Obama Handed a Royal Flush

by: Brany

Sat May 07, 2011 at 19:21:54 PM MST

Never the less, Obama received a winning hand that has boosted his approval rating 11 to 12 points just because he stepped forward and claimed responsibility for Osama's demise. Did he deserve this claim to fame, probably not?

All who have observed Obama since the beginning of 2008 know without a doubt that he didn't approve of this mission and that is what makes this story is so intriguing. The person or persons in charge of this mission didn't need Obama's approval. But, obviously some of his Administration knew that Obama had just been handed a winning poker hand and they showed him how to play it.

Looking back at his campaign speeches in 22008, it's easy to understand that he absolutely didn't agree with Bush, Cheney or Americans about our stance on terrorism or the methods of interrogation.

In fact his anti - Iraq war position the first part of the 2008 campaign must be credited for his early popularity. Towards the end of the 2008 campaign, the "flip flop" man took another stance in attempt to secure voters by saying two of his priorities were, (1) Beefing up the war in Afghanistan against terrorists, and (2) The nuclear problems with Iran.

Obama-Terminally Naive and Unjustifiably Arrogant

by: Dumer

Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 08:10:16 AM MST

Supporters, of the president rail against conservatives, liberals or both (mostly conservatives) for promoting malaise about the president's actions. Such arguments are at best irrelevant as they fail to address the core issue. Opinions vary as to whether our actions in Libya are justified, the true goal of those actions, and the US military position with respect other participants. But they are simply that- opinions. However, Obama's disconnect with Congress, and the American people, is an irrefutable fact.

Obummer: Where is Barak when we need him?

by: Doug Coffin

Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 19:06:57 PM MST

One would have to argue that the exit of the Wisconsin Democratic senators takes guts. They are opening themselves to harsh criticism. They have a tough position to defend and in the end it may really cost them their seats and more. Obviously they've done the calculus that it's better to go down fighting than retreating.

Our President is following some other logic. His answer is that its better to hide in the White House with tape over your mouth than actually stand for something. Unions and their friends provided hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of votes to Obama in 2008. This is their reward: Cowardice. They say that Obummer needs to win Wisconsin in 2012 in order to win back the White House. I don't see how he wins by shunning those that supported him most.

Everyone understands politics. Sometimes a pol has to lay low and slip a few punches in order to survive. Witness John Tester and Max Baucus with some of their environmental and gun rights votes. But as a President, on occasion there comes a time when you have to stand up and stand strong. This is one of those times. One has to wonder: If he's willing to throw over his strongest, most strident supporters, then what will he do to the lessers?

I wouldn't want to be an environmentalist right now. Oh, I am.

Please tell the President "Just say No"

by: Doug Coffin

Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 10:07:41 AM MST

So let's see if we can get a "Just say no" campaign rolling to embolden the President. Let's tell the President Obama to just say no by copying this email and sending it to the Whitehouse: president@whitehouse.gov or anyone else.

Please Mr. President:

"Just say no" to the GOP political terrorists that use blackmail to hold hostage the extension of long-term unemployment benefits. They are terrorizing some of the least fortunate among us.

"Just say no" to the Wall Street bribery and corruption that has bought off so many Senators that they just can't help but feather the nests of hedge fund managers at the expense of the nation.

"Just say no" to the weaklings in the Senate Democratic leadership who continually bargain against themselves and cower in the face of belligerent Republicans.

"Just say no" to that little voice inside you that keeps saying "be careful", "this is risky" so "play it safe and extend the tax cuts for the wealthy".

"Just say no" to that gremlin that telling you to violate one of your most sacred campaign promises to the American people.

"Just say no" to the little devil standing on your shoulder telling you to betray the millions who lined up behind you in 2008 with all their hopes and dreams.

"Just say no" as Paul Krugman suggests to extending the tax cuts for anyone, if you must, to back down the bullies. Some will berate you for it, but they won't vote for you anyway. The people who did vote for you, will again, if you show the courage that they're longing for. It will instill again the faith in you that they have now lost; and they're willing to pay for it.
(I saw this at http://leftinthewest.com/ )

....and while you're at it, send it along to Max Baucus and John Tester.

http://baucus.senate.gov/?p=co...

http://tester.senate.gov/Conta...

Krugman articulates the case perfectly. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12...

"It's all or nothing, they say: all the Bush tax cuts must be extended. What should Democrats do?

The answer is that they should just say no. If G.O.P. intransigence means that taxes rise at the end of this month, so be it.....if Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they'll just face more demands in the future.....they'll (Republicans) have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America's fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown?

So Mr. Obama should draw a line in the sand, right here, right now. If Republicans hold out, and taxes go up, he should tell the nation the truth, and denounce the blackmail attempt for what it is.

Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too - especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong."  

Obummer: Freezing pay for federal employees

by: Doug Coffin

Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:45:18 AM MST

http://www.denverpost.com/news...

A pay freeze for public employees at a time of record corporate profits, expiring unemployment benefits and paying $700 billion for extension of a huge tax cut for wealthy Americans.....is obscene.

In doing so, the President is guilty of a rookie mistake from a collective bargaining perspective i.e. he continually bargains against himself. He did the same thing with health care when he took "single payer" and then the "public option" off the table for nothing in return.

No doubt that he's expecting the GOP to respond in-kind by agreeing to pass the much needed unemployment extension or giving in on extending tax cuts for the wealthy. They won't.... and he'll be stuck screwing his constituents one more time. It looks more and more difficult for him to rebuild the coalition that got him elected. He's angered teachers, labor and now federal employees.

The worst part is that pay freezes run like a virus, no doubt that state government and business leaders will be looking to follow his example. All this in a time when wages for the middle class are stagnant and health care costs are exploding (in spite of "health care reform"). I do hear some folks say "they deserve a pay cut, they make too much money". That is middle class cannibalism. Public employees are the cops, forresters, firemen, teachers, etc. that live next door. They have the same dreams and aspirations as you. The problem is on Wall street, not Main street. Don't point the finger next door, point it at the hedge fund mananger who creates nothing, builds nothing, and then bails out of paying their fair share of taxes by bribing congress to extend their tax cuts.

Obama needs to restock his political corps to get away from corporatism and get back to the populism that got him elected and come to realize that:

AMERICA NEEDS A PAY RAISE!!!

OMG!! Palin leads the GOP........but loses to Obama

by: Doug Coffin

Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:41:33 AM MST

No kidding, she's got just a bump (1%) over "the Mittster" followed by the "Huckster" (literally and figuratively) and then Newt "Getrich". Any of these bozos would be a gift to Obama in 2012. Call me a Professional Lefty who's been tough on "Obummer" for betraying his base (me) but truth be told he's a great campaigner and he'll easily blast any one of these tired-olds.

We'd have to presume two things: First, that Obama will be Clintonesque and "get it" over the next year or two and figure out how to beat the GOP in the rough and tumble games of political spin and Washington politics. Second, we'll have to see whether the predictable rebound against the GOP in 2012 actually happens.

November 6, 2012 is a long way away but let the fun begin. Palin may not be able to beat Obama but she could affect the election. She is the untold story of the 2010 election where she was able to swing female independents over to the GOP. They really dig that assertive Redneck Woman schtick and the  Democrats don't have an answer. But a Presidential election is a whole different story and while that won't win it for her, she could hurt Obama by playing the quasi-independent Ma Griz from the sidelines the way she does now.        

Unlike Most Democratic Sheep, Schweitzer Not Afraid to Stick Dagger in Tea Party, on National TV

by: Montana Cowgirl

Mon May 17, 2010 at 16:44:32 PM MST

The Tea Party movement has spooked many Democrats.  Watch the national news, and see how most Democrats who serve in competitive states or districts are not willing to stand up and take the Tea Partiers on. Instead, they walk on eggshells, always reluctant to criticize them for fear of becoming a target of them or for fear of losing a few independent voters who get their news from Fox. "You are seeing some understandable anger" is the usual refrain uttered by everybody from the President to just about every Democratic US Senator or member of Congress or Governor, unless they are lucky enough to serve an electorate that is heavily democratic and thus safe.

But here is a clip of Schweitzer on the Rachel Maddow show (yay!), calmly sticking a long dagger into the Tea folks, making them look like the foolish and ignorant hypocrites they are. Here's a link to the transcript for those of you reading this at work.  And here's a quote I especially like:

The tea party people get up in the morning and they make phone calls to each other that they're going to go to a rally.  And they use a subsidized telephone system.  Then they drive down a road that was built by the government that is protected by government workers called highway patrolmen. They get to a rally and they carry their signs and they are protected by the firemen and the policemen who are in that town.  And then they eagerly drive home and say, "It was a success.  We're against the government."

I also like his stance on education,

It's not a sin to be frugal.  It's not a sin to challenge expenses. But it is a sin to cut back on education for our most valuable resource.

This is far from the only place where Schweitzer isn't afraid to say what is right even if it doesn't poll well or get him conservative voters.  Here in one of the more conservative states in America, he has made speeches praising the Canadian health system (daring Montana voters to find a Canadian citizen that doesn't like her country's healthcare).

He has openly advocated a withdrawal from Afghanistan--a war which he sees as not worth the lives or expense. He has welcomed American Indians into his government and into the political system with an emphasis not seen in Montana's political history, treating them as the sovereigns they are.  He has gone after the Obama Administration, (and perhaps Baucus and Tester, implicitly...), for selling out to Big Pharma, and not allowing Montana citizens to buy cheap medication from Canada; and recently, he went to Butte to stand up publicly in defense of Saudi and other Arab students who were being taunted and attacked by local redneck douchebags.

He has made historic investments in Montana's HHS budget, in help for the poor, the disabled, and education, and has been happy to tout them even as the Tea Party criticizes him.

Schweitzer's Drug Play

by: Montana Cowgirl

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 03:20:06 AM MST

Two questions arise. First, why had the issue gone dormant? Short Answer: The Obama Administration cut a deal with the Pharmaceutical Industry, early in the healthcare reform game, in which Obama pledged to kill any efforts to reimport drugs from Canada in return for the Drug Industry running TV Ads and other media--$80 million worth--in support of Obama's healthcare plan.

That's a shady deal by any measurement, unless the ultimate Obama plan finds some way to drastically reduce or subsidize prescription prices. Thus far the plan does not appear to do so.

But more troubling, and way under the radar, is the fact that our senators have taken the bait. Both Tester and Baucus recently (and quietly) voted against a Senate Bill that would have authorized the reimportation of prescription drugs (made by American companies) from Canada.    

Beyond that, there lurks the more dark and deplorable history of Baucus giving the pharmaceutical industry one of the greatest government corporate giveaways in history.  Those were the days when Baucus was hugging George Bush as a way to get re-elected (how times have changed).  And the most insidious part of that 2002 vote by Baucus, of course, was that Baucus's Chief of Staff left Baucus's office shortly thereafter, to cash in in a new job lobbying the Senate on behalf of the drug industry, employment which quickly made him a millionaire.

The second question is what the White House and/or Secretary Sebelius is going to tell Schweitzer. Has Schweitzer gotten too cute? Has he poked the tiger one time too many? Will Obama somehow retaliate or freeze-out our Governor? Or, has Schweitzer put them in an impossible position and thus revived a very important issue, and put it on course for some sort of resolution? Perhaps even a concession from the drug industry that is something more than a promise to run stupid and ineffective campaign ads for a stupid and ineffective corporate giveaway which the White House is trying to sell us?

This is a major poke in the eye of the Obama team and is sure to get some national attention (as Schweitzer always seems to do.)  But hey, the Obama Administration deserves it. 

Economic boo bird

by: SlyStill

Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 18:21:51 PM MST

Obama Looking at Tavares, Economy at Stake

by: RoyP

Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:46:53 AM MST

Ogling the G8 Summit

The 35th G8 Summit has drawn to a close in the city of L'Aquila in the Abruzzo region of Italy. This annual meeting of world leaders is intended to address important issues that impact the international community. This year, climate and renewable energy were among the primary subjects. Many of them are monetary in nature. I'm sure Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (who chaired the event) approached President Barack Obama, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask them about a payday loan and cash advance. Specifically, whether he can use them to throw parties for 18-year-old models who aren't his wife. It's easy to imagine, anyway... but short-term loan products should be used responsibly.
But that's not what the people care about

Was Obama looking at that girl? Was Obama checking out that girl? She does have a name, you know. Mayara Tavares is the name of the 16-year-old Brazilian delegate to the G8 Summit. She is a community activist who has worked on UNICEF projects regarding the rights and welfare of children in Brazil's slums. Tavares sounds like an intelligent, driven young woman with a promising future ahead of her.

Ryan Witt, a St. Louis political correspondent for The Examiner reports that the "scandalous" photo has been making the rounds in the media. He suggests that those who claim to clearly know whether or not President Obama was glancing at the hindquarters of the passing Tavares don't know anything at all. Without being in Mr. Obama's mind, it's impossible to know. Yet we all know that it's easy to stumble into moments that appear to be very inappropriate in still photography. John McCain knows this quite well.

Yes. Yes he does.

Yes, this was an incidental moment following a presidential debate. John McCain wasn't ogling Barack Obama. But doesn't it appear, for that fraction of a second, that McCain is giving into some animal impulse and charging the hindquarters of Obama? Like a honey bee to a fragrant blossom. It was a funny moment.
Media: the butt of all decency

Is it any surprise that America's media has spent more time focusing on Obama looking at a girl than what actually happened at the G8 conference?  From early indications, Obama didn't take the lead when it came to the environmental portion of the program. Environmental protection and the establishment of strong green energy sources are key issues that the Obama administration must tackle. But what the American news media gives us is the lowest common denominator and leaves it up to us to assume the worst. Witt reminds us that even if this was a mini-incident (if Obama was looking on purpose), it does not compare to Mark Sanford's E-mails.
What if he WAS looking?

On the one hand, Obama would likely have some explaining to do to his wife and children. I wouldn't justify it as him simply being a man, but I would say that there is biological hard-wiring there. Men and women notice attractive people. It doesn't mean that one side is presenting and the other can think of nothing else but insemination. Clearly, that's not what Mayara Tavares was doing, and President Obama hasn't been driven to betray his family and abandon his duties (et tu, Mark Sanford) by 16-year-old hindquarters. But from an evolutionary standpoint, human beings notice attractiveness. It's unavoidable, but it doesn't have to govern our behavior. We can choose.

Try this from Match.com

Todd Katz writes about our sexual predisposition

   According to Robert Deaner, Ph.D., a co-author of the study, humans, like our simian cousins, are probably hard-wired to act this way. "In both human and rhesus monkey societies, individuals vary in their influence and reproductive potential," he says. "So for both humans and rhesus monkeys, natural selection would have favored individuals that valued information accordingly." In other words, evolutionarily speaking, it pays to pay attention to who's most powerful and who's most eager to mate.

Natural selection at work

If that's not enough for you (and there have been plenty of studies supporting this information), try this. From the book "The Psychology of Sexual Orientation, Behavior, and Identity" by Louis Diamant and Richard McAnulty:

   The behavioral elements of mounting, thrusting, hindquarters presentation, and intromission seen to be integrated into definite patterns during infancy in monkeys and apes. (p. 151)

   Female solicitations include... hindquarters presentation. (p. 141)

   Both males and females are more likely to mount an individual that presents the hindquarters or exhibits other species-specific solicitations than one that does not. (p. 150)

So there you have it. We still don't know if Obama was looking, but the ABCNews video below makes it seem as if he was just paying attention to his footing, in my opinion. But as all men know, he could have been doing both. Men can multi-task that way. But can they apply for a payday loan or cash advance at the same time? Yes! Yes they can, because the application process is quick and simple. The world's environment problems, unfortunately, are not.

SEE MORE AT: http://www.leftinthewest.com/

Will Walmart live up to their PR on Health Care this time?

by: WakeUpWalmart

Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 12:11:52 PM MST

There has been a lot of talk this week about the surprising move by Walmart to publically support President Obama’s health care reform plan, supposedly positioning themselves as a leader in the fight to bring health care to all Americans. As we mentioned in a post on our blog yesterday, this might be easier to swallow if Walmart had any history of leading by example. Instead, they usually do just the opposite.

Given Walmart’s long record of trying to build a positive reputation on ineffective work-arounds to health care coverage for employee, the recent revelations about sacrificing quality for cheap perescription drugs, and their deceptive PR campaign that severely overstated their workers’ health care coverage, it’s not hard to understand our skepticism. [get the details in the extended entry]

Unions Will Remake the Middle Class, Obama Says

by: Robert Struckman

Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 15:52:55 PM MST

"Labor unions are a big part of the solution" to the nation's economic crisis, said President Barack Obama to the leaders of the AFL-CIO earlier this week.

Obama addressed the issue of unions as part of his continued support of the Employee Free Choice Act in a meeting with the nation's top labor leaders on Tuesday this week.

Obama's central points: labor unions will help rebuild the American middle class and will always have a seat at the table.

More words from Obama below:

"I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, and to my administration, labor unions are a big part of the solution. We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests - because we cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement....And as we confront this crisis and work to provide health care to every American, rebuild our nation's infrastructure, move toward a clean energy economy, and pass the Employee Free Choice Act, I want you to know that you will always have a seat at the table."

Yesterday, vice-president Joe Biden echoed Obama's remarks and added context. For instance, Biden said, worker productivity has increased almost 20 percent from 2000 to 2007, but wages fell by $2,000.

"If our basic bargain had been intact, if paychecks rose with productivity growth, as they did from World War II to the early '70s, families would have gained $10,000 over that period, instead of losing $2,000," Biden said. "This is all going to be difficult, and one of the most difficult things will be to reinstitute that basic bargain. I think the way to do that is the Employee Free Choice Act."

"If you've got workers who have a decent pay and benefits, they also are customers for your business," Biden said.

He also said the legal playing field on which employees and management contend must be level.

"I have a simple, basic belief," he said. "If a union is what you want, a union you're entitled to have."  

Rep. Rehberg supports Obama economic plan... 0.37% of it.

by: Equo ne credite

Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 14:30:24 PM MST

Words in Obama's speech to Congress: 5,931

Words in the one sentence Rep. Rehberg could get behind: 22

Percentage of Obama's speech Rep. Rehberg got behind: 0.37%

Americans' approval of the speech: 80%

To put this into context, the last time Bush broke 80% was January of 2002. Only one American soldier had been killed "smoking evildoers" out of their caves in Afghanistan; a position so un-controversial comedian David Cross points out "Nader would have bombed Afghanistan."

The again, it's probably easy to get out of touch with regular folks if you're the 26th richest member of one of the world's most exclusive and powerful clubs.

What Comes after the Stimulus?

by: JC

Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:46:25 AM MST

Like the mass transit funding. While it would be nice to get some money into the current bill, there is going to be a need for another round of legislation that sets out some long term goals, with drawn out funding mechanisms.

Not every liberal or progressive pipe dream is going to be, or should be, stuffed into the current stimulus package. It just isn't going to be practicable to do so. What needs to happen is that major programs like mass transit, energy independence, healthcare reform, etc. all need to be addressed in programatic ways, with the view towards creating legacies. And it should be #1 priority after the stimulus package is wrapped up.

But the stimulus package should be focused on short term goals: shoring up the economy by preserving and creating jobs. Nothing more, and nothing less. Anything else just gets in the way of what really needs to get done. And creates fodder for the anti-Obamans down the road.

And the funding for family planning was just the tip of the iceberg. Sure, it could be rationalized. I listened to Rep. Wexler go through a convoluted explanation, that sort of made sense if you could follow it. But why go through those contortions? If a provision of the bill doesn't get directly to jobs, then it should go into some other piece of comprehensive reform legislation, and get its full day in the sun. I'm sick and tired of listening to Boehner get a boner talking about funding contraceptives in the stimulus package.

Everybody wants to ramrod their pet project into this stimulus bill because it offers an opportunity for dems--who have been thumb-capped for so long--to finally get the long awaited orgasm that sweeping the elections and getting some needed stimulus is providing. But the stimulus is just that: prelude to an orgasm. One that when over will leave one feeling gratified, but wanting of more. One can smoke a cigarette or take a nap once it has passed. Or one can get up and get to work on the real necessities of this country.

So that's when the new long-term relationship between the people and their country needs to begin. And it needs to be carefully thought out and prepared for. And it needs to be visionar, sustainable and with longevity for all.

Comments?

Krugman outlines progressive agenda for Obama

by: JC

Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 12:37:18 PM MST

Dear Mr. President:

Like FDR three-quarters of a century ago, you're taking charge at a moment when all the old certainties have vanished, all the conventional wisdom been proved wrong. We're not living in a world you or anyone else expected to see. Many presidents have to deal with crises, but very few have been forced to deal from Day One with a crisis on the scale America now faces.

So, what should you do?

Krugman goes on to illustrate in detail the challenges facing our country: economic, health care; labor and the middle class; and truth & reconciliation. He also lays out a progressive framework for Obama to look at. But most importantly, he presents his arguments in a fashion that allows lawmakers, policy wonks, bloggers and the general citizenry to pick up on the intricacies of his thoughts and inform their daily understanding of where this country needs to go.

AFSCME's Making America Happen - Again

by: SeanBart

Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 15:25:21 PM MST

As AFSCME President Gerald McEntee pointed out in his Huffington Post piece yesterday,

"President-elect Barack Obama's call for bold action and civic engagement in response to our present crisis echoes FDR's inspiring call to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and forge the New Deal. The video shows how our nation triumphed over economic crisis once before and can do so again by reinvesting in public service, providing health care for all Americans and growing the middle class."

With a severe economic recession, an unemployment rate that reached 7.2 percent in December and continues to grow, and with more Americans falling into poverty, Americans are demanding action. Please sign our petition and make your voice heard.

The Make America Happen Campaign is dedicated to helping President-elect Obama revitalize our economy, provide health care for all, and strengthen the middle class. Our best days are still ahead of us.

How to get an Obama staff job: Pretend to be from Montana

by: I can't fight this feeling

Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:00:27 PM MST

Want a staff job in Barack Obama's White House?

Pretend to be from Montana.

That's the advice from North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, whose former chief of staff Jim Messina is the director of personnel for the Obama transition team.

"Everyone should claim to be from Montana when talking to Jim. First and foremost, he's a Montanan," Dorgan said.

Sportsmen for Obama

by: Highline Lily

Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 15:51:12 PM MST

I stumbled across this article on ESPN about Montana Sportsmen for Obama and thought it was worth sharing.

Sportsmen say land use, not guns, reason to support Obama

Find the entire article "Blue Montana" here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/outd...

Simply put, "Senator Obama shares our values more than Senator McCain," committee member Shane Colton said....

"He (Barack Obama) grew up in an urban setting," said Dan Vermillion, another MWFPC commissioner, who with his two brothers runs a fishing and travel charter company out of Livingston, Mont. "But his views on public lands, wildlife habitat and the protection of wildlife species are totally in line with mine, and to me, that's more important than whether he hunts and fishes."

http://sports.espn.go.com/outd...

Is Montana now part of Sarah Palin's faux America?

by: Larkspur

Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:33:27 AM MST

Et_tu_Montana

(AP) A new poll shows that Democrat Barack Obama could be edging ahead of Republican John McCain in Montana.

Obama is at 44 percent and John McCain is at 40 percent in the Montana State University-Billings poll released Thursday. The poll reverses others from earlier in the fall that showed McCain with a lead in the state.

If this poll holds through election day, Gov. Schweitzer will be proven right again.  He predicted Montana would go for Obama.

A short comparison of the healthcare plans - McCain vs. Obama

by: Bob Gentry

Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 15:10:32 PM MST

As stated by Dr. Murphy (and I paraphrase):

Whether a right, privilege or obligation, quality, accessible and affordable healthcare is a utility, not a luxury.  It is essential to opportunity.