Supreme Court: Have We Already Lost America? Thank you, Ralph.

[LoZoccolo]

This week has been a Supreme Court horror show. Today's decision, which comes close to overturning Brown vs. The Board of Ed, is about as horrific decision as any the Court has made since Plessy vs. Ferguson.

Mark it down. This week was a real turning point in the country's history. The stealing of the 2000 election has now achieved results that, even the most paranoid among us, would never have imagined. Thanks, Ralph Nader.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jun/28/supreme_court_have_we_already_lost_america

In the comments you can see that the big green lie and other Naderite twisted thinking is still alive and well.

[blm]

1. Cost more votes - Nader's run or Bill and Monica's affair in oval office?

One thing. One thing. Leads to another.

Sure I am mad at Ralph and blame him - to an EXTENT.

I also know the blame is not even CLOSE to being entirely his.

Why was a Bush2 candidacy even possible by 1999?

Bush2 happened because of decisions and actions that were made in early 1993 and beyond.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!

By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

>>>>>>>>>>

Parry allows full posting of his article but due to bandwidth considerations you should go to link for rest.

[LoZoccolo]

3. I remember Clinton getting some of his highest approval ratings after Monica.

Almost up to 70% if I remember correctly.

[blm]

8. People didn't want him IMPEACHED for sex. But the corpmedia was still able to use

Clinton's affair to make the case that Clinton had to be punished somehow.

BTW - What did you think of Parry's point that there should never even have BEEN a Bush2 administration even possible in 2001?

[madison]

7. I disagree with "blm"

Those Nader voters, in 2000 (especially the 95,000 who voted for Nader in Florida) -- who enabled Bush to get close enough to Al Gore to pitch the election into the courts and let it go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, -- made the presidency of George W. Bush happen.

Say what you will about anything else, if Nader had withdrawn from Florida -- as he had PROMISED to do in any state where the polls showed Bush within four percentage points of Al Gore -- we would not have had the horror we have had for the past 6 years (with two more years to go).

[blm]

11. Certainly - but what cost MORE votes? Can you quantify?

And can you also explain HOW on earth Bush2 would have been possible if Poppy Bush and his thugs had been held to account?

[MH1]

22. I agree that Clinton hurt Gore, but Nader made the difference.

Clinton was an idiot about his personal affairs, but OTOH, lots (most? all?) Presidents before him had affairs and got away with it. He should have known by the campaign shenanigans that it wasn't going to fly for him, but even then, the BIG mistake he made was not knowing the difference between playing around with an actress and playing around with someone who works for you. That last part is what made it fair game for many people, even if they didn't like the way Ken Starr and the republicans handled it.

BUT ** NADER MADE THE DIFFERENCE ** in 2000. Period. Gore was not Clinton but he was faced with an evolving and strengthening right-wing media attack brigade that managed to push utter lies about him to make the race close.

If instead of "not a dime's worth of difference" Nader had said "yes there is a difference - not in all areas but in some very important ones - vote for Gore!" then we'd be living in a much different world today.

[blm]

24. Yes, no defending Nader on that - but Florida was set up to be stolen no matter how many

votes Nader got.


Gore had over 100,000 more votes than Bush in Florida WITH Nader in the race.

How many votes were lost because the Dem PARTY never secured the election process before the election?

How many votes were lost because American people never knew the extent of Poppy Bush's crimes of office?

How many votes were lost because Clinton DID have sex with a young woman in the oval office?


My point is that Nader deserves SOME blame, but other factors of the prior 8 years ACTUALLY contributed MORE to the overall result.

[madison]

2. What is so friggin' hard for some to grasp about that?

I read that a CBS poll reveals "... that 53 percent of Americans -- especially political independents -- thought the U.S. needed a third political party"

Now that just terrifies me, because if the media whores start chanting this theme, the movement to encourage Ralph Nader or Mike Bloomberg to run will grow.

Both Nader and Bloomberg would take votes away from Democrats and HELP the Republicans to hold onto the White House -- AND a Republican would APPOINT THE NEXT U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

I do not know how I can make the danger any more clear.

If the Republicans get to appoint even one more Justice to the U.S. Sup.Ct., it is all over for :the poor, for blacks, for women, for students, for workers, for those injured by industrial or corporate criminal indifference to safety -- and for our rights, freedoms and liberties.

Everyone who reads this must make the danger clear to any of those who still think voting for a third-party candidate is good or even safe idea.

We are living right on the brink of the cliff's edge ... one more push and we are finished.

What is so friggin' hard for some to grasp about that?

And I don't want to hear any more crap about how "pure" Ralph Nader is ... he isn't ... he is no better than anyone else seeking public office .. he panders to get votes ... he knows he will never be elected president... and he is too cowardly to test his policies and theories out at some local or state-level office, because he KNOWS he would NEVER be able to produce on his promises ... he is a liar and a coward ... and he gave us Alito and Roberts on the U.S. Supreme Court.... and I despise him.

You know, during the 2000 presidential campaign, I BEGGED Nader supporters not to vote for him, to think about the RAMIFICATIONS for the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. They ignored me and continued to swoon over Ralphie's "purity." Well, we got eight years of GWBush and a loss of much that we valued in America ... we got enormous debt; a growing disparity between the rapidly disappearing middle-class and the very rich; a war without end in Iraq; an out-of-control Executive Branch; a Supreme Court that favors: corporations over workers, rich over poor, powerful over powerless, government over citizens, white over black; and a return of women to second-class citizenry .... the list goes on.

I would like to think that this time when I BEG for sanity, at least some will pay attention to the overwhelming evidence that a vote for a third-party candidate will only ensure the victory of the candidate LEAST LIKE the one you want to win.

Poll at: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Hillary_tops_Obama_in_CBS_poll_0629.html

[LoZoccolo]

5. I think they grasp it; they are just being manipulative.

I think the "my vote is mine nyah nyah nyah nyah" thing is the purview of impotent losers who know of no other way (or are willing to get up and try another way) of bringing about change.

[demgrrrll]

63. Kinda like Joe Lieberman

[ixion]

4. It wasn't Nader's fault... it was the media enabling a corrupt GOP

the result would have been the same whether Nader ran or not.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Your story does not make any sense.

The difference in Florida was 537 votes. If you had any certainty that the media could have pulled off a Bush* victory despite Nader, it wouldn't have been that close.

[blm]

13. The difference in Florida was +100,000 for Gore. If we had an honest media

that fact would be widely known and Gore would have taken office in 2001.

I think the poster's point is that the corpmedia was prepared to help Bush steal as many votes as necessary to win no matter what Nader's count.

[ixion]

30. as "the poster"

I can attest to this. :hi:

[blm]

32. and I agree with you 100%. After the evidence we've seen of media's complicity the last decade

I don't understand how anyone can miss the validity of your observation.

[ixion]

51. thanks, much appreciated.

:hi:

In truth, Al Gore won Florida.

[ProudDad]

40. The OP's point

is to try to get a rise out of anyone who isn't myopic and ignorant enough to believe that Ralph Nader was the ONLY reason bush was selected pResident by Sandra Day O'Conner.

Check out his avatar. One trick pony....

:boring:

[Uncle Joe]

48. The MCM waged an almost two year "War Against Gore"

trashing and slandering him left and right prior to the selection of 2000 aimed specifically at his integrity or credibility. They knew after eight years of Starr's witch hunt against Clinton, and the Lewinsky Scandal, the nation; in particular the moderate to conservative reddish states would be hungry for "honor & integrity" and tired of scandal. They knew Bush couldn't beat Al Gore on the issues, experience or competence, so they had to tear Al down and camouflage Bush's obvious shortcomings. Of course Bush ran on "restoring honor and integrity" to the White House for a reason, he or Rove knew it was the Democratic Achilles Heel and the MCM would carry Bush's talking points for him.

As much as I enjoy watching Letterman's "Great Presidential Speeches Skit" it's kind of bittersweet, because you never saw anything like this prior to 2000. Back then Bush was a just a regular guy; whom you would feel comfortable having in your home for a beer, keep in mind this was after Osama Bin Laden had already declared war against us, after the first attack against the World Trade Towers, after our embassies in Africa were blown up.

I'm convinced, had there been at least anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity in their reporting and coverage, Al Gore would have won in a landslide, putting the election too far out of reach for them to steal. Simply put Nader, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and the Felonious Five wouldn't have affected the race in any meaningful way.

I believe the MCM's primary motivation in doing this to Al Gore and by extension to the American People was precisely because he empowered us when he championed the Internet, thereby threatening their monopoly on information. Information equals power, influence and money. This is the source of their open disdain for him and this is why we have a bought and paid for piss poor shooting psychopath, babysitting a petulant man boy in the White House today.

[Dhalgren]

62. More eligible voters didn't vote, at all, in Florida, than voted for Nader.

Whose fault is that? It is ridiculous to blame people who voted for Nader for voting for who they wanted. People want to vote for who they want to vote for - blaming them because your candidate lost is just sad. The votes that went to Nader did not belong to you or your party, they belonged to the people who cast them. Who they voted for is none of your business. If you want their vote, work harder for it, otherwise, we all cast our own votes...

[kurth]

9. Problem was the Nader campaign saying Bush and Gore were indistinguishable

which was pure evil bullshit.

[AtomicKitten]

10. indeed it was

insidiously pure evil bullshit

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Bill Clinton is one busy bee

what with his being responsible for 9/11 and the Iraq War and all that.

Uneffinbelievable.

[blm]

25. Poppy Bush being held accountable for his crimes would have prevented 9-11 and Iraq war.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[AtomicKitten]

27. by your reasoning

John Kerry effectively fighting the Swift Boat Liars would have stopped the Iraq War.

Perhaps you should take that up with him in your blaming quest.

[blm]

28. Iraq war came about because of BushInc's dealings in the 70s and 80s.

BTW - Iraq military action started in 1990. Everything else, minor and major acts, have been continuing acts of military force.

[AtomicKitten]

29. I have often wondered how you square

the fact that GHWBush had the good sense not to invade Iraq when the PNAC boys tee'd it up for him.

Your sense of history is irretrievably distorted. That's what happens when venomous blaming goes awry.

I'll leave you to your bile.

[blm]

31. What does Bush1 not furthering the war at THAT time have to do with why and how we were in Iraq

in the first place and why and how we were involved with their government unlawfully in the 70s and 80s?

You are extraordinarily benevolent in your regard of Poppy Bush.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Well you stated that it's all connected

Yet AK points out validly that the plans drafted by Wolfowitz including taking of Baghdad and US Hegemony (what would later become the PNAC doctrine) were rejected by GHWBush and Colin Powell. The PNAC crowd that was rejected by Poppy would later become the key foreign policy figures in the current administration.

[blm]

37. "at that time' doesn't let Poppy Bush off the hook for why and how we ARE in Iraq

and their overall designs for the region made in the 70s and 80s.

If Poppy was so innocent on that score, then why the extensive coverup and stonewalling on Iraqgate?

And of course, according to Bush and Clinton it was all a 'lone wolf 35 yr old bank manager in Atlanta' who conducted the entire operation, so that is just fine with you, eh?

[ProudDad]

43. GHWbush

didn't have the good sense to block his puppet Saddam and instead had April Glasby give Saddam the "green light" to invade Kuwait.

[ProudDad]

41. When it comes to the fact that

they were both the paid tools of the corporations and the capitalist masters...

He was 100% right.

And the '08 race will also be between two corporate shills...

That's just the way it is in corporate owned Amerika....

[Warren Stupidity]

14. What "the Clenis did it" is not longer operative?

Why do you keep giving Nader so much free PR?

[arendt]

15. When are you going to stop waving this strawman argument to cover DLC Dems asses?

Try reading this thread (posted right now in this very forum):

....From Democrats.com....Fertik's angry rant the day after the Alito "betrayal".

I don't like Nader, and I didn't vote for him.

But posts like this do every progressive Dem a disservice by distracting
people from the real enemy - the fifth column of corporate Democrats.

The Democratic Senate had every opportunity to kill the Roberts and Alito
nominations with a filibuster; but they caved - like they have caved on
everything else.

Ralph Nader is a whipping boy, a scapegoat for the DINO corporate Dems
who can't sell out the middle class fast enough.

Why do you persist with this canard?

arendt

[LoZoccolo]

16. I reject the premise of your question. n/t

[arendt]

19. How "assertive" of you! I guess you don't need any reason to do that. You are the "decider". n/t

[LoZoccolo]

21. I am also the "commander guy". n/t

[Dr Fate]

58. How about you, LoZoccolo- can you show us your old posts that are in support of the filibuster?

As pissed at you are Nader, surely you broke ranks with the Blue Dogs and DLCers supported the Filibuster, didnt you?

???

[Dr Fate]

59. I've asked if Zolocco himself was in support of the Filibuster.

I'm sure he will be glad to share his old posts with us expressing that support.

Seeing as how he is so pissed at Nader- surely he supported the filibuster.

[OneBlueSky]

17. Ralph didn't lose the 2000 election . . . in fact, Gore won . . .

the election was stolen, pure and simple . . . the result would have been the same whether Ralph ran or not . . .

not a Ralph fan particularly . . . just sayin' . . .

[Sparkly]

20. "the result would have been the same whether Ralph ran or not " -- Not so. nt

[blm]

26. Gore won by over 100,000 votes in Florida. BushInc was stealing as many votes

as they needed no matter what happened.

Nader's candidacy ended up providing added COVER for the GOP which they and the corpmedia used to make it SOUND plausible that Gore lost.

[Sparkly]

35. They only got 547 votes over

If Nader had supported Gore, that balance could have been overcome.

[blm]

38. No - that was the bogus vote count as per the interrupted recount.

The thorough counting of ALL ballots showed Gore would have won with over 100,000 votes.

[Sparkly]

54. Yes I know. But all they came up with as a "victory" was 547 votes.

Yes, had all ballots been properly counted, Gore would have come out ahead.

ALSO, had Nader supported Gore instead of opposing him, Gore would have come out ahead.

[blm]

56. In my view, Florida was set up for stealing even without Nader in the race.

Nader's candidacy DID provide then with plausible cover for a Bush win which the media latched onto, however, and THAT is how he was used.

[Sparkly]

18. Another historic reminder: There IS A DIFFERENCE between Democrats and Republicans!!!!

Despite all the whining that Democratic politicians and Republican politicians are just alike -- basically because they're all, hello, politicians -- elections have deep, longterm consequences.

We all have our differences, in one way or another, with the party, its leadership, its reps in Congress, etc. etc., and we can either pick at those gripes incessantly and wring our hands and preach about how things SHOULD be and what WE want, or we can open our eyes, swallow hard, and do what we can to save our nation from regressing any further.

Ralph Nader -- and any other professional political grousers -- have zero credibility on effecting change, except in making things WORSE.

Don't get me started!!! :mad:

[blm]

52. Nader's "No difference" was a pile of BS and Clinton used that same tact re Lamont v Lieberman.

There ARE people obstructing the real left in this country during elections and it isn't always Ralph Nader. To be perfectly Twin Peaks about it - The owls aren't always what they seem.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

33. he is not to blame.

I think the blame can be spread around more broadly than that.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

39. Boring...

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[depakid]

42. Nader has been proven absoutely right on this point

The Democrats had the information and the power to keep Scalia & Thomas AND Roberts & Alito off of the court- along with tons of other extremists judges, but they pander to the far right and refuse to use it-

That was an accurate an observation at the time- and an even more prescient prediction of future actions.

I expect no less from the enablers the next time some lunatic comes up for confirmation.

[ProudDad]

44. As long as a SCOTUS nominee is pro-corporate

he's ok with the majority of the Dems...

It obviously doesn't matter much what his views are otherwise as long as he keeps them to himself during the hearings.

[ClassWarfare2008]

45. Ralph Nader didn't have a vote in confirming Supreme Court justices.

But some republicans pretending to be Democrats did.

[MadHound]

46. And damn if their powder isn't still dry.

It amazes me how Democratic apoligists manage to blame all of the problems with the Democratic party on Nader. Hell, apparently Nader is more powerful than the Clenis, managing to do all of these dastardly things with two percent of the vote and not being in public office.

[Dr Fate]

61. Next they will tell us it's Nader's fault for thier support of Joe Lieberman (I).

It's Nader's fault that I supported a 3rd party!!! ;)

[SOS]

47. And the horrible Joe Lieberman

didn't cost Gore even one vote.
Not one!

[ChenZhen]

49. The Nader issue isn't so Black and White

This is the last argument Id want to get into....so alas, I won't contribute but a point.


That being, why did Nader run in the first place as a 3rd party member? Or rather, why was Nader abscribing to a 3rd party philosophy? And further....what caused Nader to severe his ties and relationship with the Democratic party and stray this way (though I know he wasn't a member he was certainly tied to them)?


Look in history and see how/when that happened. This is the why for 20 years later.



After his split and dissapointment, he began *percieving* little differences between Democrats and Republicans. I will not attest to the accuracy of such a perception, but I will rather say that he alone is not responsible soley for that perception.

We live in a complicate reciprocal environment, which acts upon you more than you can act upon it. Our world can accurately and unaccurately shape our minds, attitudes and opinions, as much or more than we can ourselves.

What shaped his to have this perception, one that manifested in a 2000 Nader run? Was he alone responsible for the way he felt? Or was the environmental influence of certain Democrats along the way partially responsible?






Here we sit, with congress at their lowest rating, people critizing Pelosi and Reid (maybe without justification), and people generally being fed up. You know, many of you, whether you like it or not, may be just feeling exactly like Nader had early in his political career when Carter took office. And yet, so many of you refuse to have understanding about how history unravels.


The world is not black and white. We are products and producers of complex chain reactions that guide history. To deny this is to be rather close minded, and as robotic as any conservative you can find. Thats all just a point to the Nader Haters.


But that aside, with no crystal ball to judge who would be president if he ran or not, NO ONE is in the position to hold anyone responsible as a "spoiler" without making a giant leap off a cliff of assumption, as great as a leap as believing Iraq had weapons, the free market will produce the most good, tax cuts for the rich magically revive the economy, and the Christian moral system should be legislated on us all to produce Utopia.

Giant leaps of assumption without crystal balls lead people in giant pools of dogshit.

[Forkboy]

50. That's one of the best responses I've seen on this issue.

:applause:

[Vidar]

64. As long as the DLC is calling the shots, Nader is right: there is little difference.

[DancingBear]

53. Yawn

Last Presidential election I worked full-tilt for the Democratic candidate.

This year I'll probably vote third party.

And you think it's Nader's fault??

If you want to know the real reason, just look in the mirror.

If you have one.

[Sparkly]

55. You're voting third-party because LoZoccolo has spinach in his teeth?

Or what?

I'm not sure what your point is.

[Dr Fate]

57. LOL! It was not Naderites telling us to "Keep your powder dry"- it was conservative, DLC types.

I think the conservative Democrats who opposed the filibuster share as much- even more blame than Naderites.

Your post is ironic-because many of the same conservative, DLC types who opposed the filibuster supported their own 3rd party- Lieberman's run against a Democrat in CT.

[Dr Fate]

60. He LoZoccolo- did you support Alito's filibuster? If so, show us the posts!!!

As pissed as you are at those people who support 3rd parties- I think it's fair to ask if you supported the Alito filibuster.

Did you? Show us the posts then, because I dont remember it that way.

Also, as a person who hates 3rd parties, what was your position on Joe Lieberman (I), once he hinted that he might embark on a 3rd party run? What did your posts at DU say about 3rd party runs at the time?