Andrew Kohut: The GOP Might Be Out Of Step With Some Voters, But Mitt Romney Was An Unusually Unpopular Party Standard-Bearer.

Misreading Election 2012 The GOP might be out of step with some voters, but Mitt Romney was an unusually unpopular party standard-bearer.
By ANDREW KOHUT

Postelection talk of "lessons learned" is often exaggerated and misleading, and so it is in 2012.

A week after President Obama won re-election, two themes are dominant. First, that Mr. Obama kept his job because key elements of his base—notably young people, African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans—turned out for him. Second, that the growing size of these voting blocs represents a decisive challenge for the Republican Party.

Both points are true, but most observers are overstating the gravity of the GOP's problem. In particular, they are paying too little attention to how weak a candidate Mitt Romney was, and how much that hurt Republican prospects.

Here is what the exit poll found. Mr. Romney's personal image took a hard hit during the primary campaign and remained weak on election day. Just 47% of exit-poll respondents viewed him favorably, compared with 53% for Mr. Obama. Throughout the campaign, Mr. Romney's favorable ratings were among the lowest recorded for a presidential candidate in the modern era. A persistent problem was doubt about his empathy with the average voter. By 53% to 43%, exit-poll respondents said that Mr. Obama was more in touch than Mr. Romney with people like themselves.

Mr. Romney was never fully embraced by Republicans themselves, which may have inhibited the expected strong Republican turnout. Pew's election-weekend survey found Mr. Romney with fewer strong supporters (33%) than Mr. Obama (39%). Similarly, a much greater percentage of Obama supporters (80%) than Romney supporters (60%) told Pew that they were voting for their candidate rather than against his opponent.

Surprisingly, Mr. Romney proved unable to exploit Mr. Obama's biggest weakness: the economy. Seventy-six percent of exit-poll respondents rated the national economy "poor" or only "fair," and just 25% said their finances were better off than they were four years ago. Yet voters expressed roughly equal confidence in Mr. Obama's ability to handle the economy (48%) as in Mr. Romney's (49%).

Mr. Romney was hurt by the perception—reinforced by Democratic attack ads and his secretly recorded comments about the "47%"—that he wasn't for the average voter. With 55% of voters in the exit poll saying they think the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy, a large majority believed that Mr. Obama's policies favor the middle class (44%) or the poor (31%). By contrast, 53% thought Mr. Romney's policies would favor the rich.

Despite their weak candidate, Republicans increased their share of the presidential vote among many major demographic groups. Compared with 2008, they made significant gains among men (four percentage points), whites (four points), younger voters (six points), white Catholics (seven points) and Jews (nine points). Mr. Romney also carried the independent vote 50% to 45%. Four years ago, independents voted for Mr. Obama 52% to 44%.

Republicans can take some solace from these gains. In addition, only 43% of voters this year said they wanted an activist government (compared with 52% in 2008), and 49% continued to disapprove of Mr. Obama's health-care law (compared with 44% approving).

In short, the current American electorate is hardly stacked against the Republican Party. But Republicans should recognize that, on balance, Americans remain moderate—holding a mix of liberal and conservative views. They generally believe that small government is better and that ObamaCare is bad. But the exit poll shows that 59% believe abortion should be legal, 65% support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and a surprising plurality support legalizing same-sex marriage in their states.

Threading the ideological needle with this electorate is vital for the Republicans in the future—and for the Democrats, too.

— Mr. Kohut is president of the Pew Research Center.
EDITOR'S COMMENT: MITT ROMNEY IS A PHONY OF THE WORST KIND, BAR NONE!

MICHAEL COHEN: GOOD RIDDANCE TO [PHONY] MITT ROMNEY.

Good riddance to Mitt Romney
BY MICHAEL COHEN

On Tuesday night, as I watched the election returns roll in, there were moments of great joy – but one of the happiest moment came after the losing candidate delivered his concession speech and disappeared through the backstage curtains at the Boston Convention Center. I realized at that moment that I would likely never again have to write or even, for that matter, think about Mitt Romney.

Now, I understand that, as a general rule, you don’t hit a guy when he’s down. Romney suffered a crushing defeat, one that according to aides he was completely unprepared for.

But at the end of the day, Romney’s campaign should be assessed in the most accurate possible manner. Its failings should not be sugarcoated or glossed over. Instead, it should be described precisely as it was: One of the most cynical, dishonest and disreputable presidential campaigns in modern American history.

From the Republican primaries to practically the final days of his failed presidential campaign, Romney was either blatantly lying about his opponent’s record, adopting policy positions of convenience that ran counter to his past positions, regularly misleading Americans about his own plans or stirring racial acrimony. I don’t feel sorry that Romney lost on Tuesday night; I feel sorry that a great nation had to be subjected to his presidential campaign.

Think I’m being too harsh? Well, harken back to the GOP primaries and the ad run by Romney ran against Rick Perry. It attacked Perry for allowing illegal immigrants to attend Texas state universities and then used a supporting statement from former Mexican President Vincente Fox as a bludgeon to castigate Perry – as if being endorsed by Mexico’s president were a scarlet letter.

Over the summer, he produced an ad attacking President Obama for lifting work requirements for those on welfare – a charge that not only wasn’t true but was almost certainly intended to promulgate the notion that Obama was providing government benefits to people who didn’t work. Anyone who questions the racial implications of this charge is severely unfamiliar with decades of Republican welfare politics.

Later, when toxic curmudgeon and Romney campaign surrogate John Sununu went on television and insinuated that Obama needed to “learn how to be a real American” he wasn’t upbraided by the Romney campaign - he was sent back out on television to make such cheery arguments like the only reason Colin Powell endorsed Obama was because they both were black.

Then there was the “you didn’t build it” charge – an out-of-context statement uttered by Obama but in the hands of Romney and his minions became proof positive that Obama hates the free market and entrepreneurship.

This was all at pace with Romney’s regular assaults on the truth, such as his oft-repeated charge that Obamacare would lead to government-run health care; that the President had doubled the deficit; that he intended to cut more than $700 billion from Medicare; or that Obama had ventured on a global apology tour. All were untrue, but none of this stopped Romney from repeating them over and over and over again on the campaign trail.

Indeed, Romney finished his campaign on yet another lie – an ad claiming that Chrysler was intending to move its Jeep production to China. Once again, even after being called out by reporters who pointed out that the assertion wasn’t true, Romney was unfazed – as he ran another radio ad that made the exact same false charge.

Now to be fair, President Obama had his share of truth-stretching assertions, but it was hardly endemic to his campaign. For Romney, daily assaults on the truth were not simply par for the course; they were reflective of his campaign’s overall political strategy. Over the past several years, conservatives have created their own alternate reality with their own set of “facts” about President Obama and the federal government. Romney regularly fanned the flames of conservative delusion, recognizing that an angry, misinformed yet enthusiastic GOP electorate was key to his political aspirations. It was a cynical ploy – and in the hands of a more competent politician it might actually have succeeded.

Finally, there was Romney’s extraordinary and unprecedented refusal to engage in traditional campaign transparency. He never released his tax returns. He refused to reveal the names of people who raised money on behalf of his campaign. He was even less forthright about his plans of he were to be elected. The cornerstone of his economic plan was a proposal for a 20% across-the-board tax cut, which he claimed would not explode the deficit and would be paid for by closing loopholes and capping deductions. Never once did he detail what those loopholes or deductions might be.

Quite simply, Romney and his campaign were simply allergic to truth, veracity and openness.

Now as Romney fades off into the sunset he will likely be little remembered. Democrats feel no affection toward him, but neither do Republicans. Romney was a distinctly unloved presidential nominee. During the GOP primaries he was forced into a protracted political struggle against a motley collection of cranks, also-rans and mediocrities. In the end Republicans accepted him as the party standard bearer because frankly they didn’t have much of a choice.

He was just a means to an end for Republicans desperate to defeat the President they hated, a warm body that if he was lucky enough to win the presidency could sign the legislation they pined to enact.

Beyond that, Republicans had little use for Mitt Romney.

Like Michael Dukakis in 1988, Romney will almost certainly fade into political oblivion, rarely to be heard from again in the realm of national politics. In the end, I’d like to feel a little sorry for a man who suffered such a public defeat and humiliation. But sometimes in life, you get what you deserve.

AS I CORRECTLY PREDICTED HERE AND EVERYWHERE, POTUS BARACK OBAMA SPANKS PHONY MITT ROMNEY IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. WATCH POTUS' VICTORY SPEECH AND THE PHONY'S DEFEAT SPEECH. RACISTS CAN NOW CRAWL BACK IN THEIR CAVES!

POTUS: PHONY: MAYBE, NEXT TIME THE GOP WILL NOMINATE A CANDIDATE WE CAN'T CHOKE ON! THE ELECTORAL MAP:

AT TONIGHT'S DEBATE WITH POTUS BARACK OBAMA, ONE HAS TO WONDER WHICH MITT ROMNEY WILL SHOW UP ...

... THE REAL MITT ROMNEY OR THE EVER PRESENT PHONY ONE? HINT: THERE IS NO REAL MITT ROMNEY!

WATCH MITT ROMNEY DECIDE TO LOSE THE VOTES OF THE 47% OF AMERICANS (HE CALLS THEM "VICTIMS") WHO DON'T PAY TAXES (WE DON'T KNOW IF HE PAID ANY BECAUSE HE WON'T RELEASE HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS) AND WHO DEPEND ON GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS. MITT ROMNEY SEES HIS "JOB AS NOT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT" THEM!

WATCH THE SHORT VERSION OF THE VIDEO BELOW: NOW WATCH THE FULL VIDEO BELOW:

Thurston Howell Romney. Mr. PHONY!

Thurston Howell Romney By DAVID Brooks In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

The [Mitt] Romney Campaign Implodes After Libya.

The Romney Campaign Implodes after Libya
By BRUCE BARTLETT

As I discussed last week, I think Barack Obama will win the election easily. Now, with Mitt’s Romney’s gross miscalculation in politicizing the Libyan massacre, thereby failing the 3:00 am phone call test, the election is shaping up as a rout for Republicans. This new reality undoubtedly will affect the campaign’s final days and how both parties will adjust to it.

Republican frustration with Romney for failing to clinch what they have long viewed as a slam-dunk election was already evident among right-wing talk radio hosts even before the Libyan business. On Monday, Rush Limbaugh said, “If the Republican Party cannot win in this environment, it has to get out of politics.” That same day, Laura Ingraham said, “If you can’t beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party.”

MSNBC host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough succinctly listed the reasons why conservatives are disappointed with Romney in a Sept. 12 commentary:

Barack Obama has sunk America $5 trillion deeper into debt, has enacted the largest stimulus plan ever, pushed through the biggest health care boondoggle in U.S. history and posted trillion-dollar deficits every year of his presidency.
And yet unemployment is still over 8 percent.
Two-thirds of Americans still think their country is headed in the wrong direction.
And Mitt Romney is still losing.
Really???

How can it be that this man who turned around countless businesses, saved the 2002 Olympics and ran Democratic Massachusetts like a pro be the head of such a disastrous campaign?
Who was responsible for burying his moving convention video behind the bumbling bluster of Clint Eastwood?

Who told Mr. Romney to issue a political broadside against the commander in chief the day after a U.S. ambassador was murdered?
And who decided that Romney would use his general election campaign to stand for absolutely nothing? The Wall Street Journal described this ideological listlessness as a “pre-existing decision.” The question conservatives should be asking is whether that strategy was hatched by a misguided consultant or the candidate himself.

This points to a problem I have discussed previously entered this election cycle overconfident of their prospects. As a consequence, electability was not as significant a factor in the primaries as it should have been. Republicans indulged themselves by searching for the purest, most principled conservative to represent them. As the RealClearPolitics poll compilation shows, at different times Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum all led in the polls before Romney finally pulled ahead late in the game.

Say what you want about these various competitors for the Republican presidential nomination, but none made their electability a factor in why they deserved it. It was always about how they would push harder to implement the agenda of the party’s most conservative members than the other guys would, whether the issue was abortion, tax cuts, spending cuts, being tough on Russia, terrorists, drugs or whatever.

Only Romney really made electability an issue, but he did so very, very quietly. The reason is that the primary basis of his electability was his moderate record as governor of Massachusetts, where he implemented a health care reform very similar to the one Obama enacted in 2010. The problem is that the protracted Republican primary forced him far to the right and required him to bury or repudiate just about everything he did as governor.

Many political observers nevertheless assumed that Romney would tack to the center at the Republican convention. But since tacking to the center for a Republican means moving to the left, this was not really doable. Romney’s position within the GOP is still too tenuous to allow him the flexibility of doing that. Indeed, given the issues he has emphasized during and since the convention, he is still working to solidify the Republican base, rather than reaching out to independent and undecided voters.

Personally, I suspect that Romney knows that he can’t win the election and is, at this point, trying to protect himself from personal blame for losing an easy election. I think that is one reason why he picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. The right loves him, because to them Ryan is everything Romney isn’t—charismatic, principled, versed in conservative/libertarian philosophy and dogma, detail oriented, charming and so on.

Having Ryan on his right flank means that Romney can’t be blamed for not running the sort of campaign the Tea Party wing of the GOP wanted. But it should have also given Romney the running room to tack to the center. Ryan would keep the natives from getting restless while Romney softened his party’s hard edges and put together a winning coalition that must necessarily include moderates. I think it is now too late for that.

In the near term, it is likely that some Romney contributors may hedge their bets by giving to Obama as well. This could even the money disparity between the two campaigns, although I have never thought that Romney’s money advantage was as valuable as commonly believed.

I also think that there will be some shift in the fortunes of Democrats running for House and Senate seats. The more secure Obama looks for re-election, the more Democratic money can be spared to help them. Moreover, I don’t think Democrats have yet fully exploited Republican vulnerabilities on issues such as abortion and sharp cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that Romney and Ryan have promised.

It’s also likely that Democrats will become more engaged in the election and Republicans less so. A Pew poll released this week found sharply rising Democratic enthusiasm after lagging Republicans all year. It is likely that next week’s polls will show a deterioration of Republican support for Romney in light of his Libyan gaffe.

Romney’s reaction to the Libyan crisis shows that not only does he lack the temperament to be president, but has no viable strategy for achieving victory. If there was a better way of turning off moderates than by being sharply partisan at a moment when most Americans wanted nonpartisan unity, I don’t know what it is. Romney deserves to lose.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/09/14/The-Romney-Campaign-Implodes-after-Libya.aspx#AdfDYWK5pYpB8oCh.99

MITT ROMNEY PIVOTS AND EBRACES OBAMAROMNEYCARE, REVEALING ONCE AGAIN HE'S A PHONY!

Romney Pivots, Embraces Romneycare Again
By GREGORY J. KRIEG

Mitt Romney secured the GOP presidential nomination in spite of the health care law he passed in Massachusetts. That legislation, which mandated people buy insurance, was the basis for the federal law that the candidate has pledged to move toward repealing on his first day as president.

But now, to the chagrin of some conservatives, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul has suggested twice in two days that if a steelworker laid off by a company managed by Bain Capital had lived in Massachusetts, his wife, who died without insurance, would have been covered.

Saul was responding a pro-Obama super PAC's assertion that Romney's action in the private sector cost a man his job and that policies supported by the Republican's campaign would leave someone in a similar position in comparable danger, when she stepped into the tar pit.

"To that point," Saul old Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer, when quizzed about the ad, "if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care."

Cue a collective anxiety attack among the conservatives Romney worked so hard to court to during the primaries.

"OMG. This might just be the moment Mitt Romney lost the election. Wow," RedState.com editor-in-chief Erick Erickson tweeted after he read about Saul's interview.

What follows in his feed is a triumph of the conservative will, a spasm of denunciations that begins with the spokeswoman, then quickly climbs the ladder to the candidate himself.

But as much as the news cycle has spun on the idea that Saul somehow slipped and lost the narrative thread, recent statements (and some from a bit further back) from Romney on health care policy and overhaul indicate that the former Massachusetts governor might be trying to take some air out the issue.

Romney spoke Wednesday about health care in Des Moines, Iowa. One could be forgiven for thinking he sounded like a candidate who has grown increasingly reluctant to dismiss his most significant and successful public policy achievement.

"At the top of my list of programs we don't need is one that costs $100 billion a year I'm going to get rid of and that's Obamacare," he said to cheers at a rally.

But then he made a telling pivot. "And by the way," he added, "that doesn't mean that health care is perfect. We've got to do reforms in health care and I have some experience doing that, as you know. And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care."

Obama's health care plan, which was crafted in the Romney plan's image, puts similar safety nets in place.

Rush Limbaugh -- as he does -- weighed in today, declaring that "Republicans and conservatives are not unified and we cons [conservatives] don't think the Republican establishment know what they're up against."

"The question I have is, after Andrea Saul's response, is they are just accepting the premise here?" Limbaugh asked, referencing the Romney's campaign's not doing as much as might be expected to pull back from her comments.

Dial it back a bit further, though, to Romney's March appearance on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno, and the context begins to take shape.

The candidate told Leno, who was teasing him about Obama's health care plan, that "people who have been continuously insured, let's say someone's had a job for a while but insured, then they get real sick and they happen to lose a job, or change jobs, they find, 'Gosh, I've got a pre-existing condition, I can't get insured. I'd say, no, no no. As long as you've been continuously insured, you ought to be able to get insurance going forward."

And according to a wide range of surveys, the American people would tend to agree. When the Obama law is unwrapped and presented piecemeal, pollsters have routinely found the angel's in the details.

The law, as a whole, might split the country, but when translated into relatable terms (even if they are a bit dubious, as in the Priorities USA spot) like it was for Saul, it becomes more difficult to attack.

The extension of benefits for workers who've been laid off or seen their companies go under was a key provision in the legislation Massachusetts enacted in 2006.

For now, if Romney can convince the 47 percent of the country that supports the president's health care law that he has no intention of kicking out its most popular provisions, and that he has "some experience" in dealing successfully with similar issues, Saul's "gaffe" could be re-interpreted as a shrewd political coup.

PHONY MITT ROMNEY'S UN"MITT"IGATED DISASTER OF A WORLD TOUR!

Editorial | Un-Mitt-igated disaster? Romney's tour revisited

Not since William Tecumseh Sherman marched his way through the South has a leader cut quite the swath that Mitt Romney made through Europe and parts of the Middle East in recent days. But unlike the ruin that smoldered in Gen. Sherman’s wake, Mr. Romney’s damage was mostly self-inflicted and done to himself, leaving dings in the foreign-policy rep the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had hoped to burnish on his jaunt across the pond.

OK, maybe it wasn’t quite as bad as Sherman’s march, but still. Given what happened, one wonders, in retrospect, what Mr. Romney hoped to accomplish in his touchdowns in England, Israel and Poland. A Berlin moment, such as the one candidate Barack Obama had four years ago when 200,000 gathered to hear him deliver an address about the world standing as one? Well, Mr. Romney united parts of the world in his tour, too, only not in the way he wanted or expected.

In just a few sentences, the German news outlet Spiegel Online sketched the impression left by Mr. Romney:

“First, Romney took a swipe at the British, questioning their preparations for the Olympic Games and their enthusiasm. Then, in Jersusalem, he directly compared Israeli gross domestic product to Palestinian per capita GDP, attributing the Israelis’ economic vitality to their culture, while at the same time ignoring the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. On Monday, Romney’s trip continued to Poland, where the left-leaning national daily Gazeta Wyborcza asked, ‘Will there be further blunders?’ ”

Past was prologue: Yes, indeed, there were.

Despite a virtual endorsement from Lech Walesa, Solidarity trade union officials seemed surprised and disappointed that Mr. Romney wasn’t a champion of the American worker and labor movement (his “corporations are people” sentiments must not have made it there yet). Spiegel Online reported their reaction: “We have learned … about Mitt Romney’s support for the attacks against trade unions and labor rights.”

And, well, the day was still young because then there was the matter with Mr. Romney’s aide and an American news media impatient after being kept more than arm’s length from the candidate for too long.

As reporters shouted questions at Mr. Romney, who studiously ignored them and probably couldn’t have been happy anyway with the contingent of Ron Paul supporters that had shown up with signs at one of his events in Warsaw (proving that, yes, Paul-ites are literally everywhere), Romney aide Rick Gorka snapped at the frothing press corps, “Kiss my ass. This is a holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect.” CNN may have gotten the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision wrong, but the tape they have on this utterance doesn’t lie.

So, something less than triumphant after his less-than-excellent adventure overseas, Mr. Romney has returned home for ... a barnstorming bus tour of the United States.

Fasten your seat belts. This could be fun.