #1 that AC would be away from the keys. Sorry. So, did you read the thread or just drive by?
Maybe, just maybe, Jim Robinson and a number of previous "broken glass Republicans" are sick and tired of being taken for granted. Nominating a liberal like Giuliani and expecting us to hold our noses once again, this time for the most odious liberal GOP nominee in history, may just be too much. I know it is for me. I can't vote for him. I can't speak for Jim, but he just might not allow the GOP kingmakers to take him for granted anymore. If Giulian is the nominee, you will see a split in the Republican Party of historic proportions. From which, the GOP may never recover. Have you heard of the Whig Party? Yeah, kinda like that.
Needs to said again.. and hard questions answered..
The republican denial is massive..
Seems obvious to me.. but most republicans are oblivious.. even here(FR)..
Did you read mine either?
ALL RUDY DIATRIBES are just that - diatribes. Lots of problems with Rudy, and no viable alternatives proffered.
AC could have popped his preferred alternative in at the end of his post.
As to that, any of the Anti-Rudy crowd can do the same thing, but they generally don't.
Some people are talking about Hunter.
He can't raise the money, and winning a house seat isn't the same as winning a gubernatorial bid. Most districts are pretty heavily gerrymandered, and represent dukedoms more than districts.
If Hunter wants to run for President, he could run for governor in 2008, win, then run for the WH.
It's the only way he's going to be able to build the organization and the fund raising required to do the job.
Now prepare for the onslaught of Rutards who will dismiss all the evidence and enlessly repeat their misinformed mantra.
Duh, Roodi is tuff on terrer!
Uh, like Rooty will point strickt construction worker judges.
Da presdent aint got no sey bout aborshun and gun cuntrull.
Yure just a anapeesabul 100%er.
As long as people are convinced that the two must be the same, we will all continue to be disappointed and at contention with others we think we should be in constant agreement with.
As much as I would like to see a President of the United States act like a conservative; balance the budget, reduce government spending and government size; provide for our common defense, and promote our general well-being, I realize that life is a series of compromises.
As a result, I generally support the current President, even though he has exhibited no control over spending and I disagree with his treatment of our national security over the southern border.
I generally support Republicans in Congress, even though they made a complete mess of the homosexual predator situation by refusing to deal with a mess because of political correctness.
The point is, that while I would like to see a true conservative President, the only one I'm hearing about is Duncan Hunter, who most voters have not heard of. And even then, I don't know enough about him to be confident that he would act like a conservative in the White House.
So that leaves me with Republicans. And of all the people in the race, the one I like best is Rudy. Why? Because I think he would do the best job of getting the important things done. We can disagree about qualifications, philosophies, and track records, but I am most comfortable supporting a person I can agree with who appears to be electable.
Of course, a Guliani / Hunter ticket would work for me.
So the 9/11 attack on the WTC really didn't hit America, did it? Disgraceful.
Argue your Rudy-rot with someone else here, then.