Last night I was listening to Michael Savage and he was going off on journalists and how/what they are reporting about the Presidential candidates. Instead of reporting what their views / stances are (and he piped in with Rudy, there wouldn’t be anything to tell us because no one knows what his positions are), we just get told how money each raised in the past week/month/quarter. So if Hillary raises more than Obama, that means she is a better candidate. He made the analogy of how journalists no longer review movies, they just tell us the box office $$ each week. The higher the gross, the better the movie. He had me laughing out loud and thinking that he is a loonie.
But, driving to work this morning, Mike Gallagher was talking to Gov. Huckabee and was making almost the exact same argument, not so much using the movie box office analogy, just that all we hear about the candidates is how much $$ they raise, not about their positions. And on CNN online this morning, the lead story in the politics section was about fund raising. Perhaps Savage isn’t as loonie as it might appear.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Re: 3rd Party Threat
Dobson has a HUGE following.
I’m not prepared to worry just yet although gf2 and the survey did get me going a bit last night. I think it just a slam at, duh, Rudy. Rudy’s my candidate in spite of many of his social positions because I think he’s the only guy who can beat her. And he's right on WWIV. He's the guy I think of when I hear the Samuel Jackson line about which I asked earlier, "I don't like you because you're trying to get me killed!"
He also seems to be the only guy, other than Paul, who seems to really understand the markets.
I know, I know, the Stepford Candidate from Massachusetts is a great business man but I don’t like some of what I’m hearing from him. I need to learn more about Mitt’s health insurance plan in Mass., too, and what he wants done nationally.
Back to Dobson, he is just not being practical. I appreciate that if one were as marrow-deep pro-life as Dobson is, then one could justifiably be conflicted as a matter of principle about supporting someone who is pro-choice, also as a matter of principle, regardless of what he promises about judges. But he needs to be practical and I suspect he will be.
I think the timing of this is pretty astute on Dobson’s part. Make noise now in an effort to get his preferred candidate the nomination and if that fails and Rudy wins, shut up. Who is going to throw his hat in the ring against Rudy? Huckabee (probably Dobson's choice)? I don’t think so. Romney (I don’t even know what Dobson thinks of Romney)? Not a chance. Newt? Even though staunchly pro-life, Dobson would still have to hold his nose. Paul (the oxymoronically pro-life Libertarian)? Maybe, but he’s so bad on WWIV, I don’t think he could garner much support.
No, I think if Rudy wins the nomination, Dobson just goes quiet. Or, he has one of those meetings like he did with the Supreme nominees and comes away convinced Rudy will do the right thing with the judges.
Even if I’m wrong, I’m not sure the Evangelical base would follow Dobson on this (I know I won’t) given the alternative.
I’m not prepared to worry just yet although gf2 and the survey did get me going a bit last night. I think it just a slam at, duh, Rudy. Rudy’s my candidate in spite of many of his social positions because I think he’s the only guy who can beat her. And he's right on WWIV. He's the guy I think of when I hear the Samuel Jackson line about which I asked earlier, "I don't like you because you're trying to get me killed!"
He also seems to be the only guy, other than Paul, who seems to really understand the markets.
I know, I know, the Stepford Candidate from Massachusetts is a great business man but I don’t like some of what I’m hearing from him. I need to learn more about Mitt’s health insurance plan in Mass., too, and what he wants done nationally.
Back to Dobson, he is just not being practical. I appreciate that if one were as marrow-deep pro-life as Dobson is, then one could justifiably be conflicted as a matter of principle about supporting someone who is pro-choice, also as a matter of principle, regardless of what he promises about judges. But he needs to be practical and I suspect he will be.
I think the timing of this is pretty astute on Dobson’s part. Make noise now in an effort to get his preferred candidate the nomination and if that fails and Rudy wins, shut up. Who is going to throw his hat in the ring against Rudy? Huckabee (probably Dobson's choice)? I don’t think so. Romney (I don’t even know what Dobson thinks of Romney)? Not a chance. Newt? Even though staunchly pro-life, Dobson would still have to hold his nose. Paul (the oxymoronically pro-life Libertarian)? Maybe, but he’s so bad on WWIV, I don’t think he could garner much support.
No, I think if Rudy wins the nomination, Dobson just goes quiet. Or, he has one of those meetings like he did with the Supreme nominees and comes away convinced Rudy will do the right thing with the judges.
Even if I’m wrong, I’m not sure the Evangelical base would follow Dobson on this (I know I won’t) given the alternative.
Re: Third Party Threat
This isn't a cop out, but since I haven't watched or read about ANY of the seemingly 1,000 debates that have been held so far (1 year BEFORE the freaking election), I don't have any idea. Plus, have the wacko parties (Libertarian, Communist, Green, etc.) even "nominated" or announced who their candidates are?
But, to try to answer your question, instead of telling you who I would vote FOR if the election were tomorrow, let me tell you who I would NOT vote for (in no particular order):
McCain - no
Giuliani - no
Thompson - no
Huckabee - no
Obama - no
Hillary - no
Edwards - no
Hunter - no
So I guess that means I'll have to choose between Richardson, Romney or Paul.
Oh joy....
But, to try to answer your question, instead of telling you who I would vote FOR if the election were tomorrow, let me tell you who I would NOT vote for (in no particular order):
McCain - no
Giuliani - no
Thompson - no
Huckabee - no
Obama - no
Hillary - no
Edwards - no
Hunter - no
So I guess that means I'll have to choose between Richardson, Romney or Paul.
Oh joy....
Thursday, October 04, 2007
The third party threat
The discussion tonight on HH led by gf2 (KLP) re Dobson is scaring the bejeebus (!) out of me. Questions: How many people are in his organization? Of those, how many will walk away if he tells them to? Where are they located? Are there enough in any red state that a third party candidate would throw the state to Hill? If so, how many states would it take to scuttle victory? Is Perot in '92 a fair analogy or did he have many more votes than Dobson can generate?
Scooter, I know you're busy but I'd like your memo on my desk by the time I get in.
LJ, I started to write that you should help Scooter with his memo because, while it's our problem, one would expect you'd be interested in the answers because you stand to gain; but then I thought, "I can't imagine the LJ I know supporting any of the Dims." But you must support someone. So I ask, who? And do not give me any crap about it's too early, etc. If you prefer, my question to you is: If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?
Scooter, I know you're busy but I'd like your memo on my desk by the time I get in.
LJ, I started to write that you should help Scooter with his memo because, while it's our problem, one would expect you'd be interested in the answers because you stand to gain; but then I thought, "I can't imagine the LJ I know supporting any of the Dims." But you must support someone. So I ask, who? And do not give me any crap about it's too early, etc. If you prefer, my question to you is: If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?
Re: Into the Wild
Does anyone watch Survivorman or the "phony" Bear Gryllis show?
I wouldn't worry about any kind of Dixie Chicks moment; you can't help who picks up the rights to a project in which you have interest.
And, I'd say we should've known that Comrade Penn would become a good actor and director because of his performance in Fast Times.
I wouldn't worry about any kind of Dixie Chicks moment; you can't help who picks up the rights to a project in which you have interest.
And, I'd say we should've known that Comrade Penn would become a good actor and director because of his performance in Fast Times.
Re: ManU
Just in case LJ picks up BBC America, he can join the dozens of fans of Footballer's Wives.
Kind of a Dallas meets Dynasty meets Desperate Housewives on crack.
Embarrassing Update: I've watched too many of the episodes. The women are exceedingly, er, uh, hot. Our friend Cin watches, too.
Kind of a Dallas meets Dynasty meets Desperate Housewives on crack.
Embarrassing Update: I've watched too many of the episodes. The women are exceedingly, er, uh, hot. Our friend Cin watches, too.
Re: Into the Wild
The DMN gave it a great review. In fact, every review I've read so far has been very positive. I've been looking forward to seeing this for quite a long time. It opened here in Dallas last weekend and I have got to find some time to see it.
One of my all time favorite books and it started me on my obsession with Alaska/Artic/Canadian-themed wilderness books. One might not approve of Comrade Penn's politics, but is a very good actor (who would have predicted that following "Fast Times at Ridgemont High") and a very good director.
One of my all time favorite books and it started me on my obsession with Alaska/Artic/Canadian-themed wilderness books. One might not approve of Comrade Penn's politics, but is a very good actor (who would have predicted that following "Fast Times at Ridgemont High") and a very good director.
Re: Pains me
ManU is THE greatest sports franchise in the world. As I red devil supporter, I must defend them. Besides, people who think football (soccer) is boring must have never watched a baseball game.
Into The Wild
is Jon Krakauer's account of the journey of Chris McCandless, who "torched his money, abandoned his family and flung himself into the Alaskan wilderness with a new identity and only a whisper of a prayer of survival." It's a great book. Krakauer also wrote Into Thin Air, his first hand narrative of the disastrous 1996 climb of Everest, also a great read.
Into The Wild is now a movie, coming out this weekend it looks like. Directed by Comrade Penn, so I've got a Dixie Chick decision to make. Review in the Chronic here.
Into The Wild is now a movie, coming out this weekend it looks like. Directed by Comrade Penn, so I've got a Dixie Chick decision to make. Review in the Chronic here.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
St. Paul on Diana West
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
1 Corinthians 13:11 (New International Version)
From BibleGateway.
1 Corinthians 13:11 (New International Version)
From BibleGateway.
Though it pains me to link it...
Tom Sowell's "Random Thoughts" on the greatest sports franchise in history (with apologies to Manchester United):
More than one-fourth of the American League pennants in the 20th century were won by the New York Yankees -- and they didn't win their first pennant until 1921.
More than one-fourth of the American League pennants in the 20th century were won by the New York Yankees -- and they didn't win their first pennant until 1921.
Red Mass
Attended my first Red Mass this evening at St. Mary Cathedral Church. Amazingly beautiful building.
The Austin Diocese celebrates it following the First Monday in October to coincide with the opening of Supreme Court. The purpose is to bless/consecrate lawmakers, judges, lawyers, etc... to do their best.
Very humbling.
Had to go in light of publication this week of the memoirs of Associate Justice Thomas, My Grandfather's Son.
The Austin Diocese celebrates it following the First Monday in October to coincide with the opening of Supreme Court. The purpose is to bless/consecrate lawmakers, judges, lawyers, etc... to do their best.
Very humbling.
Had to go in light of publication this week of the memoirs of Associate Justice Thomas, My Grandfather's Son.
Re: Judge Dad
Shouldn't that be "an (expletive) judge?"
Of course I'm kidding; one must assume the expletive started with the fourth consonant and ended with the fifth.
Of course I'm kidding; one must assume the expletive started with the fourth consonant and ended with the fifth.
Re: WW IV
How strong are NP's arguments on the propagation of democracies in the Middle East aspect of the Bush Doctrine? That is the tine with which I am losing faith.
World War IV
The Bush Doctrine explained, neoconservatism defended. If you believe we're in a war--and I do--Norman Podhoretz's book proposes that it's World War IV.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Re: Reid and Harkin v. Limbaugh
On further reflection I could've been more concise.
By stooping to criticize Limbaugh despite his power (real or imagined and I've conceded I'm a fan), Reid and Harkin and the rest demean their offices.
By stooping to criticize Limbaugh despite his power (real or imagined and I've conceded I'm a fan), Reid and Harkin and the rest demean their offices.
Reid and Harkin v. Limbaugh
I guess I've underestimated the power of Rush. I've listened fairly regularly for years, primarily just for the enjoyment of listening to a guy who so clearly enjoys what he does: entertaining his audience.
Sure, I occasionally learn something like I did yesterday in his 90 minutes with Associate Justice Thomas, but I'd never use him as a primary source. What does he regularly call himself? Something like, "expert broadcast specialist." The other titles he bestows upon himself are pretty clearly marketing ploys.
Reid's comments and especially Harkin's drug reference on the floor appear so whiny, so small; it's embarrassing. Why give this attention to a radio host? The answer has to be they fear him. How cowardly is that? Afraid of a radio guy.
I know he has power and probably did have an effect in the '94 Republican taking of Congress but he's still just a radio guy.
This is silly. Please stop it.
Sure, I occasionally learn something like I did yesterday in his 90 minutes with Associate Justice Thomas, but I'd never use him as a primary source. What does he regularly call himself? Something like, "expert broadcast specialist." The other titles he bestows upon himself are pretty clearly marketing ploys.
Reid's comments and especially Harkin's drug reference on the floor appear so whiny, so small; it's embarrassing. Why give this attention to a radio host? The answer has to be they fear him. How cowardly is that? Afraid of a radio guy.
I know he has power and probably did have an effect in the '94 Republican taking of Congress but he's still just a radio guy.
This is silly. Please stop it.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Arkansas and Texas
Ok, I'm now completely sold that our "student-athletes" need a playoff in Division 1A. Why do I have any reason to watch the rest of the UT season except on the extremely remote chance that there will be X number of one-game losses for those ahead of the one-loss teams?
Of course I'll watch and even pay any outrageous PPV fees, but with much less heart.
And, I readily acknowledge that UT should have two losses.
Of course I'll watch and even pay any outrageous PPV fees, but with much less heart.
And, I readily acknowledge that UT should have two losses.
Re: The Hillary Laugh
I listened to the HH Friday show yesterday and Chowda Man had much fun with same.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
My Llama .45
I've had my Llama .45 cal. for about 20 years. It was a gift from my Dad. On my Dad's passing, my brother and I divied up his quite substantial arsenal (much larger than I had suspected).
Included in my haul are two Colt 1911 .45s. Ok, more of the same except for the classic 1911 style that I've envied for some time.
New to me are two little Colt autos, a .32 and a .25. Both pea shooters.
A Ruger long barrel .22 six in the cylinder pistol. Still a pea shooter but a genuine target pistol.
Also new to me a Marlin .44 mag Rem. Magnum rifle...classic cowboy design...like Chuck Connors carried in The Rifleman. And a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum, also six in the cylinder. I knew these were powerful guns but I went to Academy today to by ammunition. Obviously I need to do that before I take them out to see how they perform. As Lileks would say, "jeebus!" these are huge bullets. I had no idea what magnums (magna?) were.
Obviously, my .45s are actually larger. The magnum projectiles are not so imposing (except that the .357s are hollow point) but the cartridges holding the charge are huge. I cannot imagine what the recoils will be from these things.
Almost felt illegal just buying these things.
Included in my haul are two Colt 1911 .45s. Ok, more of the same except for the classic 1911 style that I've envied for some time.
New to me are two little Colt autos, a .32 and a .25. Both pea shooters.
A Ruger long barrel .22 six in the cylinder pistol. Still a pea shooter but a genuine target pistol.
Also new to me a Marlin .44 mag Rem. Magnum rifle...classic cowboy design...like Chuck Connors carried in The Rifleman. And a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum, also six in the cylinder. I knew these were powerful guns but I went to Academy today to by ammunition. Obviously I need to do that before I take them out to see how they perform. As Lileks would say, "jeebus!" these are huge bullets. I had no idea what magnums (magna?) were.
Obviously, my .45s are actually larger. The magnum projectiles are not so imposing (except that the .357s are hollow point) but the cartridges holding the charge are huge. I cannot imagine what the recoils will be from these things.
Almost felt illegal just buying these things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
