Here are some more great comments by David Reinhard, associate editor of The Oregnonian, that cut through much of the superficial comments on Romney of late (thanks to EFM):

But it's also possible he had an authentic epiphany on the life issue. Many people have. If the pro-life movement didn't let in converts, it would have done without the services of, say, Ronald Reagan.

The recent criticism of Romney's flip-flop on gay rights, on the other hand, is just silly. Critics point out that he reached out to (gay) Log Cabin Republicans in 1994. He promised to be a more effective supporter of equal rights for gays than Ted Kennedy. But then, in 2003, he came out in opposition to the Massachusetts high court's gay marriage decree.

A flip-flop? Hardly. Gay marriage wasn't even an issue in 1994. It's also worth noting that Romney didn't go looking for the marriage issue. His state's high court brought it to him and the people of Massachusetts. The fact is it is possible to oppose discrimination against homosexuals while supporting traditional marriage, though some Boston.com headline writers apparently think this is news. ("Romney against bias to gays despite opposition to gay marriage," Dec. 18, 2006.) Yes, it's possible to reject the extremes and stake out a common-sense middle ground on this set of issues.

Here is a great point made by Mark Levin of the National Review Online in response to those trying to pin the label "flip-flopper" on Romney (thanks to EFM):

John McCain is endorsed and defended by some conservatives (and Republicans) despite the fact that he has not only embraced but promoted several big-government initiatives - and he has done so proudly. He has used this strategy to, among other things, ingratiate himself with the media, which favor him for the Republican nomination. Romney is governor of a liberal state and he has embraced conservative policies and sought to implement many of them. Yet, questions arise about his fidelity to principle based on apparent past - in some cases distant past - statements/positions on abortion and homosexual rights.

It seems to me that McCain has evolved from a Reagan conservative to more of a Rockefeller Republican, and Romney has evolved from a more moderate Republican to a Reagan conservative.

Here is a good article on Romney's initial organization in South Carolina. I found the following excerpt from it interesting:

The New York Times and Boston Globe last week reported that Romney's views on homosexuality have come under attack after he advocated gay-friendly positions during a Senate run in 1994.

(McCain's camp already has made sure to send links to those articles out to reporters.)

During that campaign, Tompkins said Romney "sought to beat Ted Kennedy, not befriend him. We can't say that for all the other candidates."

Insert John McCain's name for "other candidates." Do you get the feeling that McCain fears Romney more than any other Republican candidate? I expect things will get pretty ugly.

I think more things like this will come up from Rudy's past if he gets serious about a White House run (from CNN):

Never say New Yorkers don't have sense of humor -- especially when they can stick it to the other side.

A powerful New York Democrat, a mischievous gleam in his eye, is offering an early endorsement in the 2008 presidential race, where the field includes many hometown hopefuls like former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Gov. George Pataki and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"I'm supporting Giuliani for the Republican," Rep. Charles Rangel said Monday, pausing briefly before delivering the punchline. "Kerik, as well," he added, referring to Giuliani's disgraced former police commissioner Bernard Kerik.

Kerik pleaded guilty earlier this year to misdemeanor charges of taking money from contractors with alleged mob ties, when he was the city's corrections chief. He was also President Bush's choice to head the Department of Homeland Security, but the nomination was scrapped after questions arose about his background.

Political observers say Giuliani's relationship with Kerik could be a problem if the former mayor goes ahead with a run for president.

Here is a blurb from a Newsweek article on Gov. Romney with a great quote from Mitt:

Some conservatives have expressed serious concerns about a 1994 letter Romney wrote to gay-rights activists vowing to make "equality for gay and lesbians a mainstream concern." Romney says that "equality" had nothing to do with marriage back then. "Even the members of the Log Cabin Republican club said, 'Oh, you don't have to be in favor of gay marriage'."

Since then, he says, "the media and the elite and the Democratic Party have moved to very much favoring same-sex marriage," he says. "I haven't moved to the right, they've moved to the left." On abortion, he is now pro-life, because he says he's become convinced that "the Roe v. Wade philosophy has so cheapened human life." He sounds like a Baptist, or at least the kind of Baptist Republicans elect.

Here is a scary poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal if you're a McCain fan. If McCain and John Edwards went head-to-head with these registered voters, here are the results:

Edwards 43%
McCain 41%
Neither/other 7%
Not sure 7%
Depends 2%

And to make matters worse, Edwards (14%) was listed as the third most popular choice to win the Democrat's nomination behind Hillary (37%) and Obama (18%). If one of McCain's chief strengths is his electability in the general election, I'm not sure how polls like this, where he doesn't suffer from name recognition like Romney does, help his argument.

Here is some interesting commentary on McCain's possible difficulties with Romney in Michigan by Detroit News and National Review columnist Henry Payne (thanks to EFM for the scoop):

John McCain played the spoiler in 2000, upending frontrunner George W. Bush in the February Michigan primary and momentarily casting doubt on Bush's party coronation.

As 2008 looms, McCain is the frontrunner--and, ironically, Michigan could prove his undoing.
That's because McCain's chief challenger in '08 is likely to be Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. With pro-life, pro-military pedigrees, both will appeal to the party base so crucial to winning GOP primaries (exit Rudy G). But as much as Michigan is war hero McCain's kind of state, it's also friendly territory to Romney. The Michigan Republican Party has already split between these two lions, with powerbrokers like AG Cox (McCain) and House speaker Deroche (Romney) marking territory.

Here's why the smart money is on Mitt in the mitt-shaped state:
Start with name recognition, so crucial to McCain's success in 2000. The Romney name is gold here, as Mitt is son of popular former guv, George (that family history should also put to rest the "Will America elect a Mormon?" rhetoric: if Michigan could elect a Mormon three times in the 1960s, why not the nation?).

Mitt is also charismatic. His campaign organization has been quietly seeding Michigan in recent months, and the money folks here are impressed. He has that something that can't be taught: the ability to dominate a room the moment he enters it. Contrast that to McCain, a prickly personality whose stubborn streak often alienates.

Then there's that governor thing. Governors from Reagan to Clinton to Bush have dominated recent presidential elections. And they have defeated top senators like Dole and McCain and Kerry along the way. Why? Because governors have a better feel for America beyond the beltway--a culture McCain has been captive to for a long time.

Romney has also succeeded in the toughest of climates. First, as a brilliant CEO in the U.S.'s demanding capital markets. Then, as a Republican governor in that bluest of states, Massachusetts.

Finally, there's legislation. In just one term, Romney has gained a reputation as a top governor, crafting bipartisan health care reform plan (with Heritage Foundation input) that is one of the country's most talked-about policy experiments. By contrast, McCain's signature legislation, bipartisan campaign finance reform, has been a dud.

Like another handsome, jet-black haired GOP governor from a lefty state, Mitt Romney may ride Michigan's famous "Reagan Democrats" all the way to the White House.

Here is part of a great interview with Mitt Romney by the National Review's Kathy Lopez in answer to much of the smear attack going on against him of late (thanks again to EFM).

Lopez: In a 1994 debate with Senator Kennedy, you said “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” Further confusing matters, the Boston Globe reported in 1994 that “as a Mormon lay leader [you] counseled Mormon women not to have abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life was at risk.” Governor: What is your position on abortion today? On Roe? How do you account for what is obviously a change — certainly publicly — on the issue?

Gov. Romney: My position has changed and I have acknowledged that. How that came about is that several years ago, in the course of the stem-cell-research debate I met with a pair of experts from Harvard. At one point the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. After the meeting I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction — it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality. And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, “I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.” The state of Massachusetts is a pro-choice state and when I campaigned for governor I said that I would not change the law on abortion. But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution.

What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. The Republican party is and should remain the pro-life party and work to change hearts and minds and create a culture of life where every child is welcomed and protected by law and the weakest among us are protected. I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues.
And yes, as a private citizen I have counseled women not to have abortions.

Lopez: Does that mean you were “faking it” — as one former adviser has suggested — as a pro-choicer in your previous political campaigns? Why should anyone believe you’re really pro-life now?

Gov. Romney: I believe people will see that as governor, when I had to examine and grapple with this difficult issue, I came down on the side of life. I know in the four years I have served as governor I have learned and grown from the exposure to the thousands of good-hearted people who are working to change the culture in our country. I’m committed to promoting the culture of life. Like Ronald Reagan, and Henry Hyde, and others who became pro-life, I had this issue wrong in the past.

Lopez: As you know, in recent days the Boston Globe and the New York Times, as well as the Boston newspaper, Bay Windows, have run pieces about your 1994 race against Ted Kennedy and your run for governor that appear to be in conflict with your current position against gay marriage. Are they?

Gov. Romney: These old interviews and stories have frequently been circulated by my opponents ever since I took a stand against the Massachusetts supreme-court ruling on same-sex marriage. This being the political season, it is not surprising this old news has appeared again. But I have made clear since 2003, when the supreme court of Massachusetts redefined marriage by fiat, that my unwavering advocacy for traditional marriage stands side by side with a tolerance and respect for all Americans.

Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve opposed same-sex marriage, but I’ve also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference. Americans are a tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage and it is a debate about activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law.

I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and I have been rock solid in my support of traditional marriage. Marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.

Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?

Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.
As for military policy and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.

Thanks to Evangelicals for Mitt for the scoop on this quote from John McCain. I didn't think it was legitimate at first, but it is from a speech he delivered at Liberty University's commencement this year. Here is the excerpt:

When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people. I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me, and, consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of my insights. I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me. With my superior qualities so obvious, it was an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So I rarely did. All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them. It’s a pity that there wasn’t a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium.

With all due respect, I'm not sure McCain's views of himself have changed much with age.

Krusty Konservative, an influential Iowa blogger, gave a rundown on John McCain yesterday. Overall it wasn't too favorable. Here are some of Krusty's points:

Gay marriage: Senator McCain is an opponent of a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. He says, “I oppose the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages…” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 8/29/04) He even voted against it in 2004. Ouch. The McCain people will tell you that he believes it is an issue that each state should settle. If it were me I would be supportive of individual states efforts AND a federal amendment.

Tax Cuts: An early opponent of the Bush tax cuts – McCain voted against them in 2001, citing his desire for fiscal responsibility. Later, he changed his position on the Bush tax cuts and voted for their extension after he began looking towards an ’08 run.

Abortion: McCain says he has a 100% pro-life voting record. While it’s not 100%, it’s pretty good, overall. However, he has a few are trouble spots. In the San Francisco Chronicle (8/20/99) McCain sided with the pro-abortion camp, suggesting that overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to illegal abortions. “"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

Immigration: McCain’s position is a tough one for most konservatives, but it’s an issue that also haunts konservatives like Brownback and Huckabee. His basic position appears to be “amnesty by another name”. Frankly, I’m distrustful of any immigration bill co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy, and thus I don’t think I could support the McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill.”

McCain-Feingold: (what’s with all the co-sponsorships with the most liberal members of the Senate?): Perhaps the most liberal item in the McCain record – it especially affects political speech on the right, while allowing unions and other voices on the left to go unabated. McCain Feingold has done more to destroy state political parties than any other single act in history. But since the Democrats were set up with unions to play a similar role, and used 527s more aggressively than Republicans, konservatives are left outgunned.

In a speech in Feb. of 2000 at Virginia Beach, McCain said that evangelical Christians in politics are “agents of intolerance.” Later, when given an opportunity to korrect it, he said “I must not and will not retract anything that I said in that speech at Virginia Beach. It was carefully crafted, it was carefully thought out." (Hardball, 3/1/00)Oh, and one more thing. And lets also not forget that McCain did skip the Iowa Kaucuses in 2000.

Thanks to Moms 4 Mitt on a great article from, miracles of miracles, the Boston Globe. Here are some key quotes:

The current Governor Romney needed strong backing early in the process to be taken seriously as a contender. Republicans don't like new faces, so Romney had to make himself familiar very quickly. He has done that, and more.

Last week, Romney was the runner-up to McCain in an exhaustive National Journal poll of Washington insiders. And McCain himself has validated the early soundings by crashing the annual convention of the Republican Governors Association, which Romney chaired. McCain knew that Romney's ties to Republican governors could give him thousands of foot soldiers in the primaries. It was a testament to the extent of Romney's support that McCain felt a need to intervene so early and so directly.

But Romney's own actions have played a role in his rise. Moves that were dismissed as craven in Massachusetts -- denying protection to former president Mohammad Khatami of Iran or having State Police round up illegal immigrants -- have played big in Washington.

Now, Romney is widely accepted as a true conservative, to the right of the quirky McCain, by the large GOP punditocracy. It helped that Romney made frequent trips to Washington to give speeches at conservative think tanks and to curry favor with GOP insiders.

"Mr. Powerpoint Goes to Washington" is the title of an article looking at how Romney's business background helps him in the public sector (thanks to Iowans for Romney for the scoop). Here are a few quotes, though I recommend reading the whole thing:

The episode highoights what would become the defining characteristic of Romney's career as a venture capitalist--and later as a government executive. He was willing to pursue--and analyze--data that others wouldn't bother to chase down. His dogged persistence paid off.

Since 2003, he has served as governor of Massachusetts--a Republican running the most Democratic state in America. Romney, who turns 60 in March, is now laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign. His record in business and government, coupled with his personal discipline and a strong campaign organization, give him credibility even in a GOP field where Arizona senator John McCain and former NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani are now far ahead in early polls.

I might add that these early polls are about one thing: name recognition. And given that the president is the chief executive for the country (something most voters seem to understand given the fact that we almost always elect a former governor), one wonders what executive experience and skill senators such as John McCain and Sam Brownback could bring to the overwhelming demands of the Oval Office.

There has been some hullabaloo in the press about Romney and past comments that he has made on social issues. For some great analysis of it, check out Evangelicals for Mitt.

Finally someone in the media is making sense of the numerous polls that say America would never elect a Mormon president. Here is a breakdown from pundit Charlie Cook (thanks to Viriginians for Mitt Romney for the scoop):

"As you may know, Mitt Romney is a Mormon who is currently governor of Massachusetts. If the Republican Party nominated Mitt Romney for president, regardless of how you personally might vote, how likely is it that among your friends, neighbors or relatives there might be some people who choose not to vote for Romney because he is Mormon?"

Forty-three percent chose the option of "not likely at all," while another 24 percent picked "only somewhat likely," for a total of 67 percent. Thirteen percent said "very likely" and another eight percent chose "fairly likely," for a total of 21 percent.

Interestingly, the one in five who seemed to think that Romney's faith was a deal-breaker and the two-thirds who said it wouldn't be didn't vary as much by party as one might think. Among both Republicans and independents, 19 percent in each case picked either the "very likely" or "fairly likely" options and 23 percent of Democrats chose that course. Among Republicans, 71 percent picked either only "somewhat" or "not likely," while 70 percent of independents and 64 percent of Democrats chose one of those.

Indeed there was surprisingly little variation between the 40 subgroups tested, and the only ones that varied on the combined "very likely/fairly likely" group more than five points one way or the other were blacks (38 percent) and likely Democratic primary voters (26 percent).

With this poll showing that, among registered Republicans and Republican presidential primary voters as well as independents and swing voters, the very likely/fairly likely number is under 20 percent, and the only groups that jumped high were those highly unlikely to vote for any Republican, it's possible that Romney's challenge may be lesser than some have warned. As the campaign becomes more engaged, it will become more apparent whether these numbers hold up.

Cook also had this to say:

The Republican who has helped himself enormously over the last year has been Romney, who matches Gingrich in intelligence and is certainly an accomplished speaker, but has not yet laid out a vision of where he would take the party if nominated or the country if elected. Unquestionably, Romney has an enormous amount of talent, and a Republican able to win in Massachusetts is certainly a player who has demonstrated an ability to win on the road.

The National Journal has polled party insiders concerning 2008. Here are some quotes.

On John McCain:

"Republicans usually nominate our front-runners, and people who have run before. We're the party of primogeniture."

"McCain's to lose, and he's capable of doing that with his call for more troops for Iraq. He's three years late, and he needs some fresh ideas--and someone to talk straight to him."

"An old, tired warhorse. A maverick Bob Dole. It is his turn and, unfortunately, he is the best we got."

On Mitt Romney:

"The breathtaking, self-inflicted collapse of George Allen moves Romney [into being] the main conservative alternative to McCain."

"He has the looks, the communication skills, the appeal to big donors, and the advantage of a large group of establishment figures and grassroots activists looking for an alternative to McCain."

[He's the GOP's strongest candidate] "because he comes from outside Washington, and the public's dim view of Congress is likely to get worse, not better, during the next two years."

[He's the GOP's strongest candidate because he] "can run as an outsider, but more importantly, as we have learned, our winning candidates come from the ranks of our governors."

On Romney's faith:

"This is very hard to figure out. This is a much bigger issue for Mitt Romney than it was for his father or Mo Udall. Why? I think it might be media hype" (from a Democrat).

"If he gets the nomination, it means he's put the issue to rest" (from a Republican).

"When Americans are reminded that the Constitution states there will be no religious test for candidates for public office, they will stop thinking about his religion" (from a Republican).

Obviously these aren't all the quotes; some were less favorable.

The Arizona Republic has an article on two McCain pickups to run his Arizona operations. Obviously McCain is the heavy favorite in the Grand Canyon state, as politics, like sports, leads the majority of people to unquestioningly root for the home team out of emotion.

However, if McCain doesn't win big in AZ, it will hurt him. And if he were to lose Arizona, he would be done.

Also of note, two states that helped give McCain great momentum in 2000 against Bush--New Hampshire and Michigan--may not have as much of a boost for him this time around for two reasons.

First, McCain is considered the frontrunner by most, eliminating the appeal of a populist campaign against the big, bad, rich guy who is supposed to win. Second, both states have an open primary, allowing independents to vote in either party's election which greatly helped McCain last time around. This time, however, there will be much more interest in the Democrat's primary (much more of a choice than just Gore and Bradley), drawing away independents from McCain to someone like Barack Obama or John Edwards. And as McCain continues to attempt to appeal to conservatives to win the GOP nomination, he'll alienate independents, further reducing his main appeal to Republicans: his electability in a general election.

Of course, Romney has a much more solid support base in Michigan (because of his father) and New Hampshire (because of its closeness to MA and he also owns a vacation home there), and would benefit more than anyone from a poorer showing by McCain.

How conservative is John McCain? According to the influential American Conservative Union, the AZ senator rates lowest of all potential conressional GOP candidates in 2008. Here are their 2005 and lifetime scores with my assesment of the likelihood of their candidacy:

Tom Tancredo-100/99 (unlikely to run)
Sen. Sam Brownback-100/95 (may run, but won't get far; longshot for VP)
Rep. Duncan Hunter-92/92 (is running, but won't get far)
Newt Gingrich-NA/90 (may run late, but I'm guessing he won't)
Sen. Chuck Hagel-96/86 (unlikely to run)
Sen. John McCain-80/83 (has been running since 1999)

Other former potential candidates:
Sen. George Allen-100/92
Sen. Bill Frist-92/89

This means that McCain in 2005 was the 46th most conservative GOP senator (or the 10th most liberal).

The ACU doesn't rate governors and mayors.

Also, the president of the ACU-David Keene-had this to say about how pro-McCain Republicans could successfully win the nomination for their man:

"They don't have to get folks like me to love John McCain. They just have to get us to quietly grumble, rather than run around the country saying out loud that we just really don't want him."

I don't know about you, but I don't feel like quietly grumbling if that is going to be the consequence.

Nathan Burd, founder of Americans for Mitt, has some insightful analysis into John McCain's pro-life record and how the AZ senator currently compares with Gov. Romney. Here are some excerpts:

Without question, Senator McCain has a generally pro-life voting record and he is to be commended for that. But is it really a consistent record? For the current legislative session, Senator McCain has only earned a 75% rating from National Right to Life. McCain’s support for federally-funded embryonic stem cell research (H.R. 810) is the reason for his lowered rating and one of the main reasons why pro-life voters are suspicious of McCain’s sincerity on life issues.

How does one claim to be consistent and genuine on life issues when they support embryonic stem cell research? The creation of human life simply for its destruction is most certainly not pro-life. Not only does Senator McCain support this procedure, but he wants us to pay for it!

Pro-life voters need to understand that Governor Romney vetoed the effort to expand embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts. While Senator McCain was busy promoting federally-funded embryo murder, Governor Romney displayed genuine pro-life leadership by vetoing embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts.

Thanks to Evangelicals for Mitt on the scoop, the rumor mill has it that Bill Frist and many of his team, now that he has dropped from the running, will support Romney. Why? Well, according to the source, an unnamed Frist staffer:

"The Leader [what intimates call Frist] will back Mitt Romney, in part because he can’t stand John McCain."

Of interest to the Grand Canyon state with its current illegal immigration woes, Gov. Romney recently received permission to empower Massachussets' state troopers such that they can now arrest illegal immigrants. You can read about it here.

For those of you who are already itching to vote for Romney, their is an online poll at Krusty Konservative, a blogger in Iowa.

Yahoo News has an insightful article into the pitfalls of being in the senate and running for president given many of the controversial votes forthcoming in 2007. It includes this from Gov. Romney:

Outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a likely contender for the Republican presidential nomination, alluded to the challenge facing senators while he attended the annual meeting last week of the Republican Governors' Association, which he has headed.

"There's nothing that's going to yield a bigger swat — or a thumping if you will — than saying one thing and doing another," Romney said.

Nancy French of Evangelicals For Mitt has some interesting insights and analysis of McCain's recent on-the-sly attempts to court Republican governors. Click here for the link.