Department of Analogies
I think Charles Mahtesian’s take in Politico on the political strategems behind picking John McHugh to serve as Army Secretary is pretty shrewd. As with the co-optation of Jon Huntsman, Ray LaHood, and Robert Gates, Obama is acting in a canny way to not just be “bipartisan” but to undermine opposition to the progressive agenda. Mahtesian lays this all out quite well, but then offers this analogy:
All at once, Obama has selected a nominee who burnishes his bipartisan credentials, opened up a seat prime for Democratic pickup and drained the GOP reservoir of one of the few remaining Northeastern moderates.
It’s an event that’s happening with enough frequency to suggest the presence of a design, a plan that not only sketches the outline of a reelection strategy but manages to drive a wedge into the opposition at the same time. Call it a Sherman’s March in reverse — an audacious attempt by Obama to burn down any lines of escape for Republicans from their one refuge of popularity, the deep South.
I like Civil War history a lot, but I don’t really see the comparison here. A better analogy might be to say that FDR enacted a “Sherman’s March in reverse” using New Deal spending and the pre-WWII defense buildup to funnel funds to build up infrastructure in the South and keep oft-skeptical Dixiecrats in his political coalition. At any rate, interesting article.
60 Responses to “Department of Analogies”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
> Obama is acting in a canny way to not just
> be “bipartisan” but to undermine opposition
> to the progressive agenda.
Once you have appointed enough opponents of your nominal policy P to key positions in your Administration, it is going to be very hard to maintain policy P as people who strongly believe not-P in their hearts work away under you. After enough of this type of decision it becomes very hard for the outside observer to see why he should not consider the decision-maker’s actual belief to be not-P as well, since that is the outcome of his key actions.
Oh wait – this is all 11-dimensional chess and there is a Hidden Plan(tm). I forgot.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I agree that was an awkward analogy, but I guess it depends on what you are supposedly reversing. The FDR example would be reversing the tactics (from sorched earth to buildup). I gather the idea here is a geographic reversal: Sherman was operating in the South, to the rear of Lee’s Army in Virginia. I believe the suggestion is that Obama is instead making everything to the “north” inhospitable territory for the GOP.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
What progressive agenda?
1. War expansion, Afghanistan and Pakistan
2. Public private partnerships with unregulated private equity money, banking, infrastructure, PPIP
3. Expanding Executive powers, to close internet, block release of detainee photos
4. No investigation or court challenges to torture
Obama can appoint those people because they are doing unprogressive work.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Not Really,
Can you name any policy issues relating to the job of Secretary of the Army on which McHugh opposes Obama?
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Still, if gasoline is at $4.00/gallon in mid summer 2010 or 2012, the Democrats likely get their head handed to them. So much of our electoral punditry of the last 30 years has been an exercise in avoiding more simple explanations, perhaps because it is against the economic interests of a lot of people to admit that electoral outcomes are quite often immune to modification via electoral strategies.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
If gasoline is $4.00 a gallon it won’t be because of supply and demand, but the return of oil/gasoline as an investment commodity. Americans continue driving less, that’s why the Federal Highway Trust Fund is down. The tax is 18.4 cents per gallon.
The Obama team has done nothing to change Goldman Sach’s franchise in trading oil futures. That qualifies as unprogressive.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Not sure the analogy really holds. Sherman was a war criminal. He looted, burned, and ransacked non-combatant property, and killed defenseless women, children, slaves and the feeble elderly men. Naturally, liberals love Sherman because the victims were people in the South. But his actions still contravened the Geneva Conventions ratified in 1863.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Alan, the path to wisdom does not lie in making confident predictions about what will be the cause of price fluctuations which have yet to occur.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Given your Harvard background, you should have used this post as an excuse to recommend one of the greatest documentaries of our time, Sherman’s March.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Re Brad
Sherman was a war criminal. He looted, burned, and ransacked non-combatant property, and killed defenseless women, children, slaves and the feeble elderly men. Naturally, liberals love Sherman because the victims were people in the South. But his actions still contravened the Geneva Conventions ratified in 1863.
Sherman did nothing of the sort. The number of non-combatants who were killed during Shermans’ march can be counted on the fingers of both hands. Sherman did inflict mass economic destruction on Georgia during the march but his actions were as nothing as compared to the actions of the combatants in the Second World War, via strategic bombing. Shermans’ economic actions were also very effective in causing mass desertions of native Georgians from Lees’ Army hold up in Richmond thus materially shortening the war and actually saving lives.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
An actual reenactment of Sherman’s March wouldn’t be all that bad either. Skip the analogies, metaphors, “reverses” and feints. Just do it. Start at the Mason-Dixon and burn everything to the Gulf of Mexico. Then rebuild and re-populate with people lacking the lynching/NASCAR/snake handler gene. And Brad @ #7 sounds bitter about something or other. Get him a room at GITMO.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I think Sherman’s actions were correct, but make no mistake; when you confiscate or destroy the food supply and the means to harvest food from people in an agrarian society, you are condemning innocent civilians to death via starvation/disease/exposure to the elements.
There is no way around it. To wage war is to wage war on innocent civilians.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Fuck off, Alan.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I agree with the early posts – Matt, your just flat out falsely claiming that Obama has pushed a progressive agenda. We jump on the right for this kind enabling, why are you selling us out?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Fuck off, Phaedrus.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
How about “Sherman’s March with Republicans As Southern Womenfolk”?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
There is no way around it. To wage war is to wage war on innocent civilians.
Some of you young men think that war is all glamour and glory, but let me tell you, boys, it is all Hell
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Wouldn’t a reverse Sherman’s March be something like rampaging through the South building cities and bringing the dead back to life?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Greg is correct, war is hell. If you don’t believe him just ask Cheney or Gingrich or Limbaugh. They’ll tell you from first hand exper………umm……well, they’ll tellya.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Greg is correct, war is hell. If you don’t believe him just ask Cheney or Gingrich or Limbaugh. They’ll tell you from first hand exper………umm……well, they’ll tellya.
I always love to think about what US Grant and Sherman would do to these assholes.
‘Course, it would pale in comparison to what ole Honest Abe would do. A man who worked river barges and rail roads versus those fat asses?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Apparently the “branded progressive agenda”, which bears no resemblance to its historical positions, involves the widespread use of the F word. Impressive…
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Brad @#7 writes:
The US ratified the First Geneva Convention in 1882. What’s this foreign law binding the US stuff you talk about Brad?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Will Allen, I’m not making confident predictions. No one knows what the future holds. But I am pointing out factors that are currently in play.
I assume your political prediction fits within this same framework.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Apparently the “branded progressive agenda”, which bears no resemblance to its historical positions, involves the widespread use of the F word. Impressive…
I’m with Brewmn. I’m farther to the left than you are, Alan, and I’m very impressed with Obama. He’s done things I never thought I’d see a US President do, and while there are a few areas I’d like to see more progress in, I think he’s done an admirable job in his first five months.
Of course, maybe that’s because he’s a Democrat, and I expect Democrat, and not fairy fucking godmothers—OMG! I said the F-word again! Sorry, princess. I didn’t mean to offend.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
wow, total comment fail. signing off for the day.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The US ratified the First Geneva Convention in 1882. What’s this foreign law binding the US stuff you talk about Brad?
Not to mention every one of those conventions – at German and British instigation – made the shooting on sight of rebels legal.
I’m sorry, Brad, but the CSA was not, nor will it ever be, a legitimate nation. It was a collection of insurrectionists.
And don’t try to bullshit out of this one, you might recall, they tried, and we fucking won
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
No, Alan, I’m just sick of shallow, kneejerks like yourself using every opportunity to gratuitously slag someone who’s been president for four months for all of the evils of a thoroughly compromised and corrupt political system.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
That’s well and good but it would be better to clear out a Senator or three. Maybe appoint Norm Coleman ambassador to St Barts or someplace to clear the road for Sen. Franken.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Lowell’s monument to the soldiers who fought to suppress the Rebellion is a wing’ed Nike, holding aloft a laurel wreath, as if to place it on the brow of the downtown.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I like Civil War history a lot, but I don’t really see the comparison here.
I don’t either, and I teach this stuff. Evidently he thinks Sherman’s March was designed to cut off Lee’s escape, but at the time [November-December 1864] Lee was still holding Grant off before Petersburg. Moreover, Sherman wasn’t out to control territory, but simply to move through it while living off the land. Rather, it was designed to wreak havoc on the Confederate supply system and, more importantly, to show southern whites that the Confederacy was no longer capable of protecting them.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
As usual, Obama realists give a substantive list of where Obama’s actions don’t match his progressive rhetoric, and the Obamiacs counter with… yeah, *sigh*.
Matt, nothing to say – got a list of Obama’s progressive actions?
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Actually, I thought I was holding President Obama accountable for his actions/plans. That they have a resemblance to George W. Bush is just a coincidence.
And I thought this was a place to post opinions. Silly me!
Congrats to all the creative name callers.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Maybe Obama is an OK dude. Maybe he has a master plan. Maybe before he’s done he’ll have reversed and unraveled much of the bullshit Bush wrought. That said it’s surely puzzling his propensity for continued support of various measures that civil libertarians on both the left and right find troubling.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2&p=1
From Harvard Law Professor and former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith, systematically assessing Obama’s “terrorism” policies in The New Republic:
Many people think Cheney is scare-mongering and owes President Obama his support or at least his silence. But there is a different problem with Cheney’s criticisms: his premise that the Obama administration has reversed Bush-era policies is largely wrong. The truth is closer to the opposite: The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit. Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric. . . .
[A]t the end of the day, Obama practices will be much closer to late Bush practices than almost anyone expected in January 2009.
…
The new president was a critic of Bush administration terrorism policies, a champion of civil liberties, and an opponent of the invasion of Iraq. His decision (after absorbing the classified intelligence and considering the various options) to continue core Bush terrorism policies is like Nixon going to China. . . .
If this analysis is right, then the former vice president is wrong to say that the new president is dismantling the Bush approach to terrorism. President Obama has not changed much of substance from the late Bush practices, and the changes he has made, including changes in presentation, are designed to fortify the bulk of the Bush program for the long-run.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Alan, this is what is known as a prediction….
“If gasoline is $4.00 a gallon it won’t be because of supply and demand, but the return of oil/gasoline as an investment commodity.”
…..and I think the track record for predicting what will cause a political party to lose an election is rather better than the track record for predicting what will be the cause of a price spike which has yet to occur. On the other hand, if what you mean by “….the return of oil/gasoline as an investment commodity.”, is that there may be a massive devaluation in the dollar, I’m not predicting that you are wrong.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
What about Ken Salazar? Does this plan only apply to the House? Neither the linked story or this post account for Obama handing the GOP a Senate pickup opportunity in Colorado. Michael Bennet has never run for public office. the Biden pick, too, gave Republicans, via Mike Castle, a chance to win a seat. And the Hillary pick gave them a better chance in New York.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“Actually, I thought I was holding President Obama accountable for his actions/plans. That they have a resemblance to George W. Bush is just a coincidence.”
Well, your list of his “actions/plans” is totally one-sided and arbitrary, in order to support your “point.” Furthermore, your “opinion” has little to do with the basic argument behind the post, which is that Obama is attempting to co-opt those parts of the existing power structure which can be co-opted, and marginalizing those that can’t.
As to the name calling: if you don’t want to be called a hack, don’t act like one.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Brewmn is an Obomaton. Having been a supporter during the primaries, I used to hate that term. It’s pretty clear that some of these folks are every bit as insanely loyal as the bushies though, and they deserve an equally condescending name
Shit, Brewmn has never once been able to explain how Obama counts as ‘progressive’. She just lashes out. There is a difference between people like me that will explain why I think you’re a scummy hack, Brewmn simply asserts that you’re a scummy hack and will never elaborate further.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Don’t you have some nonexistent rape photos to cry over, soullite?
And cutting and pasting the same four criticisms of Obama’s actions to date, at least two of which are gross distortions or wildly overstated (”Expanding Executive powers”, “unregulated private equity money”) hardly qualifies as an “argument” unless you’re Sean Hannity.
None of you on the dogmatic left ever seem to acknowledge that Obama is pushing for legislation to achieve greatly expanded healthcare, a cap and trade system to cap emmissions, or that he was almost unaniously defeated when asking for funds to close the prison at Guantanamo. But, since these weren’t achieved by January 22nd, I guess none of them count.
I don’t see what you’re gaining in your simpleminded demonizing of Obama as the enemy, other than satisfying your own petulant, whiny assed tittybabyness.
In other words, grow the fuck up.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“Lowell’s monument to the soldiers who fought to suppress the Rebellion is a wing’ed Nike, holding aloft a laurel wreath, as if to place it on the brow of the downtown.”
Okay…we’re all thinking it…everyone just say it with me now….”FAGGOT”…..
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Little to do with the basic argument behind the post?
Bob Gates
1. War expansion, Afghanistan and Pakistan
Ray LaHood
2. Public private partnerships with unregulated private equity money, infrastructure
if you don’t want to be called a hack, don’t act like one
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“Atlanta is ours, and fairly won.” Hope we hear those words soon.
Good old “Uncle Billy.” Sherman looks a lot like Vincent van Gogh, don’t ya think? Less sadness and more fire in the eyes, but definitely a tad crazy.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Brewmn has never once been able to explain how Obama counts as ‘progressive’.
This is the same obtuse argument I hear from a progressive (whatever the fuck that is) friend of mine. Well Obama did sign into law a $750 billion stimulus plan with money for a whole host of programs. In fact, my “Obama-is-a-Republican” friend works for a city that just bought 21 hybrid cars for its fleet with stimulus money. Now, I think the stimulus was too small but it sure as hell wasn’t Republican.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“This is the same obtuse argument I hear from a progressive (whatever the fuck that is) friend of mine. Well Obama did sign into law a $750 billion stimulus plan with money for a whole host of programs. In fact, my “Obama-is-a-Republican” friend works for a city that just bought 21 hybrid cars for its fleet with stimulus money. Now, I think the stimulus was too small but it sure as hell wasn’t Republican.”
Well, where does this place BHO?:
“Barack Obama’s 2009 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Pandemic Flu was revised and “passed by the full committee”. Not sure what the next step is, but based on the summary, it gives billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to countries and entities that support sharia law and/or harbor, hide and support those who want to destroy the U.S. and our allies.
Read the summary from David Obey’s office that was quietly released last week with nary a word from any media.
• $3.6 billion, matching the request, to expand and improve capabilities of the Afghan security forces
• $400 million, as requested, to build the counterinsurgency capabilities of the Pakistani security forces
• Afghanistan: $1.52 billion, $86 million above the request
• West Bank and Gaza: $665 million in bilateral economic, humanitarian, and security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza
• Jordan: $250 million, $250 million above the request, including $100 million for economic and $150 million for security assistance
• Egypt: $360 million, $310 million above the request, including $50 million for economic assistance, $50 million for border security, and $260 million for security assistance
• Pakistan: $1.9 billion, $591 million above the request
• Iraq: $968 million, $336 million above the request
• Oversight: $20 million, $13 million above the request, to expand oversight capacity of the State Department, USAID, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan to review programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq
• Israel: $555 million of the $2.8 billion 2010 request for security assistance, $555 million above the supplemental request. (Note: that means Obama’s original request did not include any money for Israel in 2009)
• Lebanon: $74 million
• International Food Assistance: $500 million, $200 million above the request, for PL 480 international food assistance to alleviate suffering during the global economic crisis
• Refugee Assistance: $343 million, $50 million above the request, …including humanitarian assistance for Gaza. Funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency programs in the West Bank and Gaza is limited to $119 million (Note: Gaza = Hamas)
• Disaster Assistance: $200 million to avert famines and provide life-saving assistance during natural disasters and for internally displaced people around the world, including Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, the Middle East and South Asia
• Peacekeeping: $837 million for United Nations peacekeeping operations, including an expanded mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a new mission in Chad and the Central African Republic
• HIV/AIDS: $100 million, $100 million above the request, for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to address a funding shortfall for grants in key countries such as Haiti, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan. (Note: That means Obama’s original request didn’t include any money for AIDs)
• Africa: $151 million, $18 million above the request, for economic and security assistance for Kenya, Somalia, Southern Sudan, and Zimbabwe
• Mexico: $470 million, $404 million above the request, to address growing violence along the United States-Mexico border by supporting the Government of Mexico’s war against organized crime and drug-trafficking
• Georgia: $242 million to fulfill the United States commitment to the people of Georgia
• Global Financial Crisis: $300 million, $148 million below the request, to address the global financial crisis in developing countries
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation: $55 million, $34.5 million below the request, for the National Nuclear Security Administration to safeguard nuclear material in Russia and other sites world-wide
• Department of Justice: $17 million, matching the request, for counter-terrorism activities and to provide training and assistance for the Iraqi criminal justice system”
But, In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: “We are out of money.”
SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?
OBAMA: “Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits”
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I’m sure everyone can figure out by now what posts are by me and which are by the stalker/hijacker. But I’m flattered that I’m distinctive enough to imitate.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“I’m sure everyone can figure out by now what posts are by me and which are by the stalker/hijacker. But I’m flattered that I’m distinctive enough to imitate.”
Yes, everyone is able to figure out which posts are by me and which ones are not. And yes, I am flattered.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Okay…we’re all thinking it…everyone just say it with me now….”FAGGOT”…..
No, actually, quite a number of us are more open minded and tolerant of cultural differences then you are, not to mention less foul-mouthed.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“No, actually, quite a number of us are more open minded and tolerant of cultural differences then you are, not to mention less foul-mouthed.”
How DARE you insult me. Do you not know? I am Tyro…genius. Most of you here are woefully out of your depth when engaging in verbal battle with me. You sir, are a FAGGOT.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
One, however, should feel free to make confident predictions about the political ramifications of price fluctuations that have yet to occur, as it is so much more informative.
Will Allen is much more persuasive when he’s arguing, like 2X4 McArdle, that the fault for the subprime crisis is the CRA and that fag, Barney Frank.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I can name an Obama progressive policy. Thanks to the stimulus package, being unemployed, I continue to have health insurance because my COBRA payments are now a third of what they otherwise would have been. Also unemployment itself was extended. Not bad for 3 months in office.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Re Tyro # 47
Mr. Tyro at # 47 is a fucking putrid piece of filth masquerading as a human being.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Is Mr. Tyro at # 47 even a grown-up? I expect him next to claim he’s an astronomer and he can see yur-anus while he giggles over his keyboard.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I believe that there is a consensus that: 1) New York will lose a seat in the House of Representatives wth the next census and 2)McHugh’s seat would have been the one to go. If that is correct, then it was not that Machiavellian a move.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Well, yes, SavageView, gasoline price spikes corrleated with declining popularity of Presidents Carter and Bush II. In contrast, steep price declines correlated with soaring popularity with Reagan and Clinton. No, correlation does not prove causation, but there is a significant, 30-plus year correlation between Presidential popularity and the price of gasoline, so it is not outlandish to suppose that if gas is at $4, President Obama’s, and the Democrats’ electoral prospects will suffer.
In contrast, someone who thinks they can make a definitive call on what the cause of a future price increase will be should be on the Forbes 400 list, if they actually have such skill.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
By the way, it is a lie to assert that I ever attributed the sub-prime crisis to the CRA, and it is a lie to imply that I ever used slurs pertaining to sexual orientation with Barney Frank. In fact, I’ve made a point to say that the disaster that has been and is the way the GSEs were formed and operate is a bipartisan folly.
Why people are so compelled to lie is a mystery.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Re: Sherman was a war criminal. He looted, burned, and ransacked non-combatant property
If you look at Sherman’s actual orders for the march through Georgia and the Carolinas you will find that wanton destructiveness was forbidden and only valid military targets were allowed to be burned. To be sure, a property owner who burned down a bridge or took potshots at the Union troops was likely to find his home in ashes since by his own actions he had mae it a military target. Much of the burning was done not by Union troops but by deserters and by civilian criminals. Sherman also spent a great deal of time arguing (plausibly) that the destruction of Columbia was due to weather (a high wind and dry conditions) and the fires retreating Confederates set getting out of control. Meanwhile rape and murder were punished in the army with summary execution.
Re: To wage war is to wage war on innocent civilians.
Are you sure they were all innocent? And the US government did institute a fairly generous and lenient claims process for Union supporters in the South whose property was destroyed in the war.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Didn’t say they were all innocent. I said waging war on a society’s economic base will inevitably kill innocent civilians. That is what war inevitably does, and I say that as someone who defends Sherman.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:40 pm
That wasn’t tyro. He has an impersonator. Weird.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
you know, i used to get bummed that my blog doesn’t have a wide plethora of commentors, until i read threads like this one.
flame war much?
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Another analogy-approach (related to the politico article):
Obama is removing all impediments to the remaining republicans one day realizing a version of the following applies to them:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then… they came for me… And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
June 4th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Dear Wingnut Freak Who’s Impersonating Tyro,
Your neo-confederate tears are so yummy and sweet!
Sum day, da souf guh rise again! We guh pave up a whole mess o’ roads!