What's the biggest problem Republicans face?
You want it in a nutshell? The problem Republicans face is; they have no face.
We're all familiar with the "Reagan Republican:" Does anyone reading this regard him or her self as a Romney Republican? If so, would you kindly describe than animal?
I've been characterizing Romney with words like: mechanical, rehearsed, robotic, stiff, mannequin-like, and probably a few others that aren't as flattering, but there's a fellow named Green (sorry I didn't get the first name) who was talking about the "heated" exchange between McCain and Romney in last night's debate when McCain accused Romney of backing a timetable for Iraq - the irritated Romney, Green says, "spoke in the same tone he'd use when ordering fine wine in a restaurant."
So there it is, would Reagan even order fine wine? A Martini with a jelly bean, maybe.
Republicans haven't embraced McCain, but they haven't embraced Romney either. And he hasn't embraced them. In fact, I dare say John McCain has made more overtures to the base than Romney has, and with time growing short for Mitt to turn things around, he still doesn't seem to understand what he needs to project. He's actually more like Fred Thompson than Ronald Reagan.
I keep hoping Romney will take that spark he showed after his Michigan win and turn it into a wildfire, but as Charles Krauthammer put it, he hasn't up to now, so there's no reason to think things will change.
What's even more interesting is how right-side commentators have responded to the McCain surge. I didn't hear anyone savage the Senator the way they did in 2000 except, well, Savage himself, which could only mean that for whatever reason, pundits felt they needed to keep their options open.
And now that John McCain is the clear frontrunner, those options have narrowed considerably. Rush Limbaugh has been more tempered than I've ever heard him. Sean Hannity still doesn't accept McCain, but he's sure not mounting a counter-offensive. Only Ann Coulter got tougher, and her column yesterday was one of the worst she's ever written, utterly devoid of humor and as shrill as a Hillary stump speech.
So Republicans had better not just resign themselves to McCain if he's still on top after Super Tuesday, they'd do well to swallow hard and embrace him in the hope that he'll embrace them.
Why? because they'll need him more than he needs them. Some people have said they won't vote for McCain, that they'll just stay home. What a great way to render yourselves irrelevant. McCain hasn't needed you much to win what he already has, why would he need you at all if he wins the election?
I like to talk about the conservatives who are being driven mad by McCain's success, but when I do, I'm really referring to one in particular. She's an otherwise lovely young woman who quite literally becomes insane when talking about John McCain.
We parted company two years ago when Missy labeled McCain a traitor, not to conservatives, but to the country. I felt badly because one has to be crazy to say what she said, but I didn't want to entertain that kind of talk, much less indulge her on it.
So here we sit with no perfect candidate. The Dems think they have two - but that's another liberal illusion. The fact is that John McCain simply cannot be worse than George Bush, and 70 percent of Republicans still think the President is just fine which makes the case that Missy may have been merely the most visible crazy conservative.
Let's get some things straight once and for all, since I'm just as tired of right-wing nonsense as I am left-wing nonsense. John McCain's name is on the title of McCain-Feingold, but the name that appears where it really counts is that of George Bush. McCain introduced a bill. That bill had input and agreement from a majority of the Congress, and they are every bit as responsible as McCain is. But again, in the end, the sole responsibility lies with Jorge Whatsaveto Bush who signed it - and every other bill that came across his desk save one rather insignificant bone he tossed to conservatives.
And regarding McCain's lack of support of the Bush tax cut, what part of McCain's "Hey, where's the spending cuts" question don't you self-described conservatives understand? Especially because seven years later, your President still hasn't seen an expenditure he didn't like? And why aren't you outraged that Bush now threatens to veto spending when he never did it even once before?
The bottom line is that if John McCain is the nominee, if you don't get behind him at least as much as you did and continue to do for George Bush, McCain isn't the traitor, you are... and you can add "hypocrite' to that.
I know that's tough, but it's about time you heard some straight talk.
Is anything going to happen as expected this election year?
That's a rhetorical question because my positively brilliant idea for a McCain-Giuliani ticket couldn't be described as "long anticipated," especially since Rudy was supposed to get the nomination and McCain should have been a distant third or even fourth at this point.
Now with the exact opposite having great potential for becoming a reality as early as next week, it seemed like a absolutely fabulous to have Giuliani become John McCain's running mate... as it turns out, to maybe everyone but Rudy. He said Wednesday that he is not seeking the veep spot.
Yeah, well, if he likes and respects John McCain as much as he says he does, could His Honor turn down the offer?
Actually, knowing Rudy as well as I do, and we go way back, he certainly could. Besides, it's being said that he would be -the- candidate for Attorney General. That, of course, begs the question, "Is he crazy?" Why would Mr. G. take a job that might require actual work?
So I'm still holding out hope - just like I still have hope that Romney will find a way out of his straightjacket before SuDuTue.
And if Rudy does absolutely rule out any possibility of becoming Vice President, who will I come up with next? Stay tuned... I resort, you deride.
Meanwhile, will The Terminator become The Coronator?
Why it's all so tasty, it makes you want to lick it.
I think Rudy Giuliani leapt to #1 on the Top Ten Endorsements List today, and he made me proud, demonstrating why I felt he was the best man for the Presidency. In announcing he was dropping out of the race, he appeared warm, confident and strong... almost exuberant... a genuine hero like the man standing next to him. And Giuliani was more eloquent than I've ever heard him as he turned to give a heartfelt endorsement to his long time friend, John McCain.
As the two stood together, you could see that they would be a most formidable team against any Democrat
Rudy and John also would make anyone proud to be a Republican, so it's ironic that these men are the least Republican-like in my lifetime and perhaps ever, and it could signal a huge shift in the mentality if not the composition of the party. I doubt the heartwarming scene will result in true conservatives suddenly embracing McCain, but it will be an indelible image for those who are interested in anyone but Hillary.
I personally don't care about McCain's stand on the Bush tax cuts. Nor do I hold McCain-Feingold against him. That's all Bush's responsibility. But I am very concerned with McCain's desire to give amnesty to illegals. He says that what he advocates isn't anything of the kind, and we're probably going to find out if he's right. I'm equally concerned about his stance on "global warming" - he believes the nonsense, and that's about as scary (and potentially costly) as being inundated with illegal aliens.
I'm also not happy with McCain's stand on "torture," but I can live with that for two reasons:
1) I believe he'll modify his position as circumstances require, and...
2) Just by winning, he'll be torturing many more people than he could ever imagine.
So overall, I can't say I'm pleased that John McCain appears to be on the verge of clinching the nomination, but that's countered by the realization that Mitt Romney can't win in November if he remains the man we've been seeing up to now, and he almost certainly will. Thus, as a result of Florida's quiet mayhem, it would not be hard to cast my vote for a McCain-Giuliani ticket. The more sobering realization is that it now might be easier to do that than vote for Romney-????.
But let's see how Mitzi does from now to next Tuesday, and be sure to let me know if you come up with an electrifying VP candidate for him.
There was never going to be a President Huckabee, even if his name didn't have the past tense of "hick" already embedded in it. I mean, I like redneck common sense as much as the next guy... but I don't like all the other accoutrements, such as fried squirrel, that go along with it.
But even if Huck's name conveyed all the best qualities that America represents, he couldn't be President because we don't allow our Presidents to have weird sounding names.
That's why Rudy also had an uphill battle from the start despite what any polls may have said in the beginning. Our strangest Presidential names were Fillmore and Eisenhower, and they're a far cry from a Huckabee or a Giuliani... or an Obama.
I'd like to think it's just that people want Presidents whose names convey a certain amount of strength, but it could be more than that. Names that don't ring Presidential may remind Americans that the individual in question is too closely aligned with a minority, and they want a President to be in touch with all of America... or none of it as is the case with George Bush.
So McCain, Romney, and Clinton are well suited name-wise if not credential and criminality-wise. And of the three, Romney seems the most regal. I just wish he'd stop acting like it, because as Washington said, "America isn't down with kings" (you know how strangely they talked back then).
And if McCain or Clinton gets elected, I suspect we'll come to regard the Bush years with great fondness, and that might even include liberals.
If you don't like what I've said here, I'm sorry, but I've boarded the Straight Talk Express... whoo, whoo...
I really thought (hoped) the pollsters had blown it again and that Romney would not just edge out McCain but notch a solid win. It wasn't that I was anxious for a Romney victory (I'd prefer Giuliani), but I didn't want McCain.
I've always felt that McCain is rather unique among candidates in that he's perhaps the only one ever who can win the election but cannot get the nomination.
Now I'm less sure about the nomination part, and I don't like it. I'd certainly want a McCain Presidency rather than a Democrat scumbag or lightweight and possibly closet scumbag, but McCain is dangerously close to that label himself, although his would be for political rather than for both political and criminal reasons as is the case with the Clintons.
I'm also quite amused in that I know conservatives who will be driven insane by a McCain candidacy which almost makes it worth it.
But not quite.
The problem is that Romney doesn't really impress. He merely seems to be an adequate alternative to a real conservative. Coincidentally, that's the same reason, I think, that McCain gets the support he does. With him people feel they have a known entity, much of which they don't like, while with Romney, it's an unknown entity despite and because of his record of governing, and people are concerned that what they may get may be worse than the the Senator from Arizona.
Blame Bush for that. He certainly didn't turn out to be a pleasant surprise, despite the fact that 68% of Republicans still approve of the job he's done. And that's another reason for the unexpectedly strong support for McCain - with him, there's no discernible difference from the current President, at least not so you'd notice.
Now I don't think McCain has the nomination locked up by any means, since the Super Tuesday states won't have the oldsters and the Cubans who supported McCain in Florida, but the fact is, Romney has not been able to light anyone's fire.
And I don't think he will, which doesn't bode well for November should Romney succeed in stalling McCain's momentum and capturing the nomination. He speaks fluidly, but not with conviction. He seems rote, he seems as well rehearsed as he does well groomed - like a funeral director.
Giuliani is now expected to endorse McCain, further complicating Romney's prospects, and possibly giving Rudy the VP slot opposite Mr. Straight-Talk. All in all, that seems like a potentially winning ticket, even if the one I'd like would be the reverse. By contrast, no one has emerged as a an exciting running mate for Romney
So it's starting to look as if no matter who wins in November, the big winners will be Mexicans.
The big losers will, once again, be conservatives who haven't won in almost a quarter of a century. Of course conservatives are only getting what they deserve. And it could be worse... we could be libertarians.
Look for Hannity, Coulter, et al to kick it up a notch.
If you don't see another photo this year, you need to check this out.
When the first Superman movie starring Christopher Reeve came out, the tagline was, "You'll believe a man can fly." well, when you see this, you will believe that an illegal alien murderer can be funny.
William Torres is that guy. The story says...
"He was wearing a hooded sweatshirt with a skull-head pattern on it, pajama bottoms and fuzzy lion-faced slippers..."
Trust me, that description, as silly as it is, doesn't do him justice. Tell me if he doesn't remind you of Wile E. Coyote in his "Acme Missile Kit" just waiting for the Road Runner to beep by. And if nothing else, I think the story debunks global warming once and for all.
I'd like to think that while Americans are bound and determined to be regarded as the stupidest people on the planet, they would still never be caught dead looking like this, but if you are really wondering how I know he's illegal when the story doesn't say it, it's like Friends when Phoebe's brother referred to her masseuse co-worker as a hooker. She protested that the woman was not a hooker, he replied, "Yeah, but when I tell my friends, she will be."
Duel Of The Dirtbags
Teddy Kennedy is in it NOW. He went and upset the ladies, if you can call members of NOW that in good conscience.
Kennedy's supposedly upset that Bill Clinton has abused Barack Obama. The last time Kennedy was this upset was when he became furious about the treatment Mary Jo Kopechne received - from Davy Jones.
It's reported that Clinton talked to Kennedy by phone to remind him who the true black man was in the eyes of some prominent members of the black community. Kennedy, a long time member of the white community, would apparently have none of it, and plans to campaign for Obama across the fruited plain.
Sweet Caroline Kennedy is also endorsing Obama saying that she's very impressed that he's like her father in every way except color and experience.
By the way, I added the "sweet" because Neil Diamond said recently that his song was written about Caroline Kennedy. Hmmm... like this, maybe?
And when I hurt,
Hurtin' runs off my shoulders
How can I hurt when I'm with you
Warm, touchin' warm
Reachin' out, touchin' me touchin' you
Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so good
I've been inclined,
To believe they never would
Oh, no, no
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, say it ain't so, Neil!?!
Meanwhile, Hillary is reportedly furious that her husband's finely honed "Black Like Me" tactics aren't working as well for her campaign as they did for his. She's and is considering putting him on the 15 day disabled list, and then sending him down to the minors for rehabilitation, the minors in this case being Antarctica where he'll talk to the penguins until they're convinced he's black like them.
Obama, for his part, is said to be delighted at the Kennedys' support and has reminded people that he, himself, is part Irish and could very well be a distant relative of Ted's.
So now it's Barack and Caroline, Ted and Oprah... all in bed together. Sorry Michelle, if only you'd been named Alicia it would be another perfectly bad remake of a '60s movie.
"What the world needs now... is love, sweet love..."
If you hadn't run for President, your fellow liberals might never have understood, much less admit, what absolute dirtbags your husband and his spouse are.
Of course, I understand full well that doesn't mean they won't elect you, since they still have all the same problems with principles they did in '98... and a whole lot more now.
I normally don't have the patience, but Billy was just askin' for it.
And if you missed it, there are at least two reasons why: 1) It all took place elsewhere, and 2) It went by faster than even I expected.
It all started because I'm sick of liberal garbage and decided to see if I could bait Billy into making a fool of himself. I know, normally you don't have to trap liberals into doing that, but Billy was trying really hard to appear to be reasonable.
But I knew he wasn't. In commenting that he was appalled and opposed to the Times recent smear of our service personnel, Billy couldn't resist saying he was opposed to the war.
That wouldn't have enticed me into an exchange with a liberal, it was what followed that begged for a response: Billy said he opposed the war because it was "unnecessary."
The problem with that is, it's a lie. And Billy added to my suspicions a short time later when he said that he opposed war because he's a "human being."
For the record, the real reason he opposes the war is because it was entered into by a Republican, and most specifically, George Bush.
Of course, Billy felt he couldn't admit that because that's no reason, much less a noble one.
So now before I get to particulars, I want to announce that I'm abandoning my quest to find a rational liberal. It's not because in thirteen years of searching, I could not find a single one, it's that Billy has forced a reassessment.
Why is it that on a few occasions liberals appear reasonable and even borderline rational but it never lasts? See, I've been on the wrong quest. I need to broaden the scope.
So I'm now looking for the first -sane- liberal.
I mean, I've debated hyenas who advanced better arguments than most liberals, and I'd always felt it was because they were undisciplined or had ADD. I mean the liberals, not the hyenas which are clearly more disciplined.
It's now crystal clear: liberals are just nuts.
You can't believe what they believe and not be nuts.
I don't know if their beliefs made them crazy or they were crazy and naturally gravitated to wacko ideas, but does it matter, they're still insane.
Criminally so.
So while Billy appeared to be fairly rational at first glance, I thought it would be fun to try to provoke him into displaying his straightjacket-worthy self.
But I couldn't. And it had nothing to do with Billy possibly being that rational liberal we've all heard of from folklore. He took the bait all right - and quickly faded into the sunset after just a few simple questions - literally. It was an awesome sight.
Which prompts me to ask, do liberals turn to gas at lower temperatures than you or I?
Billy never even knew I'd perused his blog and seen he was completely different in his native habitat - frothingly obsessed with impeaching Bush and Cheney.
That may not be an absurd idea, but not for any of the reasons Billy thinks. In fact, Billy doesn't think, and he proved that when, in an attempt to mock me for employing a famous Monty Python debate technique, he said that liberals, unlike conservatives, are interested in "facts."
I know you're as dumbfounded as I was, but see for yourself, he said it.
So here's how it all unfolded...
After Billy said the war was "unnecessary," I responded with the perfect counter-argument: "It was absolutely necessary." I knew he'd find that preposterous even as he regarded his own "unnecessary" assessment as perfectly legitimate as a standalone argument.
Anyway, my exquisite refutation caused Billy to issue the standard absurd demand for links and documentation, to which I responded that those sorts of trivialities were unnecessary since he'd seen them all before and ignored them.
But then I added what I thought was too tempting for Billy to ignore: I said I could prove the war was necessary without having to send him anywhere else.
That was neither an idle boast nor a bluff, but I knew Billy would feel confident I couldn't do it.
And I was right. Billy bit.
I quickly got him to concede that he didn't oppose war because he was "human" (a debate in itself which I was willing to ignore for the moment) and that he only opposed wars he was opposed to. All I had to do was mention Darfur, which he was all in favor of.
But I'll never forget his response: "I see you have a plan."
Clearly, Billy wasn't used to that sort of thing. I can only imagine the shock he must have felt. But I could, because, you know... I was a human being.
Then I turned to Afghanistan. Billy was in favor of that too, but he hastened to add that he differed from his friends. It must have been gut-wrenching and so very lonely... if that mattered.
Because it's "just the facts, ma'am," and the fact was, Billy felt Afghanistan was "necessary."
I thought it important to toss Billy a bone so I mentioned that those precious "facts" he so cherished should certainly play a part in determining the necessity of any action, but that "necessary" itself is a value judgment... it's subjective... unless there's a checklist I don't know about?
But I never got to pointing out that if liberals really cared about facts, Clinton would have been convicted, they would admit Bush won Florida, and no one would know or care who Valerie Plame was..
And that's just three molecules off the tip of the iceberg of examples.
After getting Billy to admit that he was in favor of intervening in Darfur and Afghanistan, I asked if he was in favor of our involvement in Somalia and Kosovo, and if he'd also wished the other Billy had been a "human being" and sent troops to Rwanda?
I had intended to demonstrate to Billy that reasonable men can differ on what's necessary, and then we'd move on to Iraq after I pointed out that he favored intervention everywhere - except Iraq.
Now I've debated long and hard whether to present the rest of my "plan" here... because I never got to present it there. See, Billy bolted.
Apparently even he could see where it was leading, but in case he didn't, I've decided to save the rest of my argument. I will provide some hints though, since we can presume that Billy would have responded affirmatively for military force in Somalia, Kosovo, and Rwanda.
So of all the countries in which he favored our intervening, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Serbia/Kosovo, and Rwanda, which ones posed an actual threat to America and its interests?
Now compare any one of them to Iraq: which is strategically more important?
By the time we actually got to "Necessary or Unnecessary," we would already have extracted a long string of concessions from Mr. Goat.
And there was even another trap Billy had fallen into. He asked with an implied certainty like all good liberals do if I thought the Iraqi people were better off now.
Of course.
But I only think that because they are. And Billy doesn't think they are because his poor powers of thought and reason don't allow him to see the obvious - and his bias guarantees that.
Unless... say, you don't you think Billy would try to argue that Iraqis were not an oppressed people or that Sadie was "contained," do you?
Actually, i wouldn't put it past him, because it's not just that liberals are that stupid and they don't know the meaning of shame, they also never learn... or admit they were wrong.
But now don't think that Billy high-tailed it for the hills because he was about to be busted and he could read the writing on the wall. I mean, that's probably all true, but the real reason he left is far more elementary... we'd reached the third level of our little reasoning exercise, and he's never been beyond the second before. I'm sure he simply became disoriented and that he'll wander back in someday... probably completely by accident.
Which reminds me, anybody here seen my favorite little anti-Semite, Lenny?
I recently bought a shiny new computer and 22" monitor, and all was good.
Until it arrived...
It apparently booted, but the monitor didn't come on, so I dialed up Dell tech support around 2pm. Around 3pm I got a courteous and knowledgeable Indian, despite it being around 3am there, who politely told me they only service -Dell- computers.
OK, seriously, mine was a Dell, but what happened next was at least as embarrassing for those who are prone to such feelings. I told Satish my problem, and he asked if the cable between the computer and monitor was firmly connected - it was. He had me take off the cover and make sure the video card was in place - I did. But I discovered that a one gig memory stick was not seated, so for one brief, shining moment, it was Ted-1, Satish-0.
Then he had me make sure the power cord was firmly plugged in. I remember saying something to the effect of, "What power cord?"
Turns out I overlooked one of the top two cords, and I'm experienced, so I can't recommend you set up anything more complicated than a toaster.
But in my defense, the monitor's instructions referred to three, count 'em, possible cables for connecting the monitor, analog, digital, and dual monitor. It made no reference to some stinkin' power chord, so Satish promised to submit a suggestion for updating the monitor's manual. The final score: Ted-1½, Satish-1.
I had heard some bad things about Vista - namely that it was slow and not an improvement on XP, and I can confirm that's true... and I've never even used XP. Doesn't matter, Vista isn't even an improvement on Windows 98. Using it reminded me of when I thought it was a great idea to try my wife's "Tweezie" to my neck hair - it's great in some respects, but the pain seems to override the benefits.
I can sum up my main problem with Vista in a word: everything.
For example, Vista automatically detects your network. Great Right? But what if it doesn't? Then it seems your only recourse is to swear until you're hoarse or your wife screams at you to shut up whichever comes before the frying pan to the head.
I tried installing Winamp. Vista wouldn't let it be the default MP3 player. Sure that's easily solved, I just don't want to be tying up the phone lines to India in case someone else has a real emergency involving that country. Besides, there's nothing wrong with Media Player... if you're on LSD and want to trip to kaleidoscopic images that you can't turn off. I couldn't even begin to picture discussing that with an Indian. Does that make me a bigot?
Because I'm certain some Indian would be delighted to help. They seem to really love Americans. They literally take all the time you want, so Dell gets high marks on customer service, but do you think Indians will realize they don't need Dell? If they do, can all of America be far behind?
Dell's Indians also get great marks for cheerfulness in the face of a return. If there were Customer Service Oscars, they'd sweep. I got so many notices - that they'd pick up my return, that they'd picked up my return, that it was enroute, that it had been received, that it was being processed, and that credit was issued - that I considered telling Yahoo that Dell was a spammer.
Then there were the phone messages from India, each one referring me to the email confirmation if I needed further assistance. In fact, if I needed anything at all, I should call or write. Heck, my parents never even said that.
So I was sorry to have to send the computer back. My 22' monitor was clearer than looking through my window, though in defense of my window, the last time it was cleaned was never.
But Vista's problems were just too much. I had told one technical Indian... er... I mean an Indian who was also a tech guy, not someone who was technically an Indian but who could have been mistaken for, say, a Sri Lankan, that in my opinion as a Windows 98 Grand Master, Vista was not ready for prime time. He agreed!
Remember the message I got telling me Vista was not properly shut down? I had absentmindedly turned off the master switch and Vista "restored your computer to a previous state" - and that state turned out to be the Stone Age.
If you accidentally turn off 98, nothing happens, but with Vista it rolls back the registry to an earlier time and literally wipes out every EXE file you'd added since that date. So you have to reinstall programs - after you re-download them - after you find them again. I can't tell you when I had a more enjoyable three hours.
My wife wouldn't say the same. There was an awful lot of screaming - 75% of it was me, 20% was my wife, and amazingly, 5% was from India, though it was VERY cheerful.
And this happened more than once, sometimes not because of my stupidity... I don't think. I began to hold my breath that I'd get "that screen" on each startup. It's worse than the blue screen of death - it's black and white -as in "skull and crossbones," and it tells you Windows is "restoring" you to that earlier time whether you like it or not.
I know some smart ass is saying, "that's why you backup." Yeah, well, you'd need to backup every few seconds, and you didn't hear that from me, it's straight from Rajiv... or was Sundar?
I also found that Microsoft replaced Outlook Express with Windows Mail. The only "improvement" I could see was that Windows Mail will no longer access Hotmail. No problem, just install OE? Now what kind of a company would Microsoft be if it allowed that?
The final straw was over something seemingly minor - I clicked on a help file for some freeware and Vista wouldn't open it - and it was Microsoft's own format. The message said it was the old style help file and they no longer support it. Vista actually made me hate Microsoft, and I'm a stockholder!
I just couldn't be saddled with unknown problems just waiting for the right moment to give me strokes. As I told that last Indian who told me this was a software problem, not a hardware one - "but, Thomas (yes, that right... who do they think they're fooling?), Thomas, the two are inseparable."
I'm consoled that I'll be able to buy a better computer with a bigger monitor later for less money, but now I'm back using the slowest computer around. It would actually be faster to get on Vox if I walked to the library to access a public computer... even if I had to wait for a vacancy.
I had talked to ten little Indians in all. If you want to know why companies are exporting jobs, call India. Those guys are more upbeat, knowledgeable, and helpful than Americans, and they do it for less. I bet I could call India and get a pizza delivered faster than Dominos.
Meanwhile, In Britain, they found that upgrading school systems from Windows XP to Vista would increase costs and create software compatibility problems while providing little benefit. Wouldn't it be ironic if it came to pass that the only people using Vista are Indians?
