Evangelical publicist sends letter to evangelical leaders urging them to rally Romney support

Mark DeMoss (The DeMoss Group) ^ | 9 October 2007 | Mark DeMoss

[Spiff]

To: Conservative & Evangelical Leaders
From: Mark DeMoss (Personally)
Date: October 9, 2007
Subject: The 2008 Presidential Election

In about 100 days we will likely have a Republican nominee for president. Most political observers believe it a near certainty that this nominee will face Hillary Clinton in the general election. While most people think this election cycle started too early, I’m finding that few people realize the primaries are almost upon us—and how compacted the primary calendar is.

Within about 30 days after the last college football bowl game is played, primaries (and an all-important caucus) will be held in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia! (At least a dozen of these will fall on the same day—February 5, 2008.)

As certain as it seems that Hillary will represent the Democratic Party, it now appears the GOP representative will be either Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Governor Mitt Romney (based on polls in early states, money raised and on hand, staff and organization, etc.). And, if it is not Mitt Romney, we would, for the first time in my memory, be faced with a general election contest between two “pro-choice” candidates.

I decided over a year ago to help Mitt Romney; and while I have not been (and will not be) paid one dollar, I have worked harder on behalf of a candidate this past year than in any election of my lifetime. Why? In large part because the next president is almost certain to appoint two-to-four Supreme Court justices.

When I began surveying the landscape of potential candidates I was looking for three things:

1. Someone who most closely shared my values;

2. Someone who has proven experience and competence to lead and manage large enterprises;

3. Someone who can actually win the nomination (without which it is obviously impossible to challenge or beat Hillary Clinton, or any other democrat—people who certainly don’t share our values).

So how did I settle on Mitt Romney? After spending months researching his life and his record, and hours with him (and his wife and staff) in his home, his office and on the road, I am convinced his values practically mirror my own—values about the sanctity of life, the sacredness of marriage, the importance of the family, character and integrity, free enterprise and smaller government. But more than one candidate shares my values; which leads me to my second criterion.

The President of the United States is the CEO of the largest enterprise on planet earth, presiding over a nearly $3 trillion budget and some 2 million employees (the size of the workforces of General Motors, General Electric, Citigroup, Ford, Hewlett-Packard and AT&T combined). Mitt Romney has already been the chief executive of one of the most successful investment management firms in the world—Bain Capital, with nearly $6 billion under management; a Winter Olympic Games (Salt Lake City, 2002), where he turned a $379 million operating deficit into one of the most profitable Games ever; and the state of Massachusetts, where he eliminated a $3 billion deficit without raising taxes or borrowing money.

That kind of experience convinces me Mitt Romney could lead, manage and govern America during a critical time in world history. But can he actually win (my third criterion)? After he was the runaway winner of the important Iowa straw poll in August, TIME magazine’s political columnist Joe Klein wrote, “Romney now has to be considered a strong favorite to win the Republican nomination. And another prediction: if nominated, Romney will be formidable in the general election.”

Like it or not (and most of us don’t), these campaigns have become obscenely expensive. It has been estimated that the two party nominees may well spend in excess of $100 million in the primaries, and several times that in the general election. One insider told me Hillary may spend half a billion dollars before it’s over! This means a successful candidate must be able to come up with this kind of money. Through the first three quarterly reporting periods, Republican candidates reported total revenues as follows:

• Mitt Romney: $62.4 million
• Rudy Giuliani: $46.1
• John McCain: $30.5
• Fred Thompson: $12.8
• Ron Paul: $8.0
• Sam Brownback: $3.3 (through 2 quarters; 3rd quarter number had not been reported yet)
• Mike Huckabee: $2.3

These numbers are important for many reasons. It takes money to hire staff, recruit volunteers, send out mailings, travel the country, organize events (Mitt told me recently he had done 462 events just in Iowa so far!) and to buy TV commercial time. CNN recently reported that Romney just became the first candidate in history to buy 10,000 TV commercials at this point in the presidential campaign (by comparison, John McCain was purchasing his first commercials the same weekend).

Gov. Romney is also leading by 4%-11% or more in polls in a number of early states, such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada—and one recent poll now shows him leading in South Carolina. Historically, a candidate who wins the Iowa caucuses and several of the early primaries benefits from a tremendous amount of national exposure and fundraising momentum.

As this race heats up and we approach the final stretch of the nominating process, I have three growing concerns:

1. Currently, conservatives (whether evangelical or not) are dividing their support among several candidates. In the long run, this only helps Rudy Giuliani, who clearly does not share our values on so many issues.

2. Talk of a possible third party candidate draft movement only helps Giuliani (or, worse yet, Clinton), in my view. While I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. James Dobson that not having a pro-life nominee of either major party presents an unacceptable predicament, I would rather work hard to ensure we do nominate a pro-life candidate than to launch an 11th-hour third party campaign. Mike Huckabee affirmed this concern when he told the Washington Post last week, “I think a third party only helps elect Hillary Clinton.”

3. Perhaps most troubling to me is the idea I keep hearing that electing someone like Hillary Clinton would “actually be good for the conservative movement,” since it will “galvanize our forces, enable us to build our mailing lists and raise more money…therefore, I’m not going to vote for anyone this time around.” Well, I am not willing to risk negatively changing the Supreme Court, and our entire judicial system, for the next 30 years in exchange for building our conservative mailing lists and operating budgets for the next four or eight years. That, in my opinion, is selfish, short-sighted and dangerous.

Here is what I believe is at stake in this election:

• Someone is almost certain to appoint two, three, or four justices to the Supreme Court. Do we want that person to be Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney?
• Someone will cast vision and lead Congress on matters of national security, including securing our borders against illegal immigration. Should that be Hillary, Rudy or Mitt?
• Someone will deal with the definition of marriage in America—and will either defend and model a faithful marriage and strong family, or not. Who should that person be?
• Someone will either defend unborn life—or defend those who place their rights and desires above those who can’t defend themselves. Would we prefer that Clinton, Giuliani or Romney be in that position?
  

  [By the way, I am also troubled by skeptical sentiment in some corners about the legitimacy and sincerity of Gov. Romney’s “conversion” on the abortion issue. I always thought the pro-life movement existed for the purpose of influencing hearts and mind on the issue of life, and historically, we have celebrated converts to our side. We embraced Ronald Reagan (who signed a liberal abortion law as governor of California), Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe”), and others—and I am prepared to accept and embrace Mitt Romney. I’ve also told him he will be held accountable on this if elected.]
  

• Someone will need to deal with radical Islamic Jihadists and the threat they pose to our nation. As evangelicals, do we want to entrust Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney with that critical assignment?
• Finally, someone will either welcome evangelicals and people of faith into the White House and their administration; or shut them out of deliberations and consideration for various appointments. Would Hillary, Rudy or Mitt be most accepting of evangelicals and people of faith?

Now, I fully recognize some evangelicals take issue with me for supporting a Mormon for the office of president, and I respect their concerns. Indeed, I had to deal with the same concerns in my own heart before offering to help Gov. Romney. But I concluded that I am more concerned that a candidate shares my values than he shares my theology. (If I believed similar theology was paramount in a president, I would be writing this memo urging support of Mike Huckabee.)

As a Southern Baptist evangelical and political conservative, I am convinced I have more in common with most Mormons than I do with a liberal Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic or a liberal from any other denomination or faith group. The question shouldn’t be, “could I vote for a Mormon,” but, “could I vote for this Mormon?” After all, Mitt told me there are Mormons he couldn’t vote for (I presume Harry Reid, for example); and there are Southern Baptists I couldn’t vote for (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, to name a few).

Incidentally, if one-third of “white evangelicals” voted for Bill Clinton, the second time (a Southern Baptist who doesn’t share our values on most issues); can we not at least consider supporting a Mormon who does share our values? Noted conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote this month that Mitt Romney is “the only Republican candidate unequivocally opposed to gay marriage and the only one who signed the no tax increase pledge.”

On May 17, my friend of nearly 30 years, Jerry Falwell, went to Heaven. In addition to being my first employer and like a second father following the death of my father in 1979, Jerry was my political mentor in many ways. I learned from him, some 25 years ago, the value of working closely with people of other faiths and religions who shared our convictions about the sanctity of life, support for the state of Israel, the sacredness of marriage and the importance of the family unit, the dangers of pornography, and the value of God in public life. Consequently, the Moral Majority (and many subsequent organizations) was built with coalitions of evangelicals and likeminded Roman Catholics, Jews and yes, Mormons.

Just about six months before his death, Jerry accepted my invitation to a meeting with Gov. Romney at his home outside Boston. He joined me, and about 15 other evangelicals, for an intimate discussion with the Governor and his wife Ann. Jerry was one of several that day who said, “Governor, I don’t have a problem with your being Mormon, but I want to ask you how you would deal with Islamic jihadists…or with illegal immigration…or how you would choose justices for the Supreme Court…,” and so on.

While Jerry Falwell never told me how he intended to vote in the upcoming election, I think I know how he would not have voted. I also know he would not have “sat this one out” and given up on the Supreme Court for a generation. I am wholeheartedly convinced that Mitt Romney can be trusted to uphold the values and principles most important to me as a political conservative and an evangelical Christian. Again, I am not being paid, and I am not interested in a job in a Romney Administration (I would not accept one even if offered, as I’m still raising three teenagers). Neither is my public relations firm involved in any way. I am involved because I believe the stakes are high, perhaps higher than ever before in my life.

In closing, I would respectfully urge fellow conservatives and evangelicals to consider doing the following:

1. Pray fervently for this election.

2. Follow the news and the primary calendar; being familiar with the process and aware of the urgency of the schedule.

3. Encourage people to vote and not “sit this one out,” merely because they aren’t excited about a candidate.

4. Encourage people to support the candidate who best represents their values; whether or not they share your theology.

5. Galvanize support around Mitt Romney, so Rudy Giuliani isn’t the unintended beneficiary of our divided support among several other candidates—or, worse yet, so we don’t abdicate the presidency (and the future of the Supreme Court) over to Hillary Clinton.

I believe we can make a difference—the difference in this election—and if Mitt Romney should become the 44th president of the United States, I’m confident he won’t forget how he got there. I hope you’ll join me. Thank you for your consideration of these things.

/rmd

[FastCoyote]

“You learn something new every day. Thanks for the lesson, FC. I apologize for my accusations against you on this point.”

A sincere apology goes a long way tantiboh. I don’t just make stuff up willy nilly. Truthfully I don’t find any pleasure in being such a hard guy in these debates, I just think it serves no purpose to sugarcoat the truth.

[FastCoyote]

“Who cares? We’re electing them to run the national government, not to be America’s spiritual authority for eight years. We have a little thing called “freedom of religion” in this country and “no religious tests”, which prevents the government from having ANY say over religious doctrine.”

Yes it is a free country, that’s why you can believe what you said above, and why I can choose not to pull the lever for a Mormon based on religious conviction. But you are mightily confused if you believe I have to ignore Romney’s faith and moral foundations.

[epow]

Since we differ on the interpretation of bible scripture, and you accept the writing of your church fathers as inspired writ and I don't, I think it would be pointless for us to argue about the matter. I respect your right to practice your belief system, and I am sure that you respect my right to believe as I do. The old adage about agreeing to disagree amicably seems to fit well in this situation.

You may not have read my previous posts to this thread, but IIRC I mentioned in one of them that although I don't plan to vote for Mitt in the primary, if he is nominated I will vote for him in the general election. If I pledged to only vote for candidates who are conservative evangelical Christians who believe exactly as I do on all points of scripture interpretation my list of eligible candidates would be very short indeed.

[tantiboh]

~”All I can tell you is that you can review the threads for yourself and you’ll see all of the major candidates taking their lumps at one time or another.”~

That’s true. We do have certain standards in this country, though. One of those is freedom of religion. Conservative philosophy demands that this freedom be extended such that there is no religious test for office, short of that religion advocating harm to others. Unfortunately, we’re seeing some try to deny Romney his right to the same tolerance everybody else gets. It’s not acceptable from the standpoint of the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

~”You start a thread about Fred’s spiritual beliefs with some real meaty content (not guesswork) and ping me and I’ll be glad to participate in the discussion.”~

Why? I don’t particularly care about Thompson’s spiritual beliefs. I judge the man on his political qualifications. There’s plenty of reason to oppose Romney on this basis. My point is to illustrate the double-standard some are applying.

~”Are you that clueless?”~

From time to time. But not on this issue.

~”You’re telling me that the liberal MSM, who always takes every opportunity to bash anyone from the “religious right,” is giving Mitt a free pass in mentioning his faith?”~

Oh, Romney will be attacked as a religious nut, that’s for sure. So was Bush. So would Thompson. But discrediting him on the basis of the specifics of his faith will violate the electorate’s sense of fair play. It’ll be like Miracle-Gro for his grassroots support. Like you calling my sister stupid - I can do it all I want, but I’m likely to flatten you if you do it. The various denominations of the religious right are the same way.

~”Now if the Mormon church has the right to comment (thru Deseret) on the admixture of faith and the public square, why do you consider that a monopoly privileged only to Mormons?”~

Your point is good; but politics is a different beast. A person in the United States of America should not be disqualified from leadership positions on the basis of the details of his faith. That’s a black-and-white sort of thing. If that religion leads him to respect God and be a better person (which there is no serious debate on with Mormonism), then it is not a disqualification from office. I don’t care if it’s Mormonism, Methodism, Judaism, Islam, or B’hai B’rith. That’s the America we live in, or ought to be.

~”What do you need to market yourself as to get yourself elected in Massachusetts?”~

Evidently, a state fiscal crisis you can handle and a commitment to leave abortion be. Believe it or not, Romney was generally conservative on about every other issue in his gubernatorial platform, even if he couldn’t actually -do- much in the deep blue of MA. AWB is about the only other thing worthy of valid criticism from his governing record.

[tantiboh]

~”Truthfully I don’t find any pleasure in being such a hard guy in these debates, I just think it serves no purpose to sugarcoat the truth.”~

I agree entirely with that. When it comes to criticisms of my faith, though, I have a particularly low tolerance level for inaccuracy. I suggest we meet somewhere in the middle - where the facts actually lie.

It’s been a good discussion. I’ve been proven wrong twice on this thread. This sort of education is what addicts me to FR.

[tantiboh]

~”If I pledged to only vote for candidates who are conservative evangelical Christians who believe exactly as I do on all points of scripture interpretation my list of eligible candidates would be very short indeed.”~

I think we’re all in that boat. Thanks for the discussion.

[elizabetty]

Since Fred Thompson entered the race Rudy Giuliani has gone UP in the polls while Fred goes down.

Today Rudy is over 30% in the RCP average thanks to Fred building up expectations and then failing to meet them.

[epow]

This pattern of action against evangelicals will likely keep them from ever supporting Mr. McCain.

That pattern alone would keep me from supporting McCain against any of the current GOP candidates except Rudy, and then only reluctantly. And when you add in the fact that he went from state to state after the Columbine shooting publicly urging state legislators to enact bans on gun shows and other restrictive gun laws, I would vote for his opposition in any election unless his opposition was even more unpalatable.

I have a short list of issues on which I will not compromise or budge an inch, and 2nd Amendment rights are written on that list in indelible ink. Any candidate who has a recent history of voting against my position on those issues is automatically removed from consideration for my vote even if it means me sitting out an election now and then.

[Hat-Trick]

I don't think dissonance is going to work as a strategy to get this man elected Presidnet. But the Romney camp seems to think it will, when 'hold your nose' push comes to 'fall in line regardless' shove.

I agree completely. They can count this conservative Christian as not-voting-for-Mitt. And my reason for not voting for Mitt has nothing to do with him being mormon. He's not a conservative - at least as demonstrated by his gubernatorial deeds.

[Saundra Duffy]

Jesus Christ is my Savior, my Lord, my All in All, he died for me, He is my personal Savior. It was Heavenly Father’s Plan for Jesus to take the punishment that should have been mind. The Holy Ghost witnesses to my heart and soul that this is True.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I was raised in the Southern Baptist church; I have nothing bad to say about Baptists.

[Colofornian]

Believe it or not, Romney was generally conservative on about every other issue in his gubernatorial platform...AWB is about the only other thing worthy of valid criticism from his governing record.

So that's why the Log Cabin of Massachusetts endorsed Mitt, because of all his "generally conservative" views in his gubernatorial platform. (I always wondered about that)

Listen, name me just two (something other than "gay" "marriage"--and even THAT was passed on his watch) issues on anything related to homosexuality that he took a "generally conservative" position on in 2002. (Here he promised to the Log Cabin to bring issues effecting gay and lesbian youth to the national table for attention).

Name me anything pertaining to abortion or micro-abortions or embryonic stem cells that he took a "generally conservative" position on in 2002.

We do have certain standards in this country, though. One of those is freedom of religion. Conservative philosophy demands that this freedom be extended such that there is no religious test for office, short of that religion advocating harm to others...A person in the United States of America should not be disqualified from leadership positions on the basis of the details of his faith. That’s a black-and-white sort of thing. If that religion leads him to respect God and be a better person (which there is no serious debate on with Mormonism), then it is not a disqualification from office. I don’t care if it’s Mormonism, Methodism, Judaism, Islam, or B’hai B’rith. That’s the America we live in, or ought to be.

OK, I've elaborated on this more than your average poster. But let me take a fresh intro approach before returning to my standard response: I don't see posters saying that Harry Reid & Orin Hatch shouldn't run for the Senate or Sherrod Brown shouldn't run Congress or Mitt Romney shouldn't run for POTUS, do you?

I've seen no "campaign" or even loose pot-shots calling for Mitt or any of these others to withdraw from any race. So your "religious test" contention is a straw man. Mitt and these others have the qualifications to run for office; I've seen no one say he shouldn't be on the ballot (for his LDS ties or for any reason).

Now most of the thread discussions don't focus on qualifications (frankly, if they didn't have the qualifications, they wouldn't be in the race). The thread discussions zero in on candidate qualities, whether it be electability; character; voting record; statements; stances, etc. Most of us weigh a candidate on the basis of several of these--we just wind up assigning different weights to these qualities.

Unfortunately, we’re seeing some try to deny Romney his right to the same tolerance everybody else gets.

OK, here's where you have a mistaken assumption--that all religious qualities(beliefs & worldviews) of a candidate automatically should garner perfect neutrality.

First of all, besides the fact that we don't live in a perfect robotic world (IOW, it ain't gonna happen), not all "private" religious beliefs are to be treated with complete neutrality. For example, what if a candidate said, "I will honor, enforce and support all civil rights' laws; but I'm personally 'pro-choice' on racism. I won't condemn people's right to think racist thoughts."?

What about the "personal" & "private" beliefs of this candidate? What? Are you saying if this candidate claimed that such a belief was religiously motivated, somehow he gets your "religious exemption free pass?"

I judge the man on his political qualifications. There’s plenty of reason to oppose Romney on this basis.

I agree.

(I just don't stop there because a person's other-worldly commitments inevitably enter into a person's character and a person's performance/behavior...There's no way to get around that. For example, a person who thinks they are earning their way to godhood will inevitably exhibit behavior that is what I call "boomerang" behavior...yeah, they're doing "good works" but even at a sub-conscious--if not conscious level--they are doing it because it ultimately benefits themselves. Now while that can be true even in other non-LDS religious contexts, it becomes exacerbated with Mormonism. I would prefer to have someone in the White House who is others-centered vs. one who always operates on some "universal divine boomerang system." I would prefer to have someone in the White House who is others-centered vs. a power monger who one day believes he will run his own planet. Now on these grounds alone can you really find fault with me for saying these are worthy considerations alongside the many other political ones?)

Oh, Romney will be attacked as a religious nut, that’s for sure. So was Bush. So would Thompson. But discrediting him on the basis of the specifics of his faith will violate the electorate’s sense of fair play. It’ll be like Miracle-Gro for his grassroots support. Like you calling my sister stupid - I can do it all I want, but I’m likely to flatten you if you do it. The various denominations of the religious right are the same way.

What you are saying is only going to effect a very small % (what we might call the "underdog" swell...you attack a "traditional values" candidate; voters who see themselves as "traditional values" voters therefore identify & bond with said candidate...and will "defend" him with their vote...that seems to be what you're saying). I'm not discounting that. It will happen; but to only a small %, and that small % (in this case) will be more than offset by voters who for the first time understand what Mormons believe and what Mitt represents.

What kinds of things?

"Oh, would-be President Romney, you believe that? You think I'm an apostate? You think I belong to the 'Church of the Devil' as described in the Book of Mormon? You think all my creeds are an 'abomination' to God? You think a woman has to be married to attain the highest degree of salvation? Your father's generation and those before him thought blacks were black because of a skin-color curse tied to some 'pre-existence' we all had? What? You say my God was created no different than you or me? You say he belongs to a grander council of gods out there?

What? No God created anything from scratch? The original "matter" (whatever that was) just evolved from who knows what? (If that "goo" evolved and God only "organized" it, is he going to take a pro-evolution-in-public-schools bully pulpit stance somewhere down the road?) Unfortunately, we’re seeing some try to deny Romney his right to the same tolerance everybody else gets. It’s not acceptable from the standpoint of the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

[Colofornian]

Unfortunately, we’re seeing some try to deny Romney his right to the same tolerance everybody else gets. It’s not acceptable from the standpoint of the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

These words were tacked on to my last post...they were yours and I was originally going to address them but didn't (& failed to delete them)

[MayflowerMadam]

“Just because your pastor says it doesn’t make it so.”

Excuse me; I make my OWN decisions! My father is a pastor, as are my uncles, cousins, and several acquaintences, and all are stunningly flawed — so the LAST person I’d go to for counseling and advice is a pastor. I know the definition of “cult”.

[Pride in the USA]

Good post from an evangelical conservative.

[kcubram]

I don’t who Mitt Romney really is. To do a complete 180 degree turn on values just in time for a Republican primary season, I don’t buy it. I will judge him by what he’s done, not what he says he will do. I hope voters everywhere will do the same.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

tant,
Raising questions about Mitt’s religious beliefs worked
well enough when Mitt ran against Kennedy in MA. Hillary’s
team will take this to a new level, if he gets the nomination.

As I said 6 months ago, Mitt WILL make the Mormon Speech, if
he wants to win - and he desperately wants it. It will be
a two edged sword for him. On the outside, he looks slick,
but pretty normal. On the inside, he believes kooky stuff.
People should know and they will decide after his speech.

In the meantime, if he is so great. If people want him to
be the nominee so much. If he is such a conservative. If
he is such an inspirational leader. If he believes in his
candidacy so strongly?

Why is he loaning himself 9 million bucks at a clip to
stay solvent?? In fact, why is he not giving himself money,
instead of loaning it to himself?

Are you ready to step in to give Mitt money to reimburse
his family fortune, so his loan can be repaid???

best,
ampu

[Rameumptom]

>>but I have read Mormon books from their own bookstore to find out what they really believe.

What books may I ask?

Most books written by Mormons are not considered Canon. For example Bruce R. McKonkie wrote a book called "Mormon Doctrine" that many like to quote as my belief but it is not. It even sounds "official-ish" but it is not canonized. And many like to usually quote the first edition which had some Doctrinal problems in it that were pointed out by Church leaders and corrected in later editions. The second edition while closer to the truth is no more or less canonical than the first. It was a Private book written for profit and contains McConkies opinion. While I can learn much from his opinion it is just that.

So the specific books you have read are important as to whether they acurrately reflect my belief or the Docrtinal beliefs of the Church.

[Rameumptom]

CBN guest Bio Mark Demoss

[Rameumptom]

>>>She isn’t self-funding to a significant degree

Hilary "loaned herself" 10 million of her money from her Senate campaign. Don't expect to read about it in the MSM. They are still shilling about Romney kicking in 9 million.

Romney is going to do what it takes to win. Some of the other candidates are rich and/ or famous. How willing are they to put their money where their mouth is? Romney has said it will take at least 300 million to beat Hilary and he is willing to work towards that with the goal in mind.

[I'm ALL Right!]

My take on Romney (at this point) is that he’s a poll watcher, like Clinton. He is so concerned about his image. Doesn’t say anything unless it has been fed to him and rehearsed...He’s like a news anchor. Perfect looks, and a script.