Bob Bennett: Times Article A 'Hatchet Job'
Where's The Beef
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 | Biased Media | Bob Bennett | John McCain | new york times — Comments (72) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Noted Democratic attorney Robert Bennett, who represents Senator McCain, calls the Times' "non story" a "hatchet job."
Bennett offers the following points to back up his assertion that the Times article is a "hatchet job:"
- The New York Times was provided with approximately a dozen instances in which Senator McCain took positions adverse to Iseman's clients. The Times didn't even refer to those instances.
- There is no evidence that Senator McCain breached the public trust.
- There is no evidence the senator took any position that is contrary to his long-held beliefs.
Asked about rumors that the Times printed the allegations today because the New Republic was preparing an article about the Times delaying this story, Bennett replied that a lot of newspaper people would rather be wrong than be scooped:
I believe the reason this story came out to day was because the New York Times did not want to be scooped.
Bennett also served as the Democratic counsel to the Senate Ethic Committee in the 1980s, when the committee investigated the savings and loan scandal. Bennett said that "after investigating McCain for a year and a half, looking under every rock, I concluded that this was an honest, honest man and recommended to the Senate that he be exonerated."
Watch the following video of Matt Lauer's interview with Bob Bennett:
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | REDSTATE ROUNDTABLE #3: WARGAMING THE 08 RACE AGAINST AN UNCERTAIN OPPONENT — Comments (26) »
Bob Bennett: Times Article A 'Hatchet Job' 72 Comments (0 topical, 72 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You can't be serious. The liberal culural elite have owned this type of character assassination, but for examples you cite:
"Drudge, O'Reilly, Rush or Fox, Akin to any of the Clinton hounding scandals of the 90s, the swift boating of Kerry in '04, or the ridiculous perpetuation of "rumors" that Barrack Obama is a Muslim and an Al-Qaida plant."
Not one single thing you mention addresses the fact that George W. Bush has been the most slandered and unfairly villified and President in the modern era.
Just for the record, Drudge, O'Reilly, Rush and Fox have nothing on the NYT, LA Times, Michael Moore, MoveOn, Air America, DailyKos and the entire mainstream media including CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN.
Do you live in some liberal echo chamber.
Interesting that Kos, Huffington, MSNBC, CNN, Olbermann, Shuster did not make your list. Also when did the recanting by Kerry of the "Christmas in Cambodia" story that was seared, seared in his memory, due to the efforts of the swiftvets, become something characterized as ridiculous "vetting"?
This is an story with no attributed sources, who are admittedly disgruntled and have no proof of anything. If you reject it, do so on it's own merits without trying to make it seem that this is just the flip-side of what republicans do all the time.
"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life"
Yeah, it's vetting when a Presidential candidate tries to humiliate another Presidential candidate because he wasn't a combat verteren, rode to his convention in the Boston Harbor on a Swift Boat, wore his bomber's jacket like a rock star, introduces himself to audiences with "I'm John Kerry Reporting For Duty" and pretended to be a proud verteren, even though his record was full of lies, he threw away his meddles, led the winter soldiers, testified against his comrades and called them rapists, was hated by ninety percent of the people he served with, and oh I did I mention lie, lie and lie some more.
Yes, the NYT McCain story was almost similar.
"Running the country." It's as though he envisons his Proph et Obama standing in Washington directing the entire country for his glory.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
McCain's "friends" are about to drip, drip, drip until all of us who barely can vote for him are outraged. There are a number of lessons here, but the first is this one: no Republican (even a moderate one) will get a fair shake from the legacy media.
and McCain will think twice - nay, four times - before seeking the endorsements of heavily liberal media outlets whose reporters act like slime buckets.
Best case situation in my mind is that this could even mark a rightward shift for McCain as he realizes there's no point in trying to please people that will turn on him at the first opportunity.
But so far he has shown very poor judgment about the media. I imagine many purported off-the-record remarks about the Republican Party and conservatives also will be trotted out by "anonymous sources" who were sworn to secrecy, too. This could get very nasty in a hurry, and given the senator's history he may somehow blame the nebulous "right" or whatever for the media attacks. This is just the first shot across the bow.
Again, this should serve as a lesson to the GOP Beltway crowd.
Strange comment. Do you mean to suggest that McCain being endorsed by the New York Times was somehow a stepping-stone to the current story? I find that to be implausible at best. If that's not what you mean, what lesson are you referring to?
absentee
The media is not friendly to Republicans, even those who try to ingratiate themselves. Strange comment? Obvious one, if anything.
I can see how a paper can draw a distinct line between who they believe is fit for the job of President and how that persons personal life is conducted.
Because of the story, in the last 24 hours I have found out a lot about McCain's previous wife, his affairs and then ultimately his re-marriage to the current Mrs. McCain. Now that lowers my view of his character quite a bit but I do not think it will affect how he runs his administration.
The endorsement wasn't exactly a ringing one. They always endorse one Republican and one Dem in the primary, at least an open primary when there isn't an incumbant running. They pretty much blasted the Republican party as a whole in that "endorsement".
I agree he should have just refused to take their calls, though, like some of the others did :-)
I simply can't help but wonder (given the illogical nature of the peice) whether this NYT smear is a gift or the hatchet job it looks like. I just wonder if it’s possible that his "friends" indeed are rallying to encite anger on the right, because we know it motivates people to the polls. The media wants a fair fight, not constant obamamania and stands to profit by digging up old news to "play the role" of trouble starter. A landslide doesn't sell. So to me this works for McCain more than it hurts him. It's easily defensible, easily shruggable news, which tells me that it was meant to be an instigator for the base more than an attempt to pick him off.
Just ideas here....who ever knows with the MSM and I certainly am not privvy to competition between the publications i.e. "scooping" one another.
o encite anger on the right, because we know it motivates people to the polls. The media wants a fair fight, not constan obamamania and stands to profit by digging up old news to "play the role" of trouble starter. To me this works for McCain more than it hurts him. It's easily defensible, easily shruggable news, which tells me that it was meant to be an instigator for the base more than an attempt to pick him off.
Just ideas here....who ever knows with the MSM and I certainly am not privvy to competition between the publications i.e. "scooping" one another.
If the senator puts aside his predisposition to gladhand with the MSM, it could be a gift.
The emphasis is on "could" here.
I expect much more of this crap, as well as attempts to make McCain trot out his fabled temper, in the months ahead.
I think it's time we all take another look at McCain. First I hear he was deeply involved in the Keating S&L scandal in the 80s. Then I hear one of his pet projects is funded by George Soros (of Moveon.org fame). Now we have allegations of affairs with lobbyists and corruption. I personally can't take anymore of this. I think we need to resurrect Mike Huckabee. He is certainly the most sincere and acceptable candidate. I'm sick and tired of corrupt RINO Washington insiders running our country. We need someone who will be president of the people and not president of powerful lobbyists and special interests. We seriously need to dump McCain!
Threadjacking the bash the presumptive nominee of the Republican party is especially grounds for banning.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Is it against the rules to have an opinion? Is it normal to threaten anyone who speaks ill of McCain? I'm sorry, but I, for one, am not going to stand by and let McCain destroy the republican party. I'm sorry for offending you, Mr. Stevens.
You don't get just to come into any thread that involves John McCain and start bringing up various gripes you have with him, and then start pushing Mike Huckabee. That's why we have the diary feature here at Red State: So you can contribute your own thoughts.
So yeah, it's against the rules for you to selfishly come and spout off your own opinions where they are offtopic. Grow up, Huckabot.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I swear if you guys rented out blam sticks to everyone whos been here for at least 2 years, we'd have RS 3.0 as well as our own personal well funded 527 for the GOP this year ;-)
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
I think it would helpful to new members if you were somehow identified as a moderator in your posts. You would encounter less insolence.
As a newbie myself I did not know you were a moderator until other posters pointed it out. Not that I was ever insolent....
I've actually been thinking it'd be neat if we had a little tag next to usernames to show their status. Whether banned, mod, or whatever.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
...but as a temporary "fix", couldn't the mods just add the word MODERATOR to their sigs?
...or something like that...
--------------------------------------
GOP for President, 2008
Although the way your going, I wouldn't count on you to last an hour. We here at the RS community have endorsed McCain-he is the nominee, and we have had it way up to here with this primary season with people who drop in for an hour or a weell or so just to be a tool, which you are managing to accomplish very early in your Redstate life. Neil unfortunately for you, happens to be a moderator. Unfortunately for me, he also happens to be one of the more tolerant moderators. If you are able to read, and I don't necessarily have an answer for that, you will notice that this is a Republican site, whereas part of our goals is to get Republicans elected. Shocking I know, even for your small mind to comprehend that we are not wishing the chaos that is going on the Democratic Party. Pastor Slick Willie Huckster is finished, as in not going to win, as in been rejected by large swarths of our Republican voters. Get over it-its not going to happen. If you'd liek to bash Republicans, there are plenty of sites to do that-I hear that Kos has a large following for your sort of trash.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
"I hear he was deeply involved in the Keating scandals..."
I guess you also did NOT hear Bob Bennett, who investigated McCain during the scandal and recommended he not be charged. You are entitled to your own opinion..just not your own set of facts.
"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life"
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
and didn't see your previous comments before I replied.
"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life"
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
That sounds like you putting words in my mouth. Look at my comments. I said he was "involved." Do you deny that?
I'm not putting words in your mouth. you wrote "deeply involved". Hard to be deeply involved when the democratic investigator says you shouldn't be charged.
"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life"
You may have endorsed McCain, and I respect that. But you need to remember that McCain has not secured the nomination. What are you going to do if he begins to tank. What if Huckabee starts winning these later primaries? What are you going to do then? Are you going to stick with McCain or change to Huckabee?
You see, if no one has a majority of the delegates going into the convention then there will be chaos and the delegates will have to make up their mind who they will choose. Are you telling me you would take McCain over all the others? You've got to be kidding me?
Seriously, though, what will you do if this happens?
If you proceed with Huckabotting in this thread I will ban you. Do NOT reply to this comment.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
America'sPastor™ is dead.
Second, if it did, the article in the NYT would really be devistating. It would be about Huckabee and real ethical problems ranging from the appearance of selling pardons to attempting to steal the Governor's furniture to lying to the voters.
This will go away quickly.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
But I disagree that the good pastor is dead. I think that his negatives are much less of a problem than McCain's. And he is much more conservative and will get the conservatives out to vote. He will energize the base. McCain will do just the opposite. He will alienate the base and hand the presidency over to Shillary or Osama. I hope you're wrong.
And [Huckabee] is much more conservative and will get the conservatives out to vote. He will energize the base.
You're joking, right?
For the record, if absolutely everything negative said about McCain proved to be true and the NY Times had pictures of him in bed with the lobbbyist in question and her two teenage daughters, I would still vote for John McCain before I would cast a vote for Mike Huckabee.
And vote for Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Guiliani for good measure.
While 99.99 percent of the sensate world realizes the Huckster is on an extended book tour and digging around for more speaking fees, the delusional can't see the forest for the stolen furninture.
Let's see:
Wrong time: (Huck is not winning 90% of the remaining delegates, so quit deluding yourself)
Wrong place: Republican forum dedicated to winning offices for Republicans (your point only weakens that by innuendo against the Republican nominee)
Wrong space: Wrong thread
That does not even get to the content, which is equally misguided.
Learn the rules, play by the rules and all is good.
Although the article is a hatchet job on many levels, the "sex" angle will probably be effective at getting people to take a harder look at McCain's character. His own quotes about the Keating scandal make me "wince", too.
Oh well, we can expect a lot more of the same over the next few months, we might as well get accustomed to it.
They're listening. They might ban you if you mention anything negative about McCain. So just suck it up and get that nose of yours into his backside!
...will be if the moderators do not enable your pathetic desire for internet "suicide by proxy" but let you stay here so that you can't boast to your friends how RedState banned you.
I think one of the old John Wayne movies had a similar put down of a pathetic villain, telling him that letting him live was a worse punishment than dispatching him to his maker.
and yet (looks around) I am still here....it is the way in which you do it. Inneundo by the way is not the a fact and the NY Times gave no facts to support their hateful piece.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I would rather not spend any time on this barely sourced hit job of a story. However, if there is anything here that should derail McCain's presidential ambitions it would be the supposed official misconduct of selling votes for favors and not the supposed nookie. Since their is scant evidence of either, I couldn't care less.
back to the party. I am disgusted about this NY Times hit and can't imagine anyone for or against McCain that would not be angry (softer word)!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Why does McCain have a Democratic attorney? What other Democrats does he have floating around?
Believe it or not, there are good, competent people who are still Democrats. Bob Bennett, while I don't agree with everything about him, is one of the best.
Besides, it does not hurt that he is also Bill Bennett's older brother.
All forms of media do this with all forms of celebrity. It's what sells. Media outlets and commentators of all stripes have air time to fill, pages to write, and ratings battles to win or lose. Bottom line, this "story" is anonymously sourced gossip and opinion, like 75 percent of all that passes itself off as “news” these days. But it sold news papers and filled air time, didn't it.
Misconstruing this hatchet job as an excuse to attack McCain is silly. Like him or hate him, he is exactly the same person he was 24 hours ago. Arguing that he was somehow too chummy with the MSM is beside the point. He had no choice but to use the MSM. What did you expect him to do, rely on Rush and Sean to get his message out?
My question now is a political one. His team knew this was coming for months. The story is flimsy at best. Any campaign team worth its salt will turn this to their advantage. Today's press conference was a start. Now let’s see the next phase of the plan, and it better be more than having Bill Bennett giving us lawyer talk and schlepping his book. McCain passed the "will he blow up” test. Now what?
quote of the day regarding this story-
"I find it amusing that the paper had constipation–and then ended up with diarrhea all over its front page."
Could this be how John planned to "reach out to conservatives?" This is just really old news and is being pushed aside all to easily by the big Mac. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I find this whole thing a little to over the top to believe this was intended to be a "hitjob". Just saying.
Democrats: Aborting infant democracies since 1961!
The lobbyist story is sexy, but won't be damaging if there's no there there, which there probably isn't. That doesn't mean Huckabee isn't going to milk it for what it's worth but that's a different matter.
But separately the FEC Chairman, who's been a true conservative and was appointed by President Bush, is investigating McCain's loans:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSgCX-MGmRepsojAyirvJbg2ZztAD8UUOVLO0
The bigger problem here is that he may be forced to take public financing if he violated some rules. To be honest I don't completely understand FEC rules that well, so maybe someone can explain them to me.
As much as I dislike Senator McCain, this is really below the belt and smells a New York Times setup. First they endorse him, knowing of this story, if that is what you call it. Then, they run the story. It is like they wanted him as the nominee because they knew they could smear him.
And, he has been dumb enough to go along thinking all was well. Too bad he was not smarter and did not stick to his Republican and conservative roots instead of playing with those who will always be against him.
I still will not vote for him, but this one was really dirty. But, what can you expect from the New York Times? It is no longer a respectable newspaper, but has sunk to the levels of the National Enquirer.
You're either with McCain or you're with the New York Times at this point. Why hand the country over to the New York Times and their cronies?
Please, buy an expensive pair of noseplugs in November.
YES YOU CAN! : )
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
I think the general FEC rule is "Wait until the election is over, then collect whatever fines you can."
With four vacancies on the six-member FEC board, don't look to Congress to confirm any nominees anytime soon.
I'm sure there wasn't an actual "lien" on McCain's potential "public funds" ... so the FEC won't have a case. "Loans" to campaigns generally turn a blind eye to when they might be repaid. For instance, Hillary's loan to her own campaign will surely be repaid from future contributions ... maybe even to her Senate funds (she still has years left on her term).
Complicating opportunities for enforcement, "tainted" contributions that are returned to the donors are mysteriously treated under FEC rules as "having never existed."
For example, Sheila Jackson-Lee was once the highest paid Enron employee in Congress (I remember finding over $82,000 in contributions back in 2000)... but she "returned" the money when scandal broke ... you won't find any record of it in current databases. Same for Billary's old Chinese money.
I think the FEC rule is something like: "Use the money today, return it tomorrow ... Don't Worry, Be Happy."
That McCain didn't do anything wrong, or that the FEC won't be able to get him on anything? Because his FEC troubles worry me because they're not the case of some liberal outlet coming after him, but that of a true conservative chairman coming after him.
During the past 5 years The NYT have lost 60% of it's market value....are desperate men doing desperate things!!
Maybe the "media" should rethink the role of the Times....I tire of the daily/constant references to the "Times" and "Post" as our national papers of record....give me a break!
....to consider Bill Bennett an impartial source and one who's opinion is relevant in this case. While I disagree with the timing of the release of the article, NYT does have a right to release an article they think will draw readers. Plenty of newspapers world wide release articles all of the time that could be considered hatchet jobs. It is up to them to vett the material and take the risk of publishing the article. If it is attractive to their readers...then release it. I'm sure that if they were sure of their sources and felt confident in their reliability then they have every reason to go ahead with the article. With something as important as an attack on a presidential candidate that almost half of the US supports they are aware of the uproar releasing a badly sourced article would cause. Moving on...
Bill Bennett is currently paid by McCain to squelch this problem for McCain. He's not an impartial source and should hardly be counted on for anything other than cute sound bites in support of McCain. To expect him to be fair and impartial is as unrealistic as expecting Hillary's campaign manager to admit she's losing to Obama. It just ain't gonna happen.
Tell us, tallon: Are you a Democrat? Did you vote for George W. Bush? Who did you vote for in the primaries, or who did you caucus for, if your state had them already?
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
....is again, hardly relevant. What I'm getting at is that we have a free press that is able to present whatever story they want. If they want to take a chance on a story...take a chance. Without that free press we wouldn't be where we are now as a society (which might be good or bad depending on how you think we're all doing).
I'm not saying McCain is innocent or guilty of what he is accused of in the NYT article. I personally don't care if he messed around with a 31 year old woman. Part of me says "good job." What bugs me is that this is another case where a republican may, MAY have put himself in a situation where it is reasonable to question his ethics. Foley, Delay, Craig, Vitter... The Republican party needs to rid itself of people who don't give Republicans a good name. IF (and I'm not saying he did) McCain did have ties to a lobbyist, it does not reflect well on him to champion himself as the only truly ethical candidate left in the race. His words would ring hollow.
And if McCain wants to help build a case for his character he shouldn't be using his own lawyer to defend him in the media. Use some other impartial source.
But I'm glad to see that if I have the audacity to post something that may run slightly counter to what you believe I'm automatically labeled a Democrat.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Be honest and confess. It's a banning offense to pretend to be something you're not.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
If you want to close yourself off to opposing viewpoints and surround yourself with only those who agree with you then you'll never grow. A closed society will get progressively dumber and dumber over time. It is outside influences that force you to adapt and become stronger. Ban me if you must. But banning me will only show you're afraid of divergent viewpoints and reinforce stereotypes.
And why are you people so simple minded as to fail to grasp that Red State is not the Republican Party, and while the party reaches out to people all the time, this site is for Republicans and Democrats who can behave and act respectful of the site's readers.
The fact that you come and lecture us on how Bill Bennett is not to be trusted becuase of his political support, while simultaneously being too cowardly to admit your own leanings, really tells me you don't understand ethics at all, but just come here today in bad faith to attack conservatives and Republicans.
You perpetuate a stereotype of left-wing Democrats as revolutionaries who respect nothing if it's in the way of their political aims of overthrowing everything good in America.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
...I come to Redstate to have a conversation with people. I come to Redstate to expand my horizons. I come to Redstate to learn something I might not have otherwise learned.
I don't come to Redstate to get attacked for disagreeing with someone. I don't come to Redstate to get labeled.
I'm not ashamed to call myself a left-wing democrat. I'm not ashamed to call myself a right-wing republican. None of us should be ashamed to call ourselves whatever we are.
And please don't lecture me on perpetuating left-wing Democratic stereotypes. I'm not a revolutionary. I'm not trying to overthrow everything good in America. I'm not hellbent on the destruction of the American dream or whatever you want to say. I'm genuinely interested in having a decent discourse. I want to know why people believe in things they believe in. And I've found the best way it so just talk to them. If I'm not welcome here...then say I'm not welcome here and I'll move on. I don't want to ruffle feathers. I want to learn.
I'm sure that you consider the NY Times an unbiased source...right? Forget the so-called un-biased sources... What say you? Are there any unbiased sources? Just wondering...and not waiting for a reasonable response...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
...I don't consider any source any more to be unbiased. Everyone has an agenda. Whether you agree with it or not....everyone has an agenda they are trying to push. What I do when looking at an issue is take all sides in to account and land somewhere in the middle. Nothing is as black and white as we like to make it seem.
so I guess that just becomes you believe what you want to. I guess we all agree with those that spout our own biases. It's nice of you to at least agree with the bias issue.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
...I would say that I am completely biased. As are all of you. We're all biased. Anyone who pretends to be unbiased is in denial. We all have agendas.
Sorry for saying Bill instead of Bob earlier... My mistake.
I do tend to go with the facts, not the biased press...but what the hey, that's just me...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
was by the NYT on its own credibility. And Bob (not Bill) Bennett's opinion to me matters much more than a rag that sat on this story for over two months, waiting until McCain was all but assured his party's nomination.
Accusations by the NYT against Republican politicians get major, first page coverage. Let's see if tomorrow the NYT places the denials on page one.
Ain't that the truth. Whenever we hear about Obama's alleged ethical lapses, the MSM couches it in the context of a simple "error in judgment", nothing to be worked up about. At least Obama's associate actually was guilty of influence peddling!
Frankly, this is the kind of thing I would expect from someone like Drudge, O'REilly, Rush or Fox, Akin to any of the Clinton hounding scandals of the 90s, the swift boating of Kerry in '04, or the ridiculous perpetuation of "rumors" that Barrack Obama is a Muslim and an Al-Qaida plant.
Frankly, I think this kind of "vetting" is ridiculous and I reject the wrong minded premise that these tactics represent.
If you've been paying attention, you'll notice going negative has backfired on Hillary every time she's tried it against Barrack Obama. Going negative is going to backfire on anyone who goes negative this time around because Americans are tired of this old paradigm.
With our economy on the brink of serious economic recession, our military stretched thin on an ill-defined and poorly planned mission and many of our enemies growing stronger and bolder, we don't have time to play games any more. We have to be about the serious business of running this country.