Wolf Ad Works - (Focus Group Results)
Per Media Curves
"The ad which focuses on Governor Palin's record regarding the treatment of wildlife in Alaska seemed to strike a chord with voters. The recent ads from both parties have had little impact among voters. This is the first ad in over a month that seems to have broken through."
After watching the ad, 25% of the focus group characterized themselves as angry, including 36% of Democrats, 15% of Republicans and 26% of Independents. 16% of the group responded with "sadness" and 29% were disturbed, including 31% of Democrats, 26% of Republicans and 29% of Independents. 22% also viewed the ad with skepticism.
The ad helped Obama achieve a Political Communications Impact Score (PCIS) of 23.3, which is a metric that illustrates the change of voters' perception on each candidate. In comparison, McCain's sex education ad only received a PCIS score of 4.8 and Obama's "More of the Same" ad only ranked a 3.2.
Please donate.
That's really interesting. I liked and have tried to promote the ad. A much bigger political mind than mine (Al Giordano) derided it as an example of stupid "poaching" by independent groups that muddies the campaign message. On balance I think it's good, cause it reveals the nutty moral universe she inhabits, and most hunters find aerial hunting of snow-bound animals unsporting -- or revolting.
September 17, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Real hunters have no respect for this type of behavior. A wolf doesn't feed a fucking family. This is just blood sport by lazy drunk fuckers. This ad needs to play in Washington and Oregon. Gonna donate.
September 17, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
NC Steve says "If you'd published this before all of the daily polls showing Obama's pulled ahead again were posted, it would have made you look like an ordinary fool. However, by posting it after all of those polls came out, you've shown, once and for all, that you are an extraordinary fool."
Gallup says " The Sept. 13-15 Gallup Poll Daily tracking update shows John McCain (47%) and Barack Obama (46%) locked in a close contest when registered voters are asked for whom they would vote if the election were held today."
September 17, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see a Moose ad also, followed by an ad showing Polar Bears drowning trying to swim to the places that used to be covered with ice.
MSM has played up the romantic notion of "Moose Hunters" but the images of a poor moose getting gunned down by high powered rifles is anything but romantic.
There is no question that McBush and Palin are blood thirsty killers - just that Palin stuck only to animals.
September 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. Thank you so much Alicia. I just want to repeat your bottomline - IT SCORES THE HIGHEST ON POLITICAL IMPACT OF ANY AD, BY EITHER CAMPAIGN, TO DATE. I've been pushing this ad just about everywhere I can, including on Josh's TPMtv. (Maybe you might want to link it as a comment up there?)
I've also been watching the numbers of views of the various YouTube videos on this, and the totals (there are multiple ads) are now well over 1 MILLION. One reason people have been giving for NOT showing this is that many Dems & Indnt's are gun owners. When I looked into it, there've been a series of votes on aerial hunting - state by state - and it keeps LOSING. EVEN IN ALASKA, they voted down the AERIAL hunting twice (the 3rd time marred by really unclear language.)
Why? Because even many hunters know this isn't just "everyday" hunting. It often requires multiple/cruel shots, and has little or no sense of "fair chase." Palin supports it to boost caribou numbers, but she stifled the scientific evidence on this (as she did on polar bears, as Bush did on global warming.) The fact that she put $400,000 of tax money into a campaign supporting it, AND added a $150 bounty, makes it 100% clear where she stands. I think for many urbanites, this stuff just plain looks nightmarish. Judging from the comments on YouTube, women find it especially nasty. But I know a lot of hunters, and guides, who feel Aerial hunting & Baiting are out of line.
Again, many Dems think we need to stick to bigger issues. The thing is, an ad like this makes VISCERAL something we only see hints of normally, and often can't make visual - that Palin has a nasty, vindictive side (e.g. As shown with her firing of employees, as shown in her 1st speech against Obama, as shown in her stances towards women's rights.) BUT ONCE PEOPLE HAVE SEEN THIS, the other stories/facts and policies become much more believable. REC'D.
September 17, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are right about hunters.
A friend owns land in MO with deer on it. He hunts and allows others to hunt on his propoerty. However, he has rules to minimize cruelty - no animal traps, can't leave an animal bleeding to death, etc. When he saw this ad, he was livid. He told my sister he would be posting on the hunting sites he visits.
Here's a link to the original ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU
September 17, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The guides I know up here get a lot of the same hunter-tourists that Alaska gets... and their stories aren't pretty. These are guys who LOVE hunting (and get rich guiding) but one's gotten out of it already, and the other refuses to obtain licenses now to do certain kinds of hunting. What they see is big money hunters, who fly in & get top-notch lodging & food, going out & sitting in platforms in trees, drunk, over top of a barrel of meat & honey, blasting bears to pieces from about 10 feet - then yee-haw'ing & getting their pictures taken. Yes, bears are like rabbits here, and some become a threat - but the lack of respect, the absence of anything resembling a "fair" hunt, has just turned them off completely. The hunters in my own family saw too much of the same thing. They'll still hunt, but they're VERY clear that certain types of hunting (and trapping) are just beyond the pale. But not beyond the Palin, it seems.
September 17, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember a friend of mine who hunted deer to feed his family. He owned a gun, but never used it. He would ride a horse into the woods and then find a place to sit and wait. Ultimately, a deer would come by. He would chase it down on foot and use a knife to kill it by slitting its throat.
Now it all sounds pretty brutal, but it was fair, and he, his wife and two kids ate the deer. I remember seeing him riding back from the woods, covered in blood, with a deer lying in front of him on the horse. He told me that he respected the deer too much to hunt it with a gun.
Now, I'm not a hunter, but I respected that guy a whole lot more than these assholes who shoot things from the air, or, like Cheney, who walk around killing essentially tethered birds and call it "hunting".
September 17, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your perspective, quinn...I stayed out of this one because it is too close to my heart. I have been a vegetarian for 15 years because I can't stand the idea of an animal having to die so I can eat. I cried when I saw this video, but knowing it is a sensitive subject for me, I figured my views were outside the normal range. I'm glad to hear that even hunters find it offensive.
I've thought since we 1st met Sarah that if people could actually see her field dressing a moose, they would be less than impressed w/ her...it's just sooooooo barbaric. This aerial hunting is just wrong.
September 17, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Confession. I don't even know what "field dressing a moose" means. But I assume it has nothing to do with fashion.
September 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right about that. It's slitting the moose open and gutting it on the spot.
This article refers to deer, but obviously the process is the same.
http://www.learn-taxidermy.com/field_dressing_deer.htm
Really, if people really knew what happens in slaughter houses, there would be a lot more vegetarians in the world, but that's a whole 'nother subject...
September 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stillidealistic, thanks for fessing up. I've been a vegetarian since I was 17 and found the ad horrifying. Further, it was a double whammy -- while I was driving home from work today NPR ran a piece on moose hunting. I had to turn it off. Barbaric.
These people cannot be allowed to ascend to the highest offices of the land. If the incessant lying, destructive policies, and neo-con/lobbyist links don't put the fear in voters, maybe this will. It's absolutely nauseating.
September 17, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another indicator --
I've been posting on animal sites - trying to reach all geo-demographics.
When a rabid conservative sees it, they resort to name-calling in big red letters, ALL CAPS.
Me thinks it strikes a nerve - they know it's damaging to their side.
September 17, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I've been watching the comments on Youtube, which are usually about how awful this form of hunting is. But there are also a fair measure of wingers, who with remarkable consistency tend to express one of the following two sentiments:
1. They'd like to see Sarah Palin shoot liberals from an airplane.
2. They themselves would like to shoot liberals from an airplane.
September 17, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I took the liberty of Kossifying your find (which, it turns out, had been blogged hours earlier, but I thought it worthy of another):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/17/11057/6946/802/601256
September 17, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would ask people to consider recommending Alicia's diary. I think the TPM audience should give this one some careful consideration.
As my Kos diary notes, The Guardian reports that Palin spent 400K in state funds to defeat an initiative to prohibit aerial wolf hunting. That seems to me shocking -- and I need to find out if the paper's claim that it was state money is true. But IF it is true, it ads another dimension -- and reminds us again what a distinctive place AK is.
September 17, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw it at Kos, thanks! 1. From what I've read, the $400,000 WAS state money & people were pretty irritated that she spent it in the MIDDLE of a state campaign on the measure. 2. Also looked at the Al Giordano & Kos reader feedback on this issue. Giordano came out against the ad (on grounds blown away by the Media Curves study) - but the READERS (as at Kos) came out strongly FOR the ad. 3. As I said before, if Michael Vick can get 23 months in prison for dog-fighting and 6 dogs died (with a lot of public revulsion) then Palin's backing the killing of at least 795 wolves so far (not including the wolf pups taken out & shot later)... and with the wolf being the rarer, ancestral member of the dog family - surely the public is gonna feel even more negatively. I think Media Curves - showing this ad more powerful than the sex ed one, amongst others - nails this.
September 17, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
As always, prudent to remember who different the Kos readership is from the median voter, but I think the Media Curves study shows that the ad, and the issue, taps into something broader.
September 17, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't stomach this stuff, but I went there to watch and to push its ratings. You got my rec too.
I'm sure there're Repuublicans who will literally shoot liberals, Neo-Naziss who will shoot Blacks and Jews, that's endemic to most societies, they're set on voting McCain-Palin but the majority will be so put off by this, it will set Palin back a good way. She's really a female Dick Cheney.
September 17, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't it interesting how the Republicans in the focus group immediately rated the ad not as believable, even before it said anything. Their persistently low ratings throughout the ad tells me that they don't want to believe anything negative about Palin. it lends credence to the notion that the ignorance of Republican voters is willful.
September 17, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I watched that too. They had their eyes closed and their hands over their ears, singing, "Who's afraid of the ..."
September 17, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the ad was powerful simply for the visuals. It just looks so brutal. No wonder Palins favorables went down 10 points in 3 days.
September 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Believe it or not, last night as I was drifting off to sleep thinking about this ad made me realize (and this is for all the Blade Runner fans) that the spooky thing that I haven't been able to get my finger on about the Palinator is that she wouldn't be able to pass a Voight-Kampff test (the test in Blade Runner that proved you were a replicant instead of a human). So that's why this particular ad will be so effective because it pins and spotlights her essential lack of humanity. Equally effective, I think, would be more public awareness of her approval of making rape victims pay for their own rape kits, a practice so heinous that the Legislature of Alaska passed a special bill to outlaw it. Sarah Palin is as cold as the country she governs.
September 17, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the post Alicia. Dijamo loves the animals of the world. If this was a real ad on TV or the internet, I am not sure I would have sat through it. It's the same kind of discomfort that makes people turn the channel when they see the Save the Children ads on TV. I am not a hunter though and don't know how others in that culture would perceive it.
It's an effective ad - brutally effective. Perhaps too brutal to be watched by the people it would would influence most.
September 17, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wanted to see the real size of the population actively engaged in "big game" hunting, and I have to say I'm surprised - the image of a vast majority involved just isn't borne out by the 2006 Census.
Of >300 million citizens, only 12.5 million hunted - down from 16.3 million in 1985. Big game hunters totaled 10.7 million in 2006, down from 12.6 million in 1985. Almost all of these were hunting for deer/elk and wild turkey... with only 0.4 million engaged in bear hunting. I would have to think that a far smaller proportion has actively engaged in aerial hunting.
While I'm sure there would be many who WANTED to hunt big game, and even wanted to participate in aerial hunting, the simple fact appears to be that not many Americans have done so.
September 17, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I would say aerial hunters are not going to be the "soccer moms" of 2008. But Mark Penn might disagree.
September 17, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, we won't lose sleep over the aerial hunters' vote then.
September 17, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the ad is undoubtedly effective, I can see them counterattacking by tagging this as a PETA thing.
September 17, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, Qwerty. This is kind of like when people realized the tuna industry was catching dolphins (read Flipper and your kids crying) in the nets. There are things that make people of good will sick generally, and when that happens, it doesn't work to try and say it's a fringe thing, those pinko PETA weirdos are behind it, they're lying, etc, etc.
And America has a kind of love affair with the wolf.
This ad should play fucking everywhere. And the long term version that's making the rounds by email is even better, though too long for tv spots.
September 17, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
anna m,
Heck, I'd run it because this slaughter is plain wrong, politics or no politics. People should wake up to what the f*ckers are doing to Alaska....
September 17, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But do you run it in Michigan? I say no. This is about a state by state approach now. We need Obama and Biden together as an image of a Democratic Team. I'd stay away from an ad that has the potential to turn off even a small segment of potential blue collar
voters already nervous over race. They are just looking for a reason to not vote for that much change. Stay away from hunting. Stick to the economy, healthcare and stuff like better treatment of vets.
If it's really attractive to the Left on an emotional level, it's a possible winner for the Right. The final result is about a larger plan, the sum of all this--and issues and ads that have the potential to turn blue collar voters should be avoided.
The Democrats just backed off the no-drilling issue. Clearly the best move for this election. Same with hunting.
September 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't expect (or want) to see Obama running this as a National ad. But the point of going after Palin is to use the bloggers, YouTube etc. to get the word out about her - through specific networks, niches, regions, age groups.
I think above all, it's important not to be afraid on some of these issues (not all, but some.) Big chunks of the population feel pretty viscerally about certain "cultural" activities, and I'd argue the majorities on our side are often pretty huge. Yes, a lot of people in Michigan (& Penn & Wisconsin) hunt. But. "A lot" equals 9%. And a smaller % will strongly support aerial hunting of big game. And of these folks, A LOT will already be in the bag for McCain - they're already there through the NRA or Obama's "bitter" comment, or racism, etc. But of the rest of the population, how many would get a visceral reaction against Palin if they saw this. Michigan contains a lot of suburbs, so the question for me would be - how many lost votes from pro-aerial big game hunters open to Obama.... vs how many voters viscerally moved against a Palin-McCain ticket? I'd bet we win.
Nonetheless, I agree - no National Obama ad. But if we could drive this video into the suburbs, targeted to reach younger people & women (who respond most strongly), then... do we do it or not? I'd say, absolutely. I'd like to hear from people in Michigan & Penn though, about how large the suburban vote is, vs how many rural big-game hunting supporters they're finding.
September 17, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really a simple deal. In an election when a small number of swing voters can throw a state that Obama must have win this election, you stay away from an issue that can lose you that state when that single issue isn't relatively small in the larger picture. This is Ralph Nader stuff. This is the preaching to the choir. This is how Democrats lose elections. Unless we're talking healthcare, economy, stupid war, if the issue has an emotional hit for the Left, stay away from it. Abortion is already a tough one, but it's a necessary one. Dump all the others. Let Palin go down but not by Obama's hand or by outrage on the left. Think tactics. Not just blowing steam among those who agree with you to feel good.
September 17, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Make that "when that single issue IS relatively small in the larger picture..."
September 17, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it might work if a Sierra Club, WWF type of organization runs it. The Greens will likely support this as well.
September 17, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher. I'm not saying run this because it's a hot emotional issue for "the Left." What I'm saying is that successful election campaigns - from a liberal/left party - are finding that the population has now moved, in VERY large majorities on some issues, over to our side. I've watched here - in a 100% right-wing press region, extremely pro-hunting & fishing - as strong pro-enviro stances (protecting the boreal forest, protecting polar bears etc.) throw big majorities OUR way. We took a gamble at first, but now we keep hammering it - and the Right doesn't really know what to do about this. It's kneejerk for them to oppose this stuff, but then... they keep losing. Three majorities in a row, and huge popularity ratings for the most Left government on the continent.
And many independents and undecideds feel as strongly about it as we do. Go have another look at that Media Curve thing, and watch the line graph reaction of the Independents - and even the reaction of Republicans. Punch the "Politics" label on the site, and then watch the reaction to other ads - including on lobbyists and the economy and such. What you'll see is that even the depth of the opposition amongst Republicans to the wolf ad is WEAKER than when we speak on the economy. These are aggregates, of course, so what you're really seeing is a very strong, visceral response, in FAVOR of Obama and the ad, and against Palin, even amongst these groups.
When you look at the breakdown numbers at the bottom, you see it again. The numbers who are skeptical of the ad are small minorities, whereas the reaction AGAINST Palin is not only huge... but STRONG. This is why the Democrats SHOULD engage in more of this stuff - and be less afraid than their traditional "move to the center-right" advice says. Yes, pick our spots. Yes, use the bloggers and YouTubes and 527's. But when you see a political ad like this, and those curves, you're crazy not to get it out there. Obama has NEVER run another ad which showed these kinds of numbers, in particular, amongst Independents.
September 17, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get what you're saying, moose, but if I were running Obama's campaign I'd pass on everything that could add momentum to the traditional push button issues for the blue collar demographic. But wolves aside, where do you stand on the dems backing down of off-shore drilling? There's a big picture issue.
September 17, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a smart backdown. People were panicked, from all parties. He had to do something to stop McCain from getting more Drill Baby Drill momentum.
That said, he moved too slowly in changing his strategy on Energy (though eventually it improved), and never really came up with a visual or visceral response that worked. This drove me nuts, as he had at least two - both of which he came to, but too late. The 1st was T-Boone Pickens ad, which had absolutely off-the-charts public response. (It's on the Media Curves site, and they'd never found an ad that could touch it.) The 2nd was, he could have shown a map of areas in the lower 48, on land, which have HUGE amounts of oil & gas, which can be reached & begin flowing YEARS before Alaska or Offshore, which are much cheaper, and which are often located in regions where there is BIG public support for it. Like the Bakken play in north Dakota & Montana, which have as much oil as is in ANWR. Obama eventually put this in his strategy, as the #1 example of where and how America could boost domestic oil production, but an ad - with drillers, farmers, and even with wind-farms in the distance, so he could support BOTH - never got made. He could have easily targeted the fact that a shortage of drills and equipment & staff was the biggest problem in this region - NOT opening up the Offshore. A missed opportunity, the same as a humorous deflating of that Possumus Seal would have helped deflate the "arrogant" meme much faster got missed. this is no big slight to the campaign, it's just saying that, inside that bubble, with everyone focussed on their plan, it's genuinely hard to adjust course quickly. They're getting faster, and things should be fine, but the lag time was really noticeable early on.
September 17, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. This seems reasonable. Moose, it's easier to get you when you're light on the caps. Just sayin....but I"m just visiting, so don't pay me no mind.
September 17, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 17, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's how it works:
http://www.zinasaunders.com/pages/illustration/images/palin-hunter.html
The above artwork - copyright 2008 by Zina Saunders. (I don't know the woman, but I love this piece!)
September 17, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP..
Saw your comments over at Mudflats...good to see TPMers getting over onto other sites!
September 17, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've linked to them in two posts today.
If anyone wants the links... then click my name and read the top two blog posts. Look for mudflats and the links.
September 17, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP -- Wow. That's intense.
September 17, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to be popular in America, you don't shoot dogs. Simple as that. I knew this ad would be effective. Sarah Palin flies around in an airplane shooting dogs. A very effective ad that reaches straight down to voters' guts and the things they believe in.
September 17, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. If this ad was redone (and I think it needs improvement), I'd say something like "The wolf is the largest member of the Dog family" or "The ancestor of Dogs" or something.
Michael Vick got 23 months for dog-fighting & killing 6 dogs. Palin's plan has killed at least 795 wolves so far.
September 17, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I spend some time with wheat growing, beef raising ranchers. Killing wolves is a good thing to them. They'd kill you if you hurt their dog. Wolves and dogs. Not the same deal to this demographic. But this is coming down to silly stuff now. He's not going to run it. But the deeper issue is that I want Obama to work for the important stuff --healthcare, economy, oil prices. That's were the political capital should be spent. By the way, sending Micheal Vick to jail for that dog deal wouldn't have happened if he weren't a Black football star.
September 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised commentors here didn't remember Farley Mowat's classic "Never Cry Wolf". The Disney movie was outstanding, in my opinion, but it deleted the primary irony in Mowat's novel: the discovery that it was not the wolves that were decimating the caribou population, but rather the bounty hunters who killed caribou to bait their wolf traps.
Now I'm wondering if the village of Wasilla suffers a plague of mice.
September 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Farley's not forgotten, as he Summers down home in NS, and advises the Green Party which is presently running at 10% in the polls. Nonetheless, it's important to note that his works are more fiction than documentary, as he himself admits. But the old boy does tell a good story.
September 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But don't you think that fiction works in this case, quinn? I mean, shooting wolves from airplanes will check the caribou declination?
September 17, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that ad last week and forwarded it out to friends because it is effective. But I don't want to watch it again. It makes me angry, sad and revolted. But I think because it arouses such intense feelings it is a bit too strong for TV. It's too strong for kids and would provoke a backlash from parents. It would need to be tamed down a bit. I'd be really pissed if it showed on the TV while my 4 year old nephew was watching. It would give him nightmares and that would be inexcusable.
September 17, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of fact I'd guess that Barack and Michelle Obama wouldn't want their kids to watch it either.
September 17, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only watched it once, too. I viralled it, though with re-watching.
I hear what you are saying about children, though. Hopefully, it's not shown on Sat. morning.
September 18, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see the wolf ad all the time here in northern Virginia.
September 17, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
is there any word on how the POW ad, which was test-marketed the past couple of days, was focus-grouped? I know Brave New Films was really limiting its airing until they had some feedback.
September 17, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saw a great comment about the wolf ad --
"This wolf comes as a wolf"
September 18, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was me, stealing from Justice Scalia (!) in Morrison v. Olson (independent counsel law) dissent. It's one of my favorite judicial lines ever. The windup is he says that some erosions of the constitution seem benign, and "come clad, so to speak, in sheep's clothing." Then he drops the line. It is one of the minor tragedies of American public life that our best writer happens to be a wing-nut on most things.
September 18, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain could be losing the Rocky Mtn states. This helps in Colorado and Montana, where the despicable practice outrages people, wearing furs is unpopular and real hunters think this is wimpy and unsportsmanlike. Add to this McCain's tone-deaf statement in Colorado that we needed to "renegotiate water rights." Them's fighting words here and we know he means to give Colorado water to Arizona. No way, old man.
September 22, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink