In which I have a word with Gatemouth
It must be primary season again, and further, it appears clear that the Brooklyn machine has made its wishes known on whom it would like to see prevail in certain contests.
That at least is the conclusion I draw from Gatemouth's newest magnum opus, posted here. The ostensible subject thereof is Steve Harrison, whom I happen to know, like and support, but to whom Gatemouth seems less than favorably inclined.
Now, politics is seldom elegant. But in this case, politics is blunt, more an Elvis impersonator in Vegas than Gustav Mahler. But that's fine; this being Brooklyn, our sensibilities are somewhat less than refined. This is doubly the case when the machine rears its head and speaks, as seems to be the case here.
In the Congressional primary in the 13th District, currently held by one Vito Fossella, whom you may recall as an independent fighter, there are currently two Democrats running. One of them is Steve Harrison, the other is one Dominic Recchia, a member of the City Council who most recently distinguished himself by handing an endorsement to Noach Dear, who just so happens to be a virulent, homophobic bigot.
And here the problems begin and do not end.
Gatemouth's case against Harrison has two prime components: one, the man gave money to candidates for office who have since become republicans or were so at the time. Two, Harrison has found the support of the Progressive community. These are, in Gatemouth's eyes, deep failings, and they're worth addressing on the merits, because this goes to a deeper observation about the state of contemporary Democratic politics in this City. Interestingly enough, there is something of a contradiction between the two arguments.
Regarding Harrison's contributions to Marty Golden and others, it's worth pointing out the issues at hand during the time, 2001 and 2002, these were made. Marty Golden happened to be right on issues of land use in much the same way as a clock is right twice a day. There is a long tradition in New York, dating back to the turn of the century if not earlier, that policies commonly understood as advancing good government don't necessarily adhere to partisan divides. For example, the rules proposed by the republican minority in the State Assembly are more in line with Progressive goals than those of the Democratic majority, and would it were otherwise. If Harrison supported Golden because zoning was of overriding importance to his community, there is little that is dishonorable about that. Certainly not when, quite frankly, Brooklyn's bosses themselves seem more than content to abide republicans they can do business with, including Marty Golden.
It is, however, Steve's backing by Progressives that is his true failing, the crime rather than the eccentricity. Chris Owens can sing a song about that, as can Ken Diamondstone. And this is where it becomes, likely to his delighted surprise, more about Gatemouth than about the ostensible subjects of his lengthy disdain. The simple fact is that the Progressive movement makes Gatemouth cringe. Lily-livered communists, we all are. Or, to use the national parlance, dirty fucking hippies.
Now, this diagnosis is inaccurate in the nation as a whole, and it is doubly untrue in New York. Those who think the Progressive movement is first and foremost ideological, a revival of sorts of the New Left, are mistaken. I say this not because being left-wing is anything to be ashamed of, quite the contrary; but it is true. Howard Dean is a centrist, you realize. He is, however, also a partisan, and that's what we're all about. Progressives will reliably embrace someone who carries the fight to the political enemy - as Harrison did in 2006, when nobody else wanted to.
Here in New York, the Progressive movement is also primarily concerned with reform, which is where Progressive and machine Democrats truly part ways. There's no need to mince words: Sheldon Silver may be a loyal Democrat, but he's as much a problem as is Joe Bruno. The outer-borough machines are deeply loyal, but they are a hindrance to democracy and good government - pace Clarence Norman. Nothing that further empowers Vito Lopez is of interest to Progressives.
That's why a machine politician like Recchia will probably not find Progressive support, and Harrison will. The fact that Recchia supported the war exacerbates this. The fact that he supported Mike Bloomberg adds further weight. Clinching the deal is Recchia's endorsement of Noach Dear, which merely serves to underline his role in the machine. I'll be polite about it: any Democrat that endorsed that vile bigot will be opposed by people of conscience. It is the one unpardonable sin. His endorsers have two options, both dishonorable: either they endorsed the man knowing and approving of his bigotry, or they lend out their good name without reflection. Either option is damning to the core.
There is more to be said about Gatemouth's piece - someone, anyone, please get that man an editor - particularly about the unsubtle allegations that Harrison is mentally ill, a homophobe, and a rightwinger. On that, I'll confine myself to noting that my friend Gatemouth might consider keeping his powder dry for a bit longer, as long as there are still some people who take him at least somewhat seriously.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2008 Elections | Dominic Recchia | Noach Dear | Steve Harrison
One correction...
Submitted by mole333 on 14 November 2007 - 8:42am.
Most of this I won't address because I already have in another thread. But...
We did not start suddenly paying attention to Noach Dear once the machine endorsed. Our original notice of Noach the Unqualified came largely due to the efforts of someone we consider a frequent apologist for the machine...yourself. And we gave you due credit for it. The fact that we took it in a direction you don't like shouldn't surprise you. But it didn't originally have ANYTHING to do with the machine. In fact you know full well I was willing to criticize ANYONE associating themselves with Dear. So don't accuse us of only taking up the anti-Dear banner as a way of bashing the machine.
It is this kind of manipulation of the facts that is our main problem with your post.
Heh.
Submitted by Bouldin on 14 November 2007 - 11:58am.
Just a coupla points. First of all, you do need an editor, since this comment is again longer than what it responds to, never a good sign.
Second, your entire charge is based on a total of seven checks, if I count correctly. Five of these went to Golden, and are indicative of his support on the land use and zoning issue. Coincidentally, that measure passed, and was instrumental in revitalizing that part of the community, so it was money well spent. The intent of those checks was clear, and had nothing to do with wishing to aid Joe Bruno; If it were otherwise, he would not prior to and after that have only given money to Democrats, a fact you'd do well to be candid enough to mention.
The check to the Conservative Party was made out to attend a dinner honoring a candidate who ran on a fusion ticket that included the conservative line - kind of like Steve Levy out in Suffolk.
The check to John Faso arose from similar circumstances. That's what fusion tickets are all about, a fact presumably not unknown to you.
If Steve were committed to helping Joe Bruno, I'd have to castigate him for lack of dedication. Fortunately, that's not the case, and your own thin evidentiary record proves it. There's a far better and more substantial case to be made that Vito Lopez has done and no doubt will do more to aid Joe Bruno than Harrison, even in your most exaggerated (and thinly if at all veiled) primary advocacy. In especially as trashing Harrison will do exactly zero to topple Joe Bruno; if anything, this aids the republicans, see this.
Going further, please don't complain about rough handling when you accuse people of being mentally ill. Goes to judgment, counsel. You have a track record, sorry, as in the Owens case, that places all of this into a context, and that context is that Gatemouth will say whatever comes into his head as long as he thinks it's of some use, and the more over the top, the better. Why stop at mental illness when you can go for child molestation and drug addiction? Seriously, why?
Re: homophobia, you know, and I know that you know, and I know that you know that I know, that this claim is utter crap. Steve supports marriage equality and got Stonewall's support in 2006, which probably isn't all that popular in that district, frankly. Recchia endorsed Noach Dear, and as much as it distresses you that gays react to that much as would Jews to an endorsement of a Nazi, it's a fact of life. Nobody forced him to create judicial apartheid for LGBTs in Brooklyn. Speaking merely for myself, I won't forgive that, and I have the impaired relationships to prove it.
And no, given your track record of opposing everyone backed by movement Progressives, you don't get to point to Howard Dean, either. Re: traitors, I refer you both to my earlier remarks about hyperbole and to my own work in regards to the state Senate. I am not going to be called a dishonest traitor or an enabler of same because I happen to not see eye to eye with you on the matter of Recchia versus Harrison. Full stop.
Now please gain a sense of perspective. Thank you.
There you go again
Submitted by Gatemouth on 14 November 2007 - 7:56pm.
"your entire charge is based on a total of seven checks, if I count correctly. Five of these went to Golden, and are indicative of his support on the land use and zoning issue. Coincidentally, that measure passed, and was instrumental in revitalizing that part of the community, so it was money well spent. The intent of those checks was clear, and had nothing to do with wishing to aid Joe Bruno; If it were otherwise, he would not prior to and after that have only given money to Democrats, a fact you'd do well to be candid enough to mention."
Actually there were eight in 2002 alone, and, as I pointed out there was a check to a Republican prior to 2002 as well. Anyway, your whole argument is disingenuous; if it were really about zoning, wouldn't the community have been better off with Golden staying on the Council?
More importantly, the argument that it was done for the good of the community could have come straight from the mouth of Carl Kruger, who, by virtue of his deal with Joe Bruno, brings home more bucks for his district than any other Senate Democrat. This cash does much to revitalize Kruger's district. Does that get him a free pass? I don't think you relieve believe this, because, as I recall you reprinted with approval on "The Albany Project" my quote that Kruger should be buried up to his neck in excrement and beaten with a baseball bat.
Strangely, the quote could also have come from syncophants of the pre-County Leader Vito Lopez, excusing his support for the likes of Al D'Amato. As a result, D'Amato brought money into Lopez's district that helped to revitalize parts of the community. Was that excusable? I think not. Perhaps Bouldin is about to defend Vito Lopez from the wrath of Gatemouth. Don't hold your breathe.
"The check to the Conservative Party was made out to attend a dinner honoring a candidate who ran on a fusion ticket that included the conservative line - kind of like Steve Levy out in Suffolk. The check to John Faso arose from similar circumstances. That's what fusion tickets are all about, a fact presumably not unknown to you."
Michael, a coalition of the Republican, Conservative and Right To Life parties is not "Fusion", it is an axis of evil. By your logic, I should have sent a check last year to the Independence Party for its support of Spitzer, which they then would have used to re-elct the likes of Caesar Trunzo and Serph Maletse. I don't buy it.
"Going further, please don't complain about rough handling when you accuse people of being mentally ill."
If you really believe I was accusing Harrison of mental illness, you may need medication. I thought the joke was clear. Next time, I'll try to be funnier. Though I still think being insane is the only possible excuse for sending money to Golden, Fossella, Faso and Mike Long.
"Re: homophobia, you know, and I know that you know, and I know that you know that I know, that this claim is utter crap."
I think I was clear that Harrison was not a homophobe; just a Johnny come lately to the cause of equality. Or do you want to go through back issues of the Home Reporter to prove otherwise? You'll be disappointed.
"And no, given your track record of opposing everyone backed by movement Progressives, you don't get to point to Howard Dean, either."
What, the truth is now off-limits? Recchia backed Dean; look it up. I'm sorry I backed John Kerry instead; given the results, maybe I should have listened to Dominick.
Oh, please.
Submitted by Bouldin on 15 November 2007 - 9:42am.
Fine - it's not seven checks, it's nine, given for the exact reasons I stated, and before which and after which there were dozens of checks to Democrats, which again you don't mention. And based on those nine checks, Harrison is, as you say, a "Joe Bruno Democrat". You probably delude yourself into believing that anyone buys this.
I'll repeat myself: if the CP gives a dinner for a candidate I happen to support - again, Steve Levy - then I make out a check for the CP. Malcolm Smith ran on the CP line - what, is he a Joe Bruno Democrat now as well? Coulda fooled me.
Oh, and now I'm the one in need of medication. First, no, you're the poopiehead, and second, I again point you to the question of eroding credibility I raised.
Meanwhile, here's what City Hall News writes about Recchia, the guy who endorsed bigotry for the court:
As Harrison pulls in money from progressive political websites and pours over donor lists for contributions, Recchia held his kickoff fundraiser in Brooklyn last month.
The crowd was a who’s who of Staten Island and Brooklyn Democrats, like Council Member Michael McMahon (Staten Island), Brooklyn Borough Pres. Marty Markowitz and Assembly Member Vito Lopez, leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party.
As smears go, yours lacks even the charm of being competently executed. That you seek to pull this off to benefit Vito Lopez, Marty Markowitz and Noach Dear kinda says everything that needs to be said.
Link
Submitted by Gatemouth on 14 November 2007 - 8:26am.
This piece, filled with links, docments my long obsession with beating Joe Bruno. My paper serves to document that this is not about opposing the progressive agenda, it is about faclitating it!
Mole
Submitted by Gatemouth on 14 November 2007 - 9:10am.
I may have been wrong about your timing, but I swear, I really thought your anti-Dear posts only came after the Lopez endorsement. As, I might add, did mine, which only vouches for my sincerity in that matter.
If I was wrong about the timing of your post, then I apologize, but at any rate even if I was right about the timing, I must acknowledge that your anti-Dear activites predate your post (as did mine). Even if your posts came later, you have the right to be proud.
Still waiting for a discussion of the check to the Conservative Party, though.
Timing
Submitted by mole333 on 14 November 2007 - 10:45am.
Not sure the actual timing, now you mention it. In fact it probably did come after Recchia and the machine endorsing the unqualified Dear. However, I wasn't really aware of that when you first drew my attention to the race and my opposition to Dear was based solely on the info you gave me and the NY Bar Assn's rating of him as unqualified and Lambda's mention of there being no record that he practiced law. In fact, I am pretty sure my linking Dear and the machine only became a major theme after Lambda, Stonewall and Owls clubs sent their letter putting those politicians who endorsed Dear on notice...which was after the primary. The only politician I remember taking to task about the endorsement before the primary was Markowitz.
As to the Conservative Party donation, like I said, ask Steve if you want an explanation. As to me, I don't necessarily hold a couple years of playing with Republicans and conservatives against someone who otherwise has been a pretty solid Democrat. Hell I have supported former Reagan supporters turned Democrats in the past. And, of course, there is the fact that many in the NY-13 district ARE Republicans, many of whom have grown to dislike Bush and Fossella. All of this tzimis about donating to Republicans is only likely to help Steve in a district that actually HAS real Republicans. Again, if someone can appeal to the more conservative NY-13 voters while ALSO publicly advocating for marriage equality and withdrawal from Iraq, more power to him.
Thank you, your welcome
Submitted by Gatemouth on 15 November 2007 - 10:20pm.
"And based on those nine checks, Harrison is, as you say, a "Joe Bruno Democrat". You probably delude yourself into believing that anyone buys this."
Those check to Golden, in 2002 alone, were more money he's ever given to anyone, before or since, including his own campaigns. The checks to Republicans, Conservative and Right to Lifers in 2002 were more than he's ever given to every Democrat combined, in any year, before or since. Subtract checks to his law partner in 1997 and and they probably overwhelm every check he'd given previously to every other candidate combined.
"if the CP gives a dinner for a candidate I happen to support - again, Steve Levy - then I make out a check for the CP."
Right, I hope I live long enough to see the day you right a check to Mike Long crypto-facist mob of brownshirts; that would be the best thing short of eternal life. Bet not many Dem elected officials or wannabes attended the dinner for Levy, if there was one, as the funds were probably being used against them. Anyway, I'm sure even you are aware of the difference between a Republican running on the Conservative line, and a Democrat doing so.
"Malcolm Smith ran on the CP line - what, is he a Joe Bruno Democrat now as well? Coulda fooled me."
I'm the wrong person to ask. At the time of Smith's election, I posted a sarcastic piece making that very sort of complaint. And a well known political reporter (you know him personally) anonymously posted a comment agreeing with me. I 'd share his name, but I am absolutely sure you would prefer I not share all the private comments people made to me about Malcolm at the time of his election. My suspicion is that if Smith hadn't won the leadership, he'd probably be Carl Kruger's whip in the Bruno Dems operation. Maybe that's why they elected him, to be sure of his vote. Hell, making Vito Lopez County Leader was the one possible move which ensured he would endorse Ferrer. If he wins, maybe they should elect Harrison Speaker.
"That you seek to pull this off to benefit Vito Lopez, Marty Markowitz and Noach Dear kinda says everything that needs to be said."
Oh please. At best, my "love" for Vito is pure and chaste from afar, like an imposible dream. Markowitz removed me from his Christmas Card list. I think the last Marty Markowitz piece I wrote may be the nastiest thing ever written about him. Even Chris Owens liked it! As To Noach the Roach, I posted an anti-Dear piece before the primary, which is one more than you managed, and broke actual news about him during the general election, which may account for why my "love" for Vito, such that it is, remains unrequited.
Marty...Vito...and an honest question
Submitted by mole333 on 15 November 2007 - 11:44pm.
As to Marty Markowitz, this is one area you and I agree whole heartedly. Markowitz is so awful he drives even the likes of you and I to the Greens.
As to Vito...sorry. I know you have legit criticisms of Vito, but I still maintain, as I always have, you spend far more time as a Vito apologist. I think it's reasonably honest. I know plenty of Vito apologists who aren't so honest about it. But if you don't intend to be a Vito apologist (albeit not a blind one) you could have fooled the vast majority of the Brooklyn blogging community.
As to Marty and Vito...doesn't it bother you that Marty and Vito are forming alliances and that the focus of those alliances were first Noach Dear and then second Dominic Recchia? This doesn't automatically speak ill of Recchia, but this cabal of Noach Dear endorsers has GOT to make your skin crawl. Harrison aside, doesn't this bug you? Recchia, Markowitz and Vito collaborating first on Dear then on Recchia himself? There are two names there I know you dislike...Dear and Markowitz. Two names out of four. Doesn't it taint those remaining two deep down in your heart? Again, Harrison aside.
Finally, an honest question. I did some searching for donations. I can say that I can't find a public, online record of all my donations. I don't know why. Only a fraction of my donations are easily found with a search. Maybe you have better ways of doing it, but my point is are you sure you are seeing the full record of Harrison's donations. I looked into yours as well and it looked awfully thin. But again, so do mine compared with what I actually have given. This is an honest question. Are there some donations that are more public than others? Why can I not even easily (I didn't really try that hard, mind you) all my own donations? Simply put, is what you are presenting the whole Harrison picture? I ask this without actually knowing the answer, which shows I am not a lawyer.
That's mostly a technical question
Submitted by Gatemouth on 16 November 2007 - 9:29am.
I don't think I hate Markowitz as much as that; I think Markowitz hates me as much as that. As to uncomfortable bedfellows, Noach backed Mark Green for Mayor over Bloomberg, which is particularly disturbing, because going the other way had to me more profitable.
The other question s one of research. I searched Harrisons name, both Steve and Stephen, both work and law office, on four sites as well as doing a google search.
Contributions to City Council, Mayor, Comtroller, Public Advocate and Borough Presidents, going back to 1993, are found on the NYC Campaign Finance Board site. Contributions of as little as $10 are listed, because even they are counted towards matching funds.
Contributions for Statewide Offfice, the legislature, party committee (but not political clubs) District Attorney, going back to 1999, are found on the NYS State Board of Elections website. I didn't bother finding out the monetary cut off, but it is relatively modest, so unless someone is giving an endless series of unreportable contribuions (which would raise its own questions) it is not significant.
Federal office contributions of $250 or more, as well as some state part committee donations, going back until at least the mid 1990s, are found on the Federal Elections Committee website. I also double checked a private data base with this information. Harrison's Fossella contribution (of $150) is not on these sites, but was dislcosed by its recipient, so it came up on google. I didn't find anyother unreported Harrison checks, disclosed either by recipient or giver, in this manner. If there is something else Steve wants to disclose, I think he has the ability to do so.
Obviously certain thing won't get reported on these sites, but except in the case of the Feds, they are probably not matters worthy of much reader interest. Let me amend that: unreported cash in a paper bag would show up on the data base either, but would, nonetheless, be worthy of some interest
So I don't think I've been misleading. Given the firestorm this was sure to produce, I amde an effort to be meticulous. After all, we are not talking about Carl Kruger!
Party Line Agitprop
You make many compelling points; they would be even more so if they were true.
"Gatemouth's case against Harrison has two prime components: one, the man gave money to candidates for office who have since become republicans or were so at the time."
As I've noted previously, none of the contributions I objected to were to anyone who was a Democrat at the time. Marty Golden was once a Democrat, but so was Ronald Reagan; the difference was that Reagan was once a liberal, but Marty Golden was always a reactionary. By the time Harrison made these contributions in 2002, more time had elapsed from Golden's party conversion than has elapased between the time of the contributions and the present date. I've pointed this out, but Mole and Bouldin seem intent on repeating Harrison's tired excuses without exploring their authenticity.
The other contributions were to Vito Fossella, John Faso and the Conservative Party Campaign Committee. Land use issues can explain none of them. In fact, Conservative Party boss Mike Long is such a homophobe that he makes Noach Dear look like a member of P-FLAG. Yet Harrison put money into Long's purse. I'm still waiting for the explantion, but Mole and Bouldin would rather change the subject.
"Marty Golden happened to be right on issues of land use in much the same way as a clock is right twice a day... If Harrison supported Golden because zoning was of overriding importance to his community, there is little that is dishonorable about that."
That dog won't hunt. Yeah, Marty Golden was right on "land use". BFD. Il Duce was right about mass transit, but that's no excuse for writing him a check either.
As I've pointed out all of Bay Ridge, including the incumbent Democratic State Senator Golden was opposing, was united, as one, against the Charlie Katz proposal. To support Golden for State Senate on this basis would be like supporting Mike Huckabee for President because Huckabee opposes the sexual molestation of infants. Incidentally, by supporting Golden, Harrison joined hands with the Katz project's biggest supporter, Dov Hikind.
"it's worth pointing out the issues at hand during the time, 2001 and 2002, these were made"
You can't dismiss something as ancient history and then go complaining about a vote Recchia took at the same time.
"The fact that Recchia supported the war exacerbates this"
On the date the US Senate voted to authorize the war, Steve Harrison was so outraged that he wrote a check to John Faso. Two weeks later, he wrote a check to another war-supporting Republican. It seems quite clear tha,t at the time war began, Steve Harrison thought it was a less important concern than land use. Can anyone prove that Harrison's opposition to the war predates Recchia's? The evidence seems to indicate the opposite.
Yes, in 2002 Recchia voted against a non-binding anti-war resolution at the Council based on the knowledge we had at the time; he was wrong, but, his position, at that point in time, tracked that of John Edwards and John Kerry. Or are they not good enough either?
"Howard Dean is a centrist, you realize. He is, however, also a partisan, and that's what we're all about"
Funny you should bring up that name. Recchia became so fired up against the war, he was an early supporter of Dean and ran as one of his delegates. Did Harrison even vote for Kerry or Gore?
"Sheldon Silver may be a loyal Democrat, but he's as much a problem as is Joe Bruno"
Yes, Shelly Silver is a problem; I've said so many times, and occupy a proud place of his bad persons list. I was attacking Silver back when Bouldin was still defending him. But Joe Bruno is a bigger problem than Shelly, maybe the biggest problem facing our state. In fact, the worst thing about Shelly is how he hinders efforts to kill off Joe Bruno's majority. As I've documented, to a large extent, Joe Bruno clings to power because of his victory in the Golden race, a victory Steve Harrison helped to enable.
"There is more to be said about Gatemouth's piece...particularly about the unsubtle allegations that Harrison is mentally ill, a homophobe, and a rightwinger"
I brought up "mental illness" as an alternate explantion for Harrison's otherwise unfathomable ideological mood swings; it was a joke, but it is a far less damning explanation than either that offered by his supporters (expedience) or myself (ideology).
I never said Harrsion was a homophobe. I merely said he had previously opposed the positions of the gay community. This is public record. His position was clearly articulated during the 2003 Council race. He was also quite clear before then. However, Harrison always expressed his opposition with dignity, merely stating his position without hyperbole and moving on. I would be the first to draw the distinctions between his conduct and that of Noach Dear. But, it was Recchia who took the tough vote in favor of equal rights for the transgendered at a time when Harrison was writing checks to homophobes like Mike Long--you can look it up. I'm glad Harrison's seen the light; maybe this year, he'll deign to visit Lambda, and bump into Recchia, who has been a familiar face there.
As to Harrison being a right winger, I would be perfectly willing to acknowledge he has made a sincere conversion, if he only were willing to acknowledge it as well. Instead, he offers us the explantion of "land use". Steve, the truth would be be far better, it might even be inspirational. Why not ry it?
Bouldin would like to make this about me and "the machine", but my paper trail about the importance of taking the Senate is long and well documented (I'll post a link if you like); it might even be said to be an obsession indicative of some sort of mental illness. My prior pieces about Carl Kruger have caused me to become a recluse, rather than showing my face anywhere I might encounter a member of "the machine". And incidentally, I was screaming about Noach the Roach long before anyone here thought it worthy of comment. Clearly TDG thought stopping Shwndya Simpson was far more important. It was only after "the machine" endorsed Dear that anyone here could be bothered to make it an issue. How convenient.
The spur for "The Joe Bruno Democrats" series is the implosion of Eliot Spitzer under the weight of choppergate. I have followed the leads I've found. I will soon be exposing a person with judicial ambitions who is related to a good friend, and I will pay for it. I had expected the support of TDG in my efforts, but they seem more interested in protecting the traitors within their own midst.
I do not question the sincerity of Mole and Bouldin; they obviously believe they are working here for the greater good. I only wish they did not feel complelled to question my sincerity, but I guess it beats frankly addressing the issues I have raised.