New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says in the New York Times today that he definitely will not run for president. That doesn't mean the current candidates don't have to worry about him. Bloomberg will demand some of their attention. One really is led to conclude that Bloomberg believes in the concept of non-partisan politics to solve problems. He states that that's the way he has gotten things done in NYC and feels it is the only way to face the issues confronting the country as a whole.
Bloomberg says he will play a role in the national dialogue during the presidential campaign and will support the candidate who most embodies the spirit of non-partisanship and independent thinking. Most tellingly though, Bloomberg makes the statement that an independent can win a presidential election. One gets the feeling that he doesn't necessarily mean this year, but if the winner in 2008 doesn't do a particularly good job, he (or she) better watch out for the mayor in 2012. Bloomberg certainly has the money to run an independent race and, more importantly, he he has the will to do it, something lacking in a previous NYC mayor who ran for the White House. Keep an eye on Michael Bloomberg.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Rocket Blasts Off Into World of Crap
Now that the Rocket has blasted off his mouth about how everybody is a big fat liar except for him and his fawning Republican fans on the House Oversight committee, Roger Clemens is going to be investigated by the Justice Department for possible perjury. Nice going, Roger. You threw your own wife under the bus, as well as your former trainer and your best pal Andy Pettitte, all in an effort to keep your gloried name clear, and now you're going to pay the price. The price is that, once you decide to stop stringing teams along and actually retire, you will go to your Texas home and sit on your big, fat, human growth hormone filled keester and wait for a call from the Hall of Fame, the one you so desperately want no matter how coy you are about your Hall desires. Only it won't come to those tainted by the steroid scandal. Just ask Mark McGwire. The Hall has yet to call him and it won't be calling you either, buddy.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Have a cigar, boy
Fidel is stepping down. Taking power in 1959, he's outlasted nine presidents: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. He almost outlasted Bush II. I guess the embargo isn't really working, is it? The embargo is stupid. The mightiest nation on earth should not allow a bunch of disgruntled, aged cigar rollers in South Florida to screw up American foreign policy.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
More on Hillary
When Hillary Clinton ran for the US Senate (what's a nice girl from Park Ridge doing in New York anyway?) it was always her intention to run for the presidency in 2008. Problem is, eight years is a long time in politics now. Too long. It's not like back in the day (not my day, but someone's- you know who you are) when Richard Nixon lost the 1960 presidential race to John Kennedy and his California gubernatorial bid (how often do I get to use a word like "gubernatorial"?) in 1962, only to return triumphantly to the national stage in 1968. In an age when Internet sources can answer all your questions quicker than you can ask them, eight years is an eternity. She should have run in 2004. She could have, I'll bet, beaten John Kerry in the primaries. It did not dawn on Clinton that there are so many unforseeable things that can occur, like a slick talking young man striking the young voters fancy, that it's better to act sooner rather than later. Mike Huckabee continues to run an unwinnable race not because he thinks he can win in 2008, but because he thinks he can launch his winning campaign now for the race in four years. Four years, not eight. The time for Hillary was 2004. The time for Hillary has come and gone.
Fleeing Thoughts: Rockets, Pistols, and Secrets
-The Rocket sucks. Why does Roger Clemens suck, you ask? Well, let me tell you. And I will tell you as a baseball fan who certainly has admired the competitor that Roger Clemens has been these last twenty years or more. In sworn testimony before a Congressional committee, Clemens threw his former trainer, Brian McNamee, no angel and quite possibly a liar himself, under the bus by stating, under oath, that McNamee is lying when he says he injected Clemens with steroids. He's also threw his own wife under the bus when by saying that Andy Pettitte, widely respected and admired as an honest individual, was mistaken about a conversation the two had about human growth hormone. Pettitte says Clemens told him he took it; Clemens says the conversation he had with Pettitte was about Clemens' wife taking HGH. Nice, Roger. Class act all the way. Anything else you'd like to rat your wife out about? Roger also says the injections he got from McNamee were B-12, even though, if needed for medical purposes, the oral form of B-12 would be all that's needed. And why did Roger take B-12? Because his mother recommended he take it. Your mother, Roger? You're dragging your poor momma into this? If for no other reason, mentioning mom in the midst of his disgraceful testimony, Roger Clemens is no longer worthy of anyone's admiration.
-When did the Sex Pistols become fodder for mockery? Or were they always such? Ok, they probably were, but it was interesting and dare I say, nostalgic, to see the Pistols sent up in this past week's episode of "The Simpsons." It was sort of a riff on the "Sid and Nancy" movie, in which Lisa Simpson had the role of Nancy and local bully Nelson was Sid, and they become addicted to chocolate (who isn't?). I suppose it's only fair, since the show has parodied just about everything associated with '60s music from the Beatles to the Grateful Dead and their Deadhead fans, as well barbershop quartets, opera, country, Gilbert and Sullivan and...the list goes on. "The Simpsons" is a very musical program and I am always amazed the actors can sing while still retaining their characters voice. Still, it was a bit odd to see a cultural movement, if that's what punk and the Pistols were, that I was a small part of in my distant youth, get the comic treatment on America's favorite cartoon. Does the fact that it's been parodied on TV mean that I'm old? Shut up, it was a rhetorical question. You know, one that doesn't require an answer.
-The Supreme Court refused to hear a suit, thrown out by a lower court, challenging the Bush administrations practice of monitoring phone calls and e-mails between the US and overseas without first seeking a judges approval. Even in these times, in the midst of a war without end against terror, such secrecy, to the extent that a judge is not even sought out to weigh the arguments for or against a particular wiretap, is wrong. It is simply un-American.
-Hillary Clinton is falling into the same trap that George HW Bush fell into when running against Bill in 1992, that of mis-guided diversionary arguments. Bush focused on things that simply didn't matter to the voting public, such as Bill protesting the Viet Nam war while overseas in England as a Rhodes scholar. Bush kept criticizing Bill for protesting "against America" while on foreign soil. No one cared. They wanted to hear about the economy, stupid, not about what little Billy did on his European vacation. Now Hillary is criticizing Barack Obama for not giving credit to Duval Patrick, or to their mutual advisor, David Axelrod, for using parts of a speech about the effects of "words." Senator Clinton needs to focus on real issues, not silly diversions, or she will continue to be just that, Senator Clinton, and not President Clinton.
-When did the Sex Pistols become fodder for mockery? Or were they always such? Ok, they probably were, but it was interesting and dare I say, nostalgic, to see the Pistols sent up in this past week's episode of "The Simpsons." It was sort of a riff on the "Sid and Nancy" movie, in which Lisa Simpson had the role of Nancy and local bully Nelson was Sid, and they become addicted to chocolate (who isn't?). I suppose it's only fair, since the show has parodied just about everything associated with '60s music from the Beatles to the Grateful Dead and their Deadhead fans, as well barbershop quartets, opera, country, Gilbert and Sullivan and...the list goes on. "The Simpsons" is a very musical program and I am always amazed the actors can sing while still retaining their characters voice. Still, it was a bit odd to see a cultural movement, if that's what punk and the Pistols were, that I was a small part of in my distant youth, get the comic treatment on America's favorite cartoon. Does the fact that it's been parodied on TV mean that I'm old? Shut up, it was a rhetorical question. You know, one that doesn't require an answer.
-The Supreme Court refused to hear a suit, thrown out by a lower court, challenging the Bush administrations practice of monitoring phone calls and e-mails between the US and overseas without first seeking a judges approval. Even in these times, in the midst of a war without end against terror, such secrecy, to the extent that a judge is not even sought out to weigh the arguments for or against a particular wiretap, is wrong. It is simply un-American.
-Hillary Clinton is falling into the same trap that George HW Bush fell into when running against Bill in 1992, that of mis-guided diversionary arguments. Bush focused on things that simply didn't matter to the voting public, such as Bill protesting the Viet Nam war while overseas in England as a Rhodes scholar. Bush kept criticizing Bill for protesting "against America" while on foreign soil. No one cared. They wanted to hear about the economy, stupid, not about what little Billy did on his European vacation. Now Hillary is criticizing Barack Obama for not giving credit to Duval Patrick, or to their mutual advisor, David Axelrod, for using parts of a speech about the effects of "words." Senator Clinton needs to focus on real issues, not silly diversions, or she will continue to be just that, Senator Clinton, and not President Clinton.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
DeKalb
How disconnected. How disconnected from reality to think you should kill. To kill others, to kill anyone, but to kill unknown others, seemingly at random and not think. That's what makes people wonder, Gunman. You didn't think about their mothers and fathers. Their child is dead, destroying a natural order of the child outliving the parent. Brothers and sisters losing a brother or sister in a crazy, violent instant. Their blood brought your blood, Gunman, when you took the easy route and turned on yourself.
Lives go on, but "life" is altered for the living. Altered with loss, with a hole, an empty hole filled with questions and anger and, for those special some, forgiveness. But always, the quesion will remain. Why? There never will be an answer, because there isn't one. Not one good enough, ever, to explain why.
How delusional. Gunman, did you think you were important? Settling a score for your pain, the pain you must have had in your head, with people you didn't know. Others, random others, paid for what was going on inside of you. Did you feel better, Gunman, in those last seconds? Or did you feel better in the minutes, hours, days, after your decision was made. Was the pressure off you then, because you knew you were at the end? Was your breathing a little easier, because the weight was off your chest? The weight of your delusion obviously became too heavy to bear. So you shared it. With people who didn't want it. Didn't know you. Never sought you out like you sought them out. Those who are gone, are gone. Sad. Horrific. Didn't deserve it. Gunman is gone too. It's those who are left that bear the weight of your delusions now.
Lives go on, but "life" is altered for the living. Altered with loss, with a hole, an empty hole filled with questions and anger and, for those special some, forgiveness. But always, the quesion will remain. Why? There never will be an answer, because there isn't one. Not one good enough, ever, to explain why.
How delusional. Gunman, did you think you were important? Settling a score for your pain, the pain you must have had in your head, with people you didn't know. Others, random others, paid for what was going on inside of you. Did you feel better, Gunman, in those last seconds? Or did you feel better in the minutes, hours, days, after your decision was made. Was the pressure off you then, because you knew you were at the end? Was your breathing a little easier, because the weight was off your chest? The weight of your delusion obviously became too heavy to bear. So you shared it. With people who didn't want it. Didn't know you. Never sought you out like you sought them out. Those who are gone, are gone. Sad. Horrific. Didn't deserve it. Gunman is gone too. It's those who are left that bear the weight of your delusions now.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Democrats: The Party of Cowardice
Senate Democrats rolled over like the dogs that they are and sided with the Grand Old Party of Constitutional Destruction to pass a surveillance bill that does not have the amendment that some Democrats that still have testicles wanted, namely a provision that would allow the telecom companies that aid the Bush administration in their illegal Spy Games to be sued. As it stands now, thanks to some spineless Senate Donkeys who crossed the aisle to vote with our Republican overlords, telecom companies are immune from such lawsuits, and will continue to be.
Last time I checked, it was unconstitutional for the United States government to spy on its own citizens within our borders. But in an effort to look strong on defense in an election year, the Democrats sided with the Czar in the White House. Shame on them. The Democrats voting with the Republicans seek power rather than justice. They voted with the Right, rather than for what is right.
And thank you Senators Obama and Clinton for not bothering to show up and vote. Maybe I won't bother to vote for either one of you either.
Last time I checked, it was unconstitutional for the United States government to spy on its own citizens within our borders. But in an effort to look strong on defense in an election year, the Democrats sided with the Czar in the White House. Shame on them. The Democrats voting with the Republicans seek power rather than justice. They voted with the Right, rather than for what is right.
And thank you Senators Obama and Clinton for not bothering to show up and vote. Maybe I won't bother to vote for either one of you either.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Fleeing Thoughts: Politics
-Don't underestimate the ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In the Democratic primaries, choosing the presidential nominee is not simply a matter of voters (you know, us little people) selecting the person they like best to run for the White House. It's not just a matter of delegates at the Democratic convention choosing who we told them to. There are also Super Delegates, made up of lawmakers and other insiders from around the country. These people lean toward Hillary Clinton, even as Barack Obama grows more and more popular and successful in the primary elections. These Super Delegates, if it comes down to the wire and there is no clear winner between Clinton and Obama, may be the tie-breakers. And they may choose Clinton, thereby choosing to lose in November. Independents won't vote for her, and neither will the sizable contingent of Clinton-haters withing the Democratic party. Along with conservative Democrats (if there still are any left), they will vote for John McCain.
-Mitt Romney did not leave the race, standing aside "for our party and our country," to allow John McCain to begin a long campaign focused on the Democrats. His accountant probably broke the news to Mitt that money is a finite resource and he didn't have another $50 million to piss away on a losing venture. The businessman in Romney understood that. The businessman in Romney doesn't like money-losing ventures. Romney also understood nobody was stepping up to the plate to fork over cash to him in any large amounts. The tears Romney was on the verge of shedding at his withdrawal announcement were not for him or his lost cause, but for his lost cash.
-Mitt Romney did not leave the race, standing aside "for our party and our country," to allow John McCain to begin a long campaign focused on the Democrats. His accountant probably broke the news to Mitt that money is a finite resource and he didn't have another $50 million to piss away on a losing venture. The businessman in Romney understood that. The businessman in Romney doesn't like money-losing ventures. Romney also understood nobody was stepping up to the plate to fork over cash to him in any large amounts. The tears Romney was on the verge of shedding at his withdrawal announcement were not for him or his lost cause, but for his lost cash.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Rebate: Money For Nothing, but Chicks Will Not Be Free
The Free Dictionary by Farlex defines rebate as, "A deduction from an amount to be paid or a return of part of an amount given in payment." The "rebate" Congress is discussing at this very moment is not technically a rebate. It is not coming from money that's already been paid to the government, say, in the form of taxes. When we, the people, get money back from overpaying the government with our taxes, that is a refund.
We, the people, and we includes me, aren't asking too many questions about where this money, this rebate money, is coming from. We the people, me included, like free money, or as the Dire Straits called it, money for nothing.
But money, even money for nothing, especially money for nothing, has to come from somewhere.
So where is George W. Bush getting this money? Where is it coming from? Thin fucking air?!?! Well, yes, since, as it turns out, Thin Fucking Air is the name of the Chinese loan shark W has been doing so much business with, what with not bothering to ask Congress to pay for a war or two. W has to get the money from somewhere, you know. And when you operate your government in an underhanded manner, you have to do business with undesirables, like Chinese investors.
Of course, one has to pay back the juice one owes. Problem is, the US economy isn't doing so well, it's in a bit of dire straits (did you see how nicely I tied that in?). Loan sharks get upset when they don't get paid back. New Yorkers may wake up one day to find the Statue of Liberty has two black eyes and a broken nose. Visitors to the Mall in Washington, DC will be disappointed to learn that the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial are actually sitting in a pawn shop window in Beijing, at least until W can come up with a few billion to get them out of hock.
But seriously folks, China is the second largest foreign holder of treasury securities, behind Japan. Not only that, but Chinese investors like to buy debt, and 70% of that debt is American. What happens when you can't pay off your debt? You cough up your assets.
So we have a looming monetary crisis, which, if things go really bad, the US will be Chinas bitch. And how is W helping we, the people, with this monetary crisis? With a record $3 trillion budget, that's how, along with a deficit sure to break the record of $413 billion. Should we all be starting to learn to speak Chinese rather than Spanish? Spanish is a lot easier to learn, I'll bet you, but Chinese may be the language of our future.
We, the people, and we includes me, aren't asking too many questions about where this money, this rebate money, is coming from. We the people, me included, like free money, or as the Dire Straits called it, money for nothing.
But money, even money for nothing, especially money for nothing, has to come from somewhere.
So where is George W. Bush getting this money? Where is it coming from? Thin fucking air?!?! Well, yes, since, as it turns out, Thin Fucking Air is the name of the Chinese loan shark W has been doing so much business with, what with not bothering to ask Congress to pay for a war or two. W has to get the money from somewhere, you know. And when you operate your government in an underhanded manner, you have to do business with undesirables, like Chinese investors.
Of course, one has to pay back the juice one owes. Problem is, the US economy isn't doing so well, it's in a bit of dire straits (did you see how nicely I tied that in?). Loan sharks get upset when they don't get paid back. New Yorkers may wake up one day to find the Statue of Liberty has two black eyes and a broken nose. Visitors to the Mall in Washington, DC will be disappointed to learn that the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial are actually sitting in a pawn shop window in Beijing, at least until W can come up with a few billion to get them out of hock.
But seriously folks, China is the second largest foreign holder of treasury securities, behind Japan. Not only that, but Chinese investors like to buy debt, and 70% of that debt is American. What happens when you can't pay off your debt? You cough up your assets.
So we have a looming monetary crisis, which, if things go really bad, the US will be Chinas bitch. And how is W helping we, the people, with this monetary crisis? With a record $3 trillion budget, that's how, along with a deficit sure to break the record of $413 billion. Should we all be starting to learn to speak Chinese rather than Spanish? Spanish is a lot easier to learn, I'll bet you, but Chinese may be the language of our future.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
No Matter What
No matter who is the presidential nominee in either party, there will be a significantly large contingent of each party that will be pissed off with the choice.
The alleged conservative base of the Republican party has no love for the man who may very well win the nomination, John McCain. Conservatives may simply choose not to vote...
...unless there is a third-party candidate who appeals to them. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may run, but it strikes me that he is too much of a free thinker for truly conservative Republicans. They seem to frown upon thinking, free or otherwise. A Bloomberg candidacy would more likely appeal to independents and Democrats who would feel disenfranchised if...
...Barack Obama is not the Democratic nominee. Obama has made a strong showing among young people getting involved in the electoral process for the first time. Obama, of course, also appeals to the Clinton-hating wing of the Democratic party, as well as those who find Hilary Clinton to be too representative of a school of politics that is divisive and unproductive. In other words, Hilary represents the past, Obama the future. Without Obama, these voters will look beyond the Democratic party for a presidential choice and, along with independents, vote for McCain or any possible third party candidate.
It has been, and will continue to be, a very interesting election year.
The alleged conservative base of the Republican party has no love for the man who may very well win the nomination, John McCain. Conservatives may simply choose not to vote...
...unless there is a third-party candidate who appeals to them. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may run, but it strikes me that he is too much of a free thinker for truly conservative Republicans. They seem to frown upon thinking, free or otherwise. A Bloomberg candidacy would more likely appeal to independents and Democrats who would feel disenfranchised if...
...Barack Obama is not the Democratic nominee. Obama has made a strong showing among young people getting involved in the electoral process for the first time. Obama, of course, also appeals to the Clinton-hating wing of the Democratic party, as well as those who find Hilary Clinton to be too representative of a school of politics that is divisive and unproductive. In other words, Hilary represents the past, Obama the future. Without Obama, these voters will look beyond the Democratic party for a presidential choice and, along with independents, vote for McCain or any possible third party candidate.
It has been, and will continue to be, a very interesting election year.
McCain Winning, Limbaugh Pouting
Why, oh why, are the Republicans turning on their own? Nothing is worse to see than Republican-on-Republican violence. Rush Limbaugh is snarling at John McCain like a cannibalistic savage who hasn't had a decent meal in weeks.
John McCain is not at all liked by the conservative media commentators of America. They have more vitriol and invective for him than they do for the person they usually love to hate, Hilary Clinton.
Why all the hatred for the Arizona senator? Is is because he has the audacity to think for himself? Is it because he dares to not always toe the party line like a political Pavlov dog? Is it because, like the pols of old, he occasionally reaches across party lines to get something accomplished? How dare he do that, just to help get something done for the American public. Helping the average American is not what it's about, you know, not for these Republicans, and sadly, not always for modern Democrats either. It's about power, and keeping it, not about what's right.
This moderate Republican McCain is actually winning too. How pissed off that must make the conservative pundits, Limbaugh especially, he of the giant ego. Who are these Republican primary voters, to not do exactly as he tells them? "You people, you know who you are, you need to listen to me. Mark my words, McCain is evil, Romney is good. I will do your thinking for you. I am the Right, I am the Way."
I'm not sure why the conservative media loves Mitt Romney so much. He certainly didn't always hold their conservative views, and turned to these views only when he deemed it politically helpful. This is the man who brought comprehensive mandatory health care to Massachusetts while governor. That sounds pretty Clinton-like to me. Is it the hair? The commentators may like Romney and his Ronald Reagan Brand Hair Helmet, but voters seem pretty turned off by this guy.
I actually saw Glen Beck on CNN say he would vote for Hilary Clinton rather than McCain, then wait two years while Hilary screws up America and Republicans are returned to power in the 2010 Congressional elections. Apparently that's what other conservative talking heads are telling their audiences as well. That's making a lot of assumptions there. That's assuming Hilary will be the nominee. That's assuming there won't be a major third party candidate (think another New York mayor) to really make things interesting. That's assuming a Democrat is elected president. That's assuming the possible Democrat in the White House will screw things up badly enough for voters to want to bring back the Republicans to Congress. That's an awful lot of assuming, and you know what happens when you assume.
What these commentators don't understand, what they don't seem to be able to see happening before their very eyes, is that your audience is not necessarily going to vote the way you want them to. The people who watch you on TV, listen to your radio show, or read your column may actually make up their own minds. How else to explain the fact that for all their nasty, disparaging words for McCain, he is being voted for. Rush Limbaugh may have twenty million listeners, but that does not, obviously, translate into votes. The Big L doesn't grasp the possibility that he may have a lot of listeners tuning in every day not because they love him and treasure every bit of wisdom emanating from his cigar-hole, but rather they listen because they disagree with him, and merely want to keep tabs on the Big Fella. Some people, myslef included on occasion, just need to hear something to get angry about. And it keeps us honest. When you know exactly what your enemy is saying, you know better how to formulate an argument against him. And of course, many may adore him, yet not share his opinions on the candidates.
The voters are thinking for themselves, despite what Limbaugh tells them. How that must rankle him. Thank you, America.
John McCain is not at all liked by the conservative media commentators of America. They have more vitriol and invective for him than they do for the person they usually love to hate, Hilary Clinton.
Why all the hatred for the Arizona senator? Is is because he has the audacity to think for himself? Is it because he dares to not always toe the party line like a political Pavlov dog? Is it because, like the pols of old, he occasionally reaches across party lines to get something accomplished? How dare he do that, just to help get something done for the American public. Helping the average American is not what it's about, you know, not for these Republicans, and sadly, not always for modern Democrats either. It's about power, and keeping it, not about what's right.
This moderate Republican McCain is actually winning too. How pissed off that must make the conservative pundits, Limbaugh especially, he of the giant ego. Who are these Republican primary voters, to not do exactly as he tells them? "You people, you know who you are, you need to listen to me. Mark my words, McCain is evil, Romney is good. I will do your thinking for you. I am the Right, I am the Way."
I'm not sure why the conservative media loves Mitt Romney so much. He certainly didn't always hold their conservative views, and turned to these views only when he deemed it politically helpful. This is the man who brought comprehensive mandatory health care to Massachusetts while governor. That sounds pretty Clinton-like to me. Is it the hair? The commentators may like Romney and his Ronald Reagan Brand Hair Helmet, but voters seem pretty turned off by this guy.
I actually saw Glen Beck on CNN say he would vote for Hilary Clinton rather than McCain, then wait two years while Hilary screws up America and Republicans are returned to power in the 2010 Congressional elections. Apparently that's what other conservative talking heads are telling their audiences as well. That's making a lot of assumptions there. That's assuming Hilary will be the nominee. That's assuming there won't be a major third party candidate (think another New York mayor) to really make things interesting. That's assuming a Democrat is elected president. That's assuming the possible Democrat in the White House will screw things up badly enough for voters to want to bring back the Republicans to Congress. That's an awful lot of assuming, and you know what happens when you assume.
What these commentators don't understand, what they don't seem to be able to see happening before their very eyes, is that your audience is not necessarily going to vote the way you want them to. The people who watch you on TV, listen to your radio show, or read your column may actually make up their own minds. How else to explain the fact that for all their nasty, disparaging words for McCain, he is being voted for. Rush Limbaugh may have twenty million listeners, but that does not, obviously, translate into votes. The Big L doesn't grasp the possibility that he may have a lot of listeners tuning in every day not because they love him and treasure every bit of wisdom emanating from his cigar-hole, but rather they listen because they disagree with him, and merely want to keep tabs on the Big Fella. Some people, myslef included on occasion, just need to hear something to get angry about. And it keeps us honest. When you know exactly what your enemy is saying, you know better how to formulate an argument against him. And of course, many may adore him, yet not share his opinions on the candidates.
The voters are thinking for themselves, despite what Limbaugh tells them. How that must rankle him. Thank you, America.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Fleeing Thoughts: Super Tuesday
-John McCain is obviously a slightly devious man. He is going to great lengths to sort of misrepresent the remarks Mitt Romney made about having a timetable for pulling out of Iraq. That McCain is overstating things is obvious. And yet...Romney is faltering in the polls and looks to falter even more in the primaries tomorrow. Meanwhile, McCain picks up endorsements from people, as well as semi-humans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, all over this great land of ours. Is Romney really that unlikeable? Apparently. Romney just looks like someone you don't trust, like he's trying to sell you a used car that has an engine rebuilt by squirrels.
-The Republicans may have a decisive winner in John McCain after all is said and done tomorrow. A different story for the Democrats, however, although Barack Obama is gaining momentum. The Democrats may have to wait until their convention to figure out who their candidate will be.
-Come convention time, what if Obama is the nominee? Will Hilary join him as a running mate? Doubtful. They simply don't like each other. What if the roles are reversed, and Bilary, I mean Hilary, is the nominee? Who the heck would want to be her vice-president, knowing full well that Bill will be serving as co-president? Hilary has already said that when Bill was prez, she sat in and advised on all major policy issues. (Apparently, that's where Al Gore got all that time to research global warming.) This would be no different if Hilary were to be in charge. Bill would be advising and consulting and interfering on every little thing. No one wants to be a vice-president in that disfunctional home. And let's be honest---this is really Bill running for an "illegal third term," as Monica Crowley put it on "The McLaughlin Group" the other night. (Crowley is a surprisingly attractive blonde, something one doesn't expect to see on "TMG." Of course, who wouldn't look good sitting next to Pat Buchanan?)
-What will it take to get New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg (didn't he play guitar when Dylan went electric? No, wait, that was Mike Bloomfield...) to run for president? If McCain is the Republican candidate, I doubt Bloomberg will run. McCain is a bit of a maverick, and Bloomberg will only run if there's a more traditional, old-fashioned Republican, like Romney, in the race against Clinton. I get the impression Bloomberg would be happy with an Obama candidacy, as Bloomberg wants to change the status quo and Obama represents a sea-change in the type of person we elect president. You know, he's not white, named Clinton or Bush, and he's not a Yale graduate.
-What happened to Alan Keyes, who was running for president on the Republican side? He dropped out as quietly as he entered. If one enters a race and no one notices, are you really in it? And what is the sound of one hand clapping? Sorry...
-Romney said the other day that Obama has never even run so much as a corner store, and so is too inexperienced to run the country. Just what kind of experience qualifies one to be Leader of the Free World? Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during World War II. That was pretty good training for the presidency, I would think. The opportunity to be Supreme Commander of that large a force doesn't come about very often though, so I'm willing to take my chances with someone who is merely an intelligent, thoughtful politician/human being.
-The Republicans may have a decisive winner in John McCain after all is said and done tomorrow. A different story for the Democrats, however, although Barack Obama is gaining momentum. The Democrats may have to wait until their convention to figure out who their candidate will be.
-Come convention time, what if Obama is the nominee? Will Hilary join him as a running mate? Doubtful. They simply don't like each other. What if the roles are reversed, and Bilary, I mean Hilary, is the nominee? Who the heck would want to be her vice-president, knowing full well that Bill will be serving as co-president? Hilary has already said that when Bill was prez, she sat in and advised on all major policy issues. (Apparently, that's where Al Gore got all that time to research global warming.) This would be no different if Hilary were to be in charge. Bill would be advising and consulting and interfering on every little thing. No one wants to be a vice-president in that disfunctional home. And let's be honest---this is really Bill running for an "illegal third term," as Monica Crowley put it on "The McLaughlin Group" the other night. (Crowley is a surprisingly attractive blonde, something one doesn't expect to see on "TMG." Of course, who wouldn't look good sitting next to Pat Buchanan?)
-What will it take to get New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg (didn't he play guitar when Dylan went electric? No, wait, that was Mike Bloomfield...) to run for president? If McCain is the Republican candidate, I doubt Bloomberg will run. McCain is a bit of a maverick, and Bloomberg will only run if there's a more traditional, old-fashioned Republican, like Romney, in the race against Clinton. I get the impression Bloomberg would be happy with an Obama candidacy, as Bloomberg wants to change the status quo and Obama represents a sea-change in the type of person we elect president. You know, he's not white, named Clinton or Bush, and he's not a Yale graduate.
-What happened to Alan Keyes, who was running for president on the Republican side? He dropped out as quietly as he entered. If one enters a race and no one notices, are you really in it? And what is the sound of one hand clapping? Sorry...
-Romney said the other day that Obama has never even run so much as a corner store, and so is too inexperienced to run the country. Just what kind of experience qualifies one to be Leader of the Free World? Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during World War II. That was pretty good training for the presidency, I would think. The opportunity to be Supreme Commander of that large a force doesn't come about very often though, so I'm willing to take my chances with someone who is merely an intelligent, thoughtful politician/human being.
Final Fleeing Thoughts on Super Bowl Sunday
-Terry Bradshaw, Fox football analyst and former Steeler great, said afterwards that this was the greatest Super Bowl he had ever seen. Methinks that's probably because the Patriots loss allowed Bradshaw to remain the only quarterback with four, count 'em, four, Super Bowl victories to his name. Tom Brady is on hold with three.
-Bill Belichick is an odd man. He looked stunned after the loss, which I suppose makes sense since pretty much he, and everybody else on the planet, expected the Pats to win. I can't help thinking what Mike Ditka would have looked like had he been coach of a "perfect" team that just lost the Big Game. I don't think he would have simply looked shocked and crossed the field to shake the opposing coachs hand. Ditkas head would have exploded. No, really. When the seconds counted down to zero-zero and his team was a loser, Ditkas head, filled with crazy rage, literally would blown into a million pieces. Now that would have been interesting.
-These Patriots are football robots, none more so than the lead automaton, Tom Brady. Walking off the field after the Pats loss, he simply did not look all that upset. On the other side of the coin, Plaxico Burress (Plaxico is a great name!), the Giant who caught the winning touchdown in the waning moments of the game, started to cry (presumably with astonished joy) while giving a post-game interview.
-The Giants were emotional, they played with emotion, with FIRE really, and were emotional after the game. Emotion Is Good. So why don't I care all that much that the Giants beat the Patriots? Well, for one thing, it's against the law for a Chicagoan to root for a New York team, much less to be happy when a Gothamites win a Big One. For the record though, I am happy the Giants won. Kinda.
-I'm more happy that the Patriots lost. They deserved to lose, if for no other reason than the way they handled Spygate. Yeah, they were fined for filming on the Jets, and lost draft picks, blah blah blah, but Belichick never stood up like a man and confessed to his teams sins. He just stood up in his taciturn way and said he wasn't going to take any more questions about it ever again, and that was that. Maybe the NFL told him to play it that way, but it doesn't set a good example when the Head Dude can't admit a mistake, apologize and move on. That's what winners do. The Patriots got what they deserved, to be close to the ultimate victory and have it yanked away from them.
-Bill Belichick is an odd man. He looked stunned after the loss, which I suppose makes sense since pretty much he, and everybody else on the planet, expected the Pats to win. I can't help thinking what Mike Ditka would have looked like had he been coach of a "perfect" team that just lost the Big Game. I don't think he would have simply looked shocked and crossed the field to shake the opposing coachs hand. Ditkas head would have exploded. No, really. When the seconds counted down to zero-zero and his team was a loser, Ditkas head, filled with crazy rage, literally would blown into a million pieces. Now that would have been interesting.
-These Patriots are football robots, none more so than the lead automaton, Tom Brady. Walking off the field after the Pats loss, he simply did not look all that upset. On the other side of the coin, Plaxico Burress (Plaxico is a great name!), the Giant who caught the winning touchdown in the waning moments of the game, started to cry (presumably with astonished joy) while giving a post-game interview.
-The Giants were emotional, they played with emotion, with FIRE really, and were emotional after the game. Emotion Is Good. So why don't I care all that much that the Giants beat the Patriots? Well, for one thing, it's against the law for a Chicagoan to root for a New York team, much less to be happy when a Gothamites win a Big One. For the record though, I am happy the Giants won. Kinda.
-I'm more happy that the Patriots lost. They deserved to lose, if for no other reason than the way they handled Spygate. Yeah, they were fined for filming on the Jets, and lost draft picks, blah blah blah, but Belichick never stood up like a man and confessed to his teams sins. He just stood up in his taciturn way and said he wasn't going to take any more questions about it ever again, and that was that. Maybe the NFL told him to play it that way, but it doesn't set a good example when the Head Dude can't admit a mistake, apologize and move on. That's what winners do. The Patriots got what they deserved, to be close to the ultimate victory and have it yanked away from them.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Super Bowl Xtra Large Two
I am a little surprised that the Patriots lost, although I suppose no team is truly unbeatable. I am more surprised that this Super Bowl with the gunslinger quarterbacks was really more of a defensive game. Whatever. At least I don't have to listen for the rest of my life to the Pats crow about how they went completely undefeated.
I must admit the game overall was a disappointment. First of all, who beyond the New England/New York area really cared about who won? Not me. I stopped watching early in the third quater, but returned for the genuinely exciting final minute.
Even the commercials were lame. Where were the Coke drinking polar bears? Did I miss them? At least Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers put on a good show.
I must admit the game overall was a disappointment. First of all, who beyond the New England/New York area really cared about who won? Not me. I stopped watching early in the third quater, but returned for the genuinely exciting final minute.
Even the commercials were lame. Where were the Coke drinking polar bears? Did I miss them? At least Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers put on a good show.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Super ? Bowl
The Super Bowl is Sunday, boys and girls, so get your chips and dips ready, but please, no double dipping. Unless, of course, you're amongst really intimate friends who don't at all mind having your hideous germs transferred to them by way of a salsa laden Tostitos Scoop.
Despite the extreme probability of the Patriots winning the Big Game, the Super Bowl will be played anyway, pitting two teams from the northeast; the rest of the nation will most likely shrug its shoulders in indifference toward the game, concentrating instead on the commercials, hoping to see Clydesdales playing their own game of football, or polar bears and penguins sharing an intimate moment over a bottle of Coke. And those critters in the Blockbuster commercials are always cute, and amusing as well.
The Patriots are odds-on favorites to win (odds also favor Tom Petty performing "I Won't Back Down" during half-time with the odds heavily against seeing one of Petty's nipples as the result of a "wardrobe malfunction"); yet many outside New England, while fully understanding what the final result will be, will root for the underdog Giants. Just because.
It will not be close. Patriots 38, Giants 17. You'll be better off skipping the game and renting "Live Free or Die Hard." The outcome will be just as predictable, and more things will get blowed up real good.
Despite the extreme probability of the Patriots winning the Big Game, the Super Bowl will be played anyway, pitting two teams from the northeast; the rest of the nation will most likely shrug its shoulders in indifference toward the game, concentrating instead on the commercials, hoping to see Clydesdales playing their own game of football, or polar bears and penguins sharing an intimate moment over a bottle of Coke. And those critters in the Blockbuster commercials are always cute, and amusing as well.
The Patriots are odds-on favorites to win (odds also favor Tom Petty performing "I Won't Back Down" during half-time with the odds heavily against seeing one of Petty's nipples as the result of a "wardrobe malfunction"); yet many outside New England, while fully understanding what the final result will be, will root for the underdog Giants. Just because.
It will not be close. Patriots 38, Giants 17. You'll be better off skipping the game and renting "Live Free or Die Hard." The outcome will be just as predictable, and more things will get blowed up real good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
