The Best Prospective President...

And one of the lesser Presidential candidates, has withdrawn.

Fred Dalton Thompson, a man who can be as comfortable without the Presidency as with it, withdrew from the race this morning. He was conservatives' last, best hope and will be sorely missed.

UPDATE: It was distressing when National Review, the magazine of Bill Buckley, chose to endorse Mitt Romney. I didn't and don't agree, creating only the second time I've disagreed with a position that I know Bill supports.

That said, the tribute paid Fred Thompson in Top-Notch Thompson by National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez is the finest I've ever read. I encourage you to enjoy it and commend her for writing it. Well done.

At best, the coming election will be disappointing.

At best.

On Heller: Shot in the Back by the Bush DOJ

It's safe to say that no one, not a single person involved with or informed on the Heller vs DC Second Amendment case, foresaw that the Bush Administration would come out shooting the good guys.

While DOJ has pasted a fig leaf over its center of mass by arguing for an interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right, more troubling, much more troubling is its call for the Supreme Court to determine that rights recognized by the Second Amendment are uniquely open to restriction by the government.

According to the DOJ brief filed at SCOTUS in Heller

(T)he text and history of the Second Amendment point to a more flexible standard of review.

DOJ argues that only the government can determine which arms are suitable for which exercise of individual rights.

DOJ argues that SCOTUS find this (now useless) individual right and then remand the Heller case back to the DC circuit court to determine whether a ban of handguns is a legitimate restriction of such a right.

I'm at a loss. What part of the text "shall not be infringed" points to a more flexible standard of review? To my knowledge, that is the strongest directive language in the entire Constitution. What are these guys smoking?

I'm reminded of a man with whom I once (only once) did business. When I argued about the propriety of the bill he responded, "If you can't screw your friends, who can you screw?"
President Bush needs to be a little less concerned with his legacy in Gaza and a whole lot more concerned with his legacy on the streets at home.

I'll have a complete review of the brief later today. Until then, read How Many Lawyers Does It Take to Make a Circular Argument? In Heller, a Lot!

Clinton Attack Dog Toasted, then Roasted in New Hampshire

For more than two decades, Sid Blumenthal as been Bill and Hillary Clinton's designated character assassin. Need a bimbo tattered? See Sid. Want State Troopers to develop collective amnesia, or to be ignored by the media, let Sid accuse them of fraud, infidelity and drunk driving in The New Yorker magazine. When Bill Clinton spoke of "the politics of personal destruction," Blumenthal was undoubtedly the model for the phrase, though certainly not the target of any instruction to stop.

Michael Isikoff once described the Clinton hit man as one who "rearranges facts, spins conspiracy theories, impugns motives, and besmirches the character of his political and journalistic foes" and one who "has a malleable relationship with the truth" while on his appointed rounds defending the Clintons.

Sid Blumenthal was arrested and jailed in Nashua, New Hampshire early Monday morning on a charge of "aggravated DWI." Sid had the presence of mind to refuse a breathalyzer test, so we'll never know exactly how stewed he was, but he was sufficiently inebriated to cruise through a 30 MPH zone at 70 MPH with a police car behind him. He failed the field sobriety test, was arrested, handcuffed, transported, fingerprinted, and put in the pokey until he made bail.

Nashua prosecutors will be well-advised to review Blumenthal's fictional statements about his statements to investigators and grand jury testimony under oath before cutting him a deal he doesn't deserve.

There are not many on God's earth who deserve the bad days—and nights!—that are our fate, but Sid Blumenthal has ruined more lives than most writers and "political operatives," and deserves special consideration in the halls of humility.

I'll look forward to the mug shot, but won't expect to see the story covered in much of the legacy media.

And Hell Froze Over…

It snowed today in Baghdad.

And the surge is succeeding.

According to Hillary Clinton, the second statement still requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

A most imperious president for a post-imperial but imperiled country.

Are the Liberal Feminists at Ms. Magazine anti-Semitic or Merely anti-Israel?

The American Jewish Congress submitted this graphic as a paid advertisement in Ms. Magazine.

The magazine refused to print the ad, claiming it was too controversial for its readership.

Ms. Eleanor Smeal, normally vocal liberal and publisher of the magazine, refused comment.
Ladies, it's tough getting off of the liberal plantation.

When Did George McGovern Lose His Mind?

I've met George McGovern. In fact, I know George McGovern… well at least as well as Hillary Clinton knew Benazir Bhutto.

George McGovern is a true American hero, one of those of the greatest generation that don't go around talking up their contribution to saving civilization in World War II. He is a man strong enough to have knocked off Lyndon Johnson, the 800 pound gorilla of the politics of his day, but a man humble enough to admit his limitations after competing and failing in the private sector.

He was a good friend of and to Barry Goldwater, and for that if nothing else I respect him.

Today, though, the former Senator from South Dakota called for the impeachment of both George Bush and Dick Cheney. In that effort, he follows the lead of Dennis Kucinich.

According to his op-ed in The Washington Post, McGovern's bill would read

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

I'm amazed that Senator McGovern would accuse so loosely. High crimes and misdemeanors require just those, but the senator is unable to articulate even one. Their conduct doesn't hack it. Nor does barbaric policies, nor, shame of shame, does historic low as a concept (of what, exactly?), let alone provable point.

In fact, in 1,430 words the good senator is unable to point to even a single example of an act on the part of either President Bush or Vice President Cheney that arises even to the level of parking ticket, let alone high crime or misdemeanor. Heck, even in the last, deplorably weak use of the power of impeachment there was at least a real crime (perjury, testifying untruthfully under oath before a court of competent jurisdiction) at the core of the effort. In this case all that drives the effort are political differences.

George McGovern doesn't like war. I understand that and respect his position. The proper task is for him to support a candidate or candidates who will take that position in the halls of government—Kucinich is still in the running, and Obama holds nearly similar views. Pick one!—and to then win the political debate.

To push for the criminalization of political differences demeans the very Republic for which you fought senator.

UPDATE: Jonathan Adler points out at The Volokh Conspiracy that Senator McGovern has also re-written history in his article.

UPDATE II: Don Surber piles on with a point-by-point critique of McGovern's article. Some of the comments point at The Washington Post for printing it.

Years ago, the John Birch Society wanted to criminalize political differences. They lost. So should those on the left who espouse that same goal today.

HRC: The Imperious President?

Watching the last few Democratic debates, the personality similarities and differences between the candidates have begun to surface. While there are no candidates in the group whose policies I will support, there appear to be a number whose personalities are positive in part or in whole.

Certainly Barack Obama seems to be a positive fellow, perhaps the ying to his wife's yang. He pushes a largely positive message with nearly totally positive language. He comes closest, I think, to the otherwise oxymoronic description last used with Hubert Humphrey, he is a "happy liberal," though with a tad too much populism, socialism and international naivete to remain so for long.

John Edwards suffers from the trial lawyers' curse, the need to be believed even when speaking the unbelievable. Edwards excretes from every pore the need to be liked by people he perceives below his station in life.

Poor Bill Richardson. He touts his resume, almost desperate that others will see him as he sees himself (he negotiated successfully with the North Koreans?) while completely blind as to how others see him, as a fellow with a thoroughly inflated resume.

Then there's Hillary, tone-deaf, glass jawed, eternally confusing intelligence with arrogance while demanding deference. If elected, the hubris of her presidency would put that of Richard Nixon's to shame in the shadows.

For those with hearing aids, Joe Biden is the best of the bunch, a thoroughly likable fellow as long as you control the volume control.

Democrat Leaders All Agree: The Surge Is Still Failing

In the debate's most telling question set, Charlie Gibson, generally a pillar of the MSM, offered the candidates a chance to at least nod to reality:

"So I want to ask all of you. Are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked?"

None would. Not a one could come to that admission.

Gibson went further, correcting some of the candidates' talking point "facts" by pointing out the enormous advances since the surge began.

To no avail, their answers remained, "No."

He even offered Hillary a comfortable exit from her memorable insult of General Petraeus four months ago when she told the world that to believe his testimony of progress in Iraq would require "a willing suspension of disbelief."

Last night she could have admitted an error and praised the General's leadership, but she chose instead to double down on her call for a withdrawal no matter the facts.

Ever since the thoughtless comments in 1993 about the inadequacies of military officers serving cocktails at White House functions, she has been unable to come to terms with America's fighting forces.

While she may once more come to occupy the White House, it really does require a willing suspension of disbelief to imagine Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief.

How Many Lawyers Does It Take to Make a Circular Argument? In Heller, a Lot!

The District of Columbia’s legal brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case, where the District defends its version of gun control against a decision by the Second District Court of Appeals that the District is violating the constitutional rights of its residents, was due and filed January 4th. Interestingly, the filing was simultaneous with the resignation of the District’s top lawyer and the firing of her special assistant on the case. To say it is rare to change lawyers after they’ve filed a brief before SCOTUS but before oral arguments is to understate the situation.

But, not to worry. To prepare its case, the District hired seven outside attorneys, some of the top guns—no pun there!—from two of the area’s most prestigious and expensive firms, to help write and now perhaps argue its case.

The brief, 58 pages in chief with 162 separate citations, likely cost DC taxpayers at least $500,000, perhaps twice that, for research and writing. The result bears the hallmarks of authorship by a brilliant committee of highly skilled, charged and ego-endowed lawyers. It is a writing of which only a lawyer—no, only a conclave of lawyers paid by the word or the hour—could be proud. Each point is made with pinpoint precision in a well-organized pyramid of arguments, crafted and printed only after hours, days and weeks of research, collaboration, argument and honing by memo.

In the end, though, the DC brief shares the failing of all committee works in that the logic is unconvincing. It fails because it is alternately both over-reaching and terminally circular.

The arguments fall into three groups, The Militia, The District and The Regulation:

First: The Second Amendment Protects Only “Militia-related” Firearm Rights.

This gets 35 pages of coverage. It is the major thrust of their argument and is, therefore, the most convoluted.

The District deconstructs, in more ways than one, the language of the Constitution in order to argue that the Second Amendment protects only members of state militias from being disarmed by Congress.

Their linguistic arguments bear (no pun) on four points:

• “Bear” is a strictly military term.
• “Arms” is a strictly military term.
• “Keep” is most often a military term and in this case means that members of the militia may “keep” on hand the “arms” that they’re required to available to them.
• “People” means “members of state militias.”

Others have done the historical research the language deserves, so I'll leave the area to them.

DC’s lawyers recognize that the Second Amendment may protect a possible “pre-existing” right that predates the Constitution. However, they dismiss that possibility as lacking a “persuasive reason” to be believed.

While DC recognizes and even observes for the Court that under Article I, Section 8,

“Congress shall have the power… (t)o provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia,”

and that Congress may from time to time call up the militia for national service, its lawyers then argue that the Bill of Rights amends the Constitution to explicitly deprive from Congress any power to ever disarm the very same folks that it is specifically charged with arming.

Their theory is that the various states might have need of militias to protect themselves from, among other things, threats from the federal government, and only independent state forces can assure against that threat.

The primary concerns that animated those who supported the Second Amendment were that a federal standing army would prove tyrannical and that the power given to the federal government in the Constitution’s Militia Clauses (of the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8) could enable it not only to federalize, but also disarm state militias.

So,

The Bill of Rights limited the federal government to protect both individual liberty and states’ rights. In the context of the Second Amendment, both causes were served by establishing a check on a new federal government that might otherwise disarm the people serving in state militias under the powers granted by the Militia Clauses.

The authors don’t explain why the states required to ratify the Bill of Rights would rely on militias that are subject to the will of Congress for protection from that same, possibly “tyrannical,” federal government. Actually, they describe the army as being potentially tyrannical, apparently confusing the role of tyrant and his tool, a common problem among some classes in DC.

Either alternatively or in addition, they also seem to argue that the members of the militia—this would be the people, who are different from the people who have rights of assembly and freedom from searches—may have an actual duty to arm themselves with militia-style weapons, a duty DC's lawyers see as imposed by… the Second Amendment.

Their brief explicitly confirms “the right of citizens (in the militias) to own guns to support those militias…” (Emphasis added.) Why DC would concede actual ownership of the militia's weapons to the members escapes me, but vertigo was setting in so I'll let it go.

So, Congress arms the militias… as do the states… as do the members themselves. Once armed, the members own the weapons, which apparently no one can take from them. Now that would make for an interesting social order, especially given that the purpose of these militias is to protect the states from the military might of the United States. I can see it now. Washington and Kansas get the Boeing aircraft, California the Northrup goodies. Utah and Colorado the biological and nerve stuff. The nuclear toolkit… hmm.

Finally, as others have pointed out, Glenn Reynolds and Don Kates first among them with their paper "The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment," when one defines the Second Amendment as requiring state militias and argue that it explicitly forbids Congress from disarming them, one creates the real potential for a supra-military force. On this point alone, a DC win could change the core dynamics of our federal republic government. It would certainly change the attendance at and dynamics of state militia meetings!

Second: The Second Amendment Does Not Apply to Laws Limited to the District of Columbia.

This is worth five pages in the brief, but even so circularity seems to rule, while over-reaching comes in a close second.

The writers acknowledge that the Bill of Rights was written to protect citizens from the predations of a too-powerful federal government, primarily by placing restrictions on its power.

According to the District, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to it because:

The District isn’t a state and therefore isn’t entitled to a militia, the members of which would otherwise be protected from disarmament by Congress. The lawyer who wrote this section of the brief included as part of his argument that there could be no conflict between the District, its citizens and Congress specifically

because Congress retains ultimate legislative power over whether and how to arm any militia, even when it delegates power to the District’s local government.

I wonder if he read the first section of the brief?

The authors make the point that because the Second Amendment doesn’t (yet!) apply to the states, it is unlikely that the Framers meant for Congress to be more limited in its powers in the seat of power, the federal district, than are the various states. They describe the ability to enact firearms regulation as “the most important power of self-protection” Congress has, an interesting perspective to the thousands of Capitol police, Secret Service, and military members tasked with protecting those folks.

Again, the circular: They argue that because the District Council is only a creature of Congress and not Congress itself, the Second Amendment cannot restrict its powers. By the same logic, it is difficult to imagine any limitation imposed by the Bill of Rights that cannot be ignored with impunity by the politicians of the District of Columbia on the same basis. Free speech, well, no. Fourth Amendment protections, uh, well. Heck, why not save a few bucks and house the troops amongst the residents, too?

Third: The District’s Reasonable Gun-Control Laws Do Not Infringe The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (sic)

Wherein the rabbit popped down the hole, spun several times, and re-emerged a natural blonde.

DC states the factual basis on which the Council based its regulatory framework

After concluding that existing laws were insufficient, the Council reasonably found that it could substantially reduce the tragic harms caused by guns by regulating which weapons are available to District residents, how residents should store them, and who should be licensed to carry concealable weapons.

Note: The District uses the term “concealable.” Fast readers might slide over the term, thinking it means “concealed.” Not so. While more than 40 states now either allow or license citizens to carry weapons concealed on their person, the District requires a license to carry any weapon, at any time, in any location if that weapon is capable of being concealed. In other words, to carry a pistol from the kitchen to the bedroom requires a license issued by the District. To round the circle, any pistol for which a license is sought must be registered. However, no handguns manufactured or brought into the District in the last 30 years are eligible to be registered. Catch-22.

According to DC lawyers, a “ban,” and yes they use that word, on the registration of handguns is defined as “reasonable regulation” of “particularly dangerous types of weapons.”

The regulation was promulgated when the District

“reasonably found that a handgun ban would mitigate the very serious problem of handgun violence in the District, including the use of handguns in crimes and their misuse by normally law-abiding citizens.”

They acknowledge that the use of handguns in DC was substantially more prevalent than it was nationally, that in the year prior to the ban

“In 1974, handguns were used to commit 155 of the 285 murders in the District.”

They neglect to mention that in later years the number of murders in DC nearly doubled even while the population fell substantially, leading to the common description of the District as the murder capital of the country.

They then attempt to square the round circle. This is probably the most target-rich paragraph in the entire brief, so much so that highlighting would only blight the words. I’d guess it is also probably the most expensive paragraph, given the number of lawyers who must have shipped in their best thoughts on how to state this.

In 1994, the Council extended the prior requirement that those who “carry” concealable weapons in public be licensed. A license is now required regardless of where such a weapon is carried. The licensing requirement, which enables the District to prevent felons and other dangerous persons from keeping concealable weapons, is separate from the registration requirement applicable to all firearms. Absent the handgun ban, District residents could register handguns and then apply for licenses to “carry” them. (Quotations marks in the original.)

To translate from the committee wordsmithing: Prior to 1994, a license was required to “carry” a concealable weapon in public, whether or not the weapon was concealed. That law was “extended” to cover carrying a concealable weapon anywhere. Anywhere. Even kitchen to bedroom, or from closet to hall, even out of a drawer where it has rested legally, untouched for 30 years, in order to greet a burglar in the entryway. This was designed to keep undesirables from “keeping,” there’s that military term, a weapon. In the final sentence they’re making the argument that this law is not unconstitutional because it is only a “licensing” requirement and if it were not for the ban, a different law entirely, it would not be… effective. No harm, no foul, no possibility of constitutional infringement.

The brief expressed what seemed like surprise at the appellate court’s findings.

The majority also invalidated the licensing law. It ruled that individuals have not only a constitutional right to possess a handgun, but also an ancillary right to move it about their homes for self-defense.

For those keeping track, the argument is that the ban is not unconstitutional because it is only a registration requirement and the licensing requirement is not unconstitutional because were it not for the ban there wouldn’t be an issue.

There’s enough slippery slope language here to keep the NRA in rhetorical ammunition for a century.

In a later argument, the attorneys reach too far to rely on truth

In any event, subsequent evidence supports the Council’s judgment that banning handguns saves lives.

Perhaps they haven’t seen the numbers of the lives lost in the murder capital of the country since they deprived its citizens of any possibility of self defense. Here is a graphic that I cite below in SCOTUS Discovers 2nd Amendment, Decides It Needs Attention.

As someone once asked, “With friends like this, who needs enemies?”

UPDATE: According to The Washington Post, Acting DC Attorney General Peter Nickles fired lead attorney Alan Morrison because of a lack of confidence in the only Supreme Court specialist employed by the District. Morrison, who has argued 20 cases before SCOTUS and wrote the brief filed Friday, attributes his termination to politics. The District, in a move that didn't please some city leaders, has delegated oral arguments to a private lawyer, a former Solicitor General in the Clinton administration. Mr. Nickles also bolstered his outside team with a third brand-name law firm. This in a case that anti-gun groups urged the District not to take to the Supreme Court because of the risks of losing, and which Mayor Fenty now describes as "the most significant legal case in the history of the District of Columbia."

Alan Gura, lead attorney for Mr. Heller and the chief strategist for the District's opponents, described the District's arguments in the brief as "creative but wrong."

Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University and contributor to the respected Volokh Conspiracy blog, agreed that the District's argument is "strained," and described it as being "at odds with the text and the original meaning of the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights."

UPDATE II: Professor Barnett is also author of an article certain to be cited when the Heller team replies. Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia? is available here. Hat tip to Anonymous in the comments for the reminder.

UPDATE III: Fred Thompson adds his thoughts.

UPDATE IV: Commenter jmwildenthal points out that The Washington Times is quoting Acting DC AG Nickles as commenting that the three law firms are donating their services on the Heller case. Earlier reports from the same news conference quoted Walter Dellinger as saying that he "has been working on the case pro bono."

If all three firms are chipping in all their costs, that's a pretty substantial contribution on the part of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Covington & Burling LLP.

RELATED LINKS: DC Fires Lawyers, Files Anti-Gun SCOTUS Brief in Heller
Where's The Militia? I Want to Enlist!

I know that Justice Thomas never asks questions from the bench. He views it as unnecessary given these are the best arguments from the best, most expensive lawyers in the land. This might warrant an exception, though.

The question I’d ask: Is this really the best you can do?

DC Fires Lawyers, Files Anti-Gun SCOTUS Brief in Heller

After firing two of its leading lawyers leading its appeal of Heller to the Supreme Court, the District of Columbia today filed its legal brief defending its right to ban handguns and restrict possession of rifles to those that have been dismantled.

As expected, DC built its arguments on three legs:

1. The Second Amendment protects private possession of firearms only for those actively serving in a state-sponsored militia.
2. The Second Amendment does not apply to DC because DC is not a state.
3. The Districts ban on handguns is a reasonable regulation allowed under the Second Amendment.

I'll post further analysis shortly, but you will find the 80 page PDF of DC's filing here.

Hat Tip: SCOTUS Blog
RELATED LINKS: Where's the Militia? I Want to Enlist!
SCOTUS Discovers 2nd Amendment, Decides It Needs Attention

Interesting that they'd fire the lawyers who wrote the brief before they make the oral arguments, which are due in 4 months.

Huckabee's Spike in Iowa

Mike Huckabee won the secret ballot Republican caucus in Iowa with 35% of the vote. This in a contest where the press reports a surge of self-identified evangelical and born-again religious voters to about 60% of the total vote, or about twice their historic participation rates.

It seems reasonable to suppose that much of that increase was the result of Pastor Huckabee's unique access to the pulpits of Iowa and to the mailing lists that accompany that access. Even with that advantage, though, if both these numbers prove to be correct Gov. Huckabee split the evangelical vote with one or more of the other candidates. Amongst non-evangelical voters, Huckabee scored a 14% share, enough to place 4th or 5th.

It is nearly certain that New Hampshire will provide a different perspective of what Republican primary voters are seeking.

UPDATE: Commentators, including Michael Medved, have pointed out that exit polls show Huckabee drawing only a plurality of the evangelical vote. Even so, his enhanced margin amongst evangelicals supplied 100% of his margin above Fred Thompson, the third place finisher. Without those votes, Huckabee would be a footnote from Iowa rather than a footnote from New Hampshire.

The Republican nomination is more wide open today than it was a week ago.

The Conservative in the Party

It is amazing to think that some Republican candidates believe the path to victory is in the same forest of populist promises through which the Democrat candidates forage. Listening to some, their rhetoric and their values would sound as sincere coming from an Obama, a Clinton or an Edwards.



There is only one candidate who needn't burnish his conservative credentials.

Fred Thompson is completely comfortable in his own skin, he is settled in his principles, he doesn't seek the presidency for his own completeness. It is in these attributes that he most resembles Ronald Reagan.

Is Thompson the best candidate? He hasn't been, but he is learning. But, its important to remember that we're not electing a candidate, we're electing a President. Can there be any question in the mind of a conservative which candidate would make a truly conservative president?

No.
Fred's conscience is that of the most comfortable conservative.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, fabulist

It seems that even the life of a former first lady and current senator isn't sufficiently adventurous to fully satisfy, so Hillary is taking her turn at creating history from whole cloth, trimming the truth, and inflating her role beyond the limits of recognition… and reality.

According to HRC, "If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady," became the operating standard of Bill Clinton's White House. This became the justification for the life-threatening "corkscrew" approach to landing in Bosnia and the sprint across the runway to avoid snipers. If so, the she was accompanied on the sprint not only by her Secret Service entourage, but also her 15-year old daughter, Chelsea, as well as the comedian Sinbad and country singer Sheryl Crow, USO performers who were part of the visit contingent.

Then there's "I have known Benazir Bhutto for a dozen years… I knew her as a leader… I knew her as someone who is willing to take risks…" Hillary Clinton knew Bhutto the way I know Henry Kissinger. HRC bumped into Benazir Bhutto in a reception line once and listened to her speak once. That's it.

And more. She speaks of involvement in every major decision made by Bill, but it's involvement that others never saw. She remembers strong-arming foreign leaders to bend to America's will, a vision we never saw. She remembers being the foreign face of the U. S., a perspective with which Secretary Albright does not agree.

Of course, fabulism is inevitable when "experience" means "front row seat," as it does in Hillaryspeak.

Of course, there are limits to the value of that sort of experience. Ask any high roller sitting in a game floor seat at an NBA game why he (or she) is sitting rather than playing.

Hillary Clinton, the heroine of the nineties.