I was in a reflective mood this evening. I realized as I looked back that I had all of these things happen to me within the last couple of years. So where was this handy little guide to the faithless back then? Well, maybe it will help someone else now.
Sign #1: Your sweetie keeps you a secret from his/her family & friends
Sign #2: Your sweetie is emotionally absent
Sign #3: Your sweetie says he or she wants a no-strings-attached romance
Sign #4: Your sweetie admits to cheating on exes—and justifies the betrayals
Sign #5: Your sweetie has never been without a mate
Sign #6: Your sweetie tells lies about little things
Sign #7: Your sweetie brags about his or her sex appeal
Monday, June 25, 2007
Dog Shit I Have Known
Let me tell you the dog shit story. Growing up I lived on a tree farm and the only company I had was my family and our animals. A little later when I started first grade, I was approached by this kid named Tony Trabbucho. He told me that he and I were going to be best friends and he laid out an outline of all the wonderful things we were going to do together over the coming years. This dissertation even included our double wedding ceremony when we found the right girls. Just a couple of months into the school year the nuns decided that I was too young for first grade and talked my parents into holding me back a year. When I started up again the next school year, Tony was now a second grader and I was crushed when he told me we could no longer be friends because he was now too sophisticated to hang out with a mere first grader. This was my first experience with "friendship" and it has had a life-long effect on me. I hated that guy for treating me like that. In fact, I STILL have animosity for him.
Now we flash forward to third grade. A new kid came into town named Dan Connelly. We developed a superficial friendship. If we had been older we would probably have been out having beers together. One day at recess Dan stepped in a large pile of dog shit. Immediately all the kids started laughing and teasing him. I didn't really see what the big deal was. As I said, I grew up on a farm and I stepped in one kind of shit or another at least once a week. I came very close to running off with the other kids, but I saw the look on Dan's face and I recognized that he felt the same way I had when Tony had so cavalierly killed our friendship. I was the only child on the playground who stayed by Dan's side, both figuratively and literally. He thanked me profusely and I saw the enormous relief on his face when he realized that at least one person was there for him. It felt good to make such a positive difference in someone's life. I decided at that moment that I would always strive to be the best possible friend to each and every person who came into my life.
Over the next several years I made a lot of friends. Without fail each one told me I was the best friend they ever had. I also discovered girls and sex. By junior high school I was quite popular. I was smart, funny, a great friend, and the cute new guy. You saw my football picture. It was during that time. I honed my friendship skills and could make a friend out of almost anyone. During my seventh grade year I took the biggest bully in the school from hating me and wanting to kill me, to being, naturally, my best friend.
Now high school is where things took a turn. As I told you before, the popular kids who had adored me in junior high now shot their derision at me once I stopped playing football and started hanging out with people they deemed to be unworthy. That's when I met my friend Dan Grafton and Cindy & Mackie. After my experience with these people and Tony, I decided at that time that friendship was mostly a bunch of crap. Dog crap to be precise. I also determined that while I was an excellent friend for people to have, the reciprocation was never there. Not once has anyone been as good a friend to me as I have been to them. Then the worst possible thing started to happen. I allowed myself to become good friends with several women. Always it was the same. Whatever they needed, I was there for them. If they needed a ride, the car keys were already in my hand. If they needed company at their family reunion, I was already wearing the appropriate clothing. Mostly, anytime some awful MAN hurt their feelings, I was there to pick up the pieces. After the crying was over and my shoulders were all wet from them lying their heads upon them, they would run back to whichever scrub had hurt them in the first place.
You see? I have always been the reliable, safe, caring guy. Women like those things but they are not the traits that attract them to me as a lover or any kind of a romantic partner. Its always, without fail, the edgy, somewhat dangerous, aggressive guys who end up taking the girl home after the big dance. And ol' reliable Charles, Chas., Chucky, whomever, is there when it all falls apart. Until the next edgy, dangerous, domineering man shows up in the picture. That is why I can no longer allow myself to be "friend" with a woman. The relationship may not be exclusively romantic, or in certain cases even sexual at all, but it cannot be what is considered a traditional friendship. To me a friendship is where two guys go out and have beers together. Everything else needs to be defined in alternate terms.
Now we flash forward to third grade. A new kid came into town named Dan Connelly. We developed a superficial friendship. If we had been older we would probably have been out having beers together. One day at recess Dan stepped in a large pile of dog shit. Immediately all the kids started laughing and teasing him. I didn't really see what the big deal was. As I said, I grew up on a farm and I stepped in one kind of shit or another at least once a week. I came very close to running off with the other kids, but I saw the look on Dan's face and I recognized that he felt the same way I had when Tony had so cavalierly killed our friendship. I was the only child on the playground who stayed by Dan's side, both figuratively and literally. He thanked me profusely and I saw the enormous relief on his face when he realized that at least one person was there for him. It felt good to make such a positive difference in someone's life. I decided at that moment that I would always strive to be the best possible friend to each and every person who came into my life.
Over the next several years I made a lot of friends. Without fail each one told me I was the best friend they ever had. I also discovered girls and sex. By junior high school I was quite popular. I was smart, funny, a great friend, and the cute new guy. You saw my football picture. It was during that time. I honed my friendship skills and could make a friend out of almost anyone. During my seventh grade year I took the biggest bully in the school from hating me and wanting to kill me, to being, naturally, my best friend.
Now high school is where things took a turn. As I told you before, the popular kids who had adored me in junior high now shot their derision at me once I stopped playing football and started hanging out with people they deemed to be unworthy. That's when I met my friend Dan Grafton and Cindy & Mackie. After my experience with these people and Tony, I decided at that time that friendship was mostly a bunch of crap. Dog crap to be precise. I also determined that while I was an excellent friend for people to have, the reciprocation was never there. Not once has anyone been as good a friend to me as I have been to them. Then the worst possible thing started to happen. I allowed myself to become good friends with several women. Always it was the same. Whatever they needed, I was there for them. If they needed a ride, the car keys were already in my hand. If they needed company at their family reunion, I was already wearing the appropriate clothing. Mostly, anytime some awful MAN hurt their feelings, I was there to pick up the pieces. After the crying was over and my shoulders were all wet from them lying their heads upon them, they would run back to whichever scrub had hurt them in the first place.
You see? I have always been the reliable, safe, caring guy. Women like those things but they are not the traits that attract them to me as a lover or any kind of a romantic partner. Its always, without fail, the edgy, somewhat dangerous, aggressive guys who end up taking the girl home after the big dance. And ol' reliable Charles, Chas., Chucky, whomever, is there when it all falls apart. Until the next edgy, dangerous, domineering man shows up in the picture. That is why I can no longer allow myself to be "friend" with a woman. The relationship may not be exclusively romantic, or in certain cases even sexual at all, but it cannot be what is considered a traditional friendship. To me a friendship is where two guys go out and have beers together. Everything else needs to be defined in alternate terms.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Go Away, Hillary Clinton!
This is a post the staff here at The Space wrote up nearly a year ago. Remember at the time that Obama was not so clearly in the picture. He may be that alternative to hillary we were looking for. This all original content post is reprinted here along with all of the comments posted by our dear readers and contributors. - Ed.
SUNDAY, APRIL 23, 2006
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!
How many thousand days has it been since George W. Bush declared that on the deck of an aircraft carrier? How much war has been waged since? Exactly how wrong is history going to show him to be on that score? Will the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism ever be fully won? We will know all of the answers eventually. That IS NOT what this post is about, however.
We liberals must not make the same mistake in declaring premature victory in our quest to bring fairness, equality, honesty, and translucense to our federal government. The editorial staff here at the Space has been hearing a great deal of trumpeting about the impending Democratic victory in the mid-term elections and even in the 2008 presidential race. It is MUCH too soon for popping champagne corks folks.
We need to ask ourselves, "What are our goals here, what are we trying to accomplish?" While the neo-cons and the radical Bible thumpers like to accuse us of being unpatriotic, bleeding heart, W-hating, tax and spender's - we know better. Our goal in the past was to dig out the truth about the crooked administation that Bush has set up. It was to force light into the dark, seedy, corridors of corruption. Thanks to their arrogance and ineptitude this has come to pass without much effort on the part of liberals. Really, did we spend 1/1,000,000,000 th of the money the Republicans did on trying to nail Bill Clinton for getting a blow job?
Mission Accomplished may now be declared on that major plank of our platform. And while the low presidential poll numbers, the continual parade of scandals, and the never-ending war mongering may well assist us in achieving our noble goals, we need to refocus now. Our goal must be to take back at least one house of Congress and the Whitehouse. To that end we must make ourselves heard by even more people. We must write even more letters to the various editors of the country. We must be sure to get our friends and colleagues fired up. Getting them to promise to vote is not enough. Regular readers of this and other liberal based blogs will not bring in enough numbers at the polls. Search out your old maiden aunties, your drunken 18 year old step son, try an old girlfriend or two. Most importantly, grab those people who have fallen victim to apathy and shove their nose in the shitty conditions of the country.
And blog, my friends, blog. I know a faithful reader or two of this very blog who believe that we cannot and do not make a difference with our efforts here. Not true. This shit is world wide. If we make a concentrated effort now it can spread in time to enable us to confidently declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in six months and then again in '08.
Now the staff has a suggestion for the first topic. Hillary Clinton cannot win the 2008 presidential general election. As the editor here has noted in previous posts, she is a woman; a New Yorker (of sorts); an ultra liberal; and most notably is married to that evil Bill Clinton. We can't make a change, guys, if we can't get our candidate elected. Remember how John Kerry came from the back of the pack and kicked Wesley Clark's ass in the democratic primary. Now remember what the Karlrovians did to him in the general election. We might point out that Kerry was a decorated war veteran, an accomplished senator, and popular with the liberal base of the Democratic Party.
It is the position of the Space that we somehow convince our fellow Democrats to choose an alternative. Thus far we deem the best suited to be Evan Bayh of Indiana (Thank you Rich Bachelor for bringing him to our attention). He is telegenic; has a lovely blond wife; has two adorable twin sons; his father was the beloved figure Birch Bayh; and he plays well to middle class voters. We know, we know, you want someone who is more than just palatable to the public. We say get your candidate elected, then make changes. Oh, watch out for the McCain / Gulianni ticket. Think Hillary can beat Mr. POW and MR. 9/11 ??????? You want 8 years of that??
POSTED BY JACQ AT 8:45 PM
17 COMMENTS:
cats dig me said...
I expect lots of comments here, folks. Now is not the time to become complacent!
SUNDAY, APRIL 23, 2006 10:01:00 PM
Jacq said...
Refreshing....
It's still the good old boy network. Hills doesn't have a chance, alas. Despite the numerous other countries in the world that have women presidents, the US is still not gonna let it happen.
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006 11:21:00 AM
cats dig me said...
Its that damn puritanical streak we have in this country. We still think that a woman is going to have PMS and nuke the world. What a buncha shit! W is far more likely to incinerate the planet.
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006 12:36:00 PM
Jacq said...
True, very true.
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006 1:41:00 PM
carrier said...
Buy the Bayh?
Bayh's our guy?
It would be foolhardy to think that because the president's poll numbers are down in April it somehow translates into victory for Dems in November. A long hot summer lurks between.
Exchanging personal liberty for corporate oppression is not the way to go. No matter how sweet our 401K's grow...it isn't worth it.
And a little bit of that liberty flies out the window with every seat filled with a Republican legislator.
Big government isn't a bad thing as long as the folks that cast votes are still pulling the strings, running the show. At this time that is not the case.
The only way to counter the clowns with the clamps on the beltway is to gridlock them. That means winning a majority in at least one house of congress.
They will steer the issues away from the national questions and try to focus at the state and local levels. We can't let that happen. That is where these ethereal pages should come in handy.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006 9:42:00 PM
cats dig me said...
Don't let McCain fool us any longer either. He is an ultra conservative in moderate's clothing pretending to respect the liberals. He talks the moderate talk alright, but if you look at his voting record you'll see that he rubber stamps the Bush agenda with an alarmingly high frequency. He introduces legislature in the senate that sounds great to liberals and progressives, knowing full well that the bill has no chance in hell of becoming enacted. But then he can say "Hey lookit what I did my liberal pals" and fool us into voting for him. He even had the Hollander, himself, fooled a few years ago. Take our country back now in the fall elections just in case we run into that McCain train wreck.
FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 2006 12:34:00 AM
KEvron said...
"Hillary Clinton cannot win the 2008 presidential general election."
maybe not, but what can she do for dems in '06? she may not be presidential material, but get her on the stump and she's going to help a few more dems into both houses.
KEvron
SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2006 1:35:00 AM
carrier said...
True. She may not have the national appeal to win a general election, but the former first lady could be instrumental in rallying the democratic faithful this summer and fall.
SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2006 8:22:00 PM
Jacq said...
I definitely don't trust McCain. Ms. Clinton has a lot of potential but I'm still leary.
I don't know, Carrier. Money still makes the US go round. That's all most people seem to care about.
MONDAY, MAY 01, 2006 11:32:00 AM
cats dig me said...
I am all for Hillary stumping about the country. She just may be able to energize those soccer moms. If what I suspect is about to happen (and I am right about these things a scary amount of the time) actually comes to pass, we may not need to worry overly much about the Whitehouse race for a time. We need to have us a house in '06
MONDAY, MAY 01, 2006 3:31:00 PM
Jacq said...
Scary? Did you say Scary???
TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2006 5:58:00 AM
cats dig me said...
Scary to those who are amongst the uninitiated. I have developed a certain intuition about these things which usually proves to be correct. One little ol' house in 06, all we need. People involved just need to get together, make a decision, and let their feelings be known. Everybody has got to be sick of all this Bush nonsense by now.
TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2006 6:46:00 AM
Jacq said...
In getting the House together, there's a lot more involved than just the decision-making. It goes deeper than that. Some need to be in and others need to know when their terms have been expired. Sometimes it takes longer than we'd like.
Looking forward beyond 2006 myself.
TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2006 1:16:00 PM
cats dig me said...
Yep, you're right Jacq. We need to prepare for 08 now. Hopefully the Dems can convince the populace their guy is the right man for the big job after throwing out any unnecessary guys from the other houses. Imagine if we do this just right we might have that house we acquire for many years to come. Then we can do some fantastic things once there is no Bush around.
TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2006 8:05:00 PM
Jacq said...
Anticipation of the unknown. Scary thing.
THURSDAY, MAY 04, 2006 1:20:00 PM
cats dig me said...
Its all in the timing. Nice thing about time? As it goes by the scary unknown factors diminish and the possibilities present themselves. I must admit a bit of trepidation about 06, but am confident that beyond that things will probably turn out fine. Imagine a world without Bush in Washington. That place seems so far away and remote, but everything that happens there affects us all huh?
THURSDAY, MAY 04, 2006 1:33:00 PM
Jacq said...
I suppose then that we should never rush to judgement or have unrealistic expectations. I hate disappointments. But the end result may please everyone if the timing is right. I believe in that for sure.
SUNDAY, APRIL 23, 2006
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!
How many thousand days has it been since George W. Bush declared that on the deck of an aircraft carrier? How much war has been waged since? Exactly how wrong is history going to show him to be on that score? Will the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism ever be fully won? We will know all of the answers eventually. That IS NOT what this post is about, however.
We liberals must not make the same mistake in declaring premature victory in our quest to bring fairness, equality, honesty, and translucense to our federal government. The editorial staff here at the Space has been hearing a great deal of trumpeting about the impending Democratic victory in the mid-term elections and even in the 2008 presidential race. It is MUCH too soon for popping champagne corks folks.
We need to ask ourselves, "What are our goals here, what are we trying to accomplish?" While the neo-cons and the radical Bible thumpers like to accuse us of being unpatriotic, bleeding heart, W-hating, tax and spender's - we know better. Our goal in the past was to dig out the truth about the crooked administation that Bush has set up. It was to force light into the dark, seedy, corridors of corruption. Thanks to their arrogance and ineptitude this has come to pass without much effort on the part of liberals. Really, did we spend 1/1,000,000,000 th of the money the Republicans did on trying to nail Bill Clinton for getting a blow job?
Mission Accomplished may now be declared on that major plank of our platform. And while the low presidential poll numbers, the continual parade of scandals, and the never-ending war mongering may well assist us in achieving our noble goals, we need to refocus now. Our goal must be to take back at least one house of Congress and the Whitehouse. To that end we must make ourselves heard by even more people. We must write even more letters to the various editors of the country. We must be sure to get our friends and colleagues fired up. Getting them to promise to vote is not enough. Regular readers of this and other liberal based blogs will not bring in enough numbers at the polls. Search out your old maiden aunties, your drunken 18 year old step son, try an old girlfriend or two. Most importantly, grab those people who have fallen victim to apathy and shove their nose in the shitty conditions of the country.
And blog, my friends, blog. I know a faithful reader or two of this very blog who believe that we cannot and do not make a difference with our efforts here. Not true. This shit is world wide. If we make a concentrated effort now it can spread in time to enable us to confidently declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in six months and then again in '08.
Now the staff has a suggestion for the first topic. Hillary Clinton cannot win the 2008 presidential general election. As the editor here has noted in previous posts, she is a woman; a New Yorker (of sorts); an ultra liberal; and most notably is married to that evil Bill Clinton. We can't make a change, guys, if we can't get our candidate elected. Remember how John Kerry came from the back of the pack and kicked Wesley Clark's ass in the democratic primary. Now remember what the Karlrovians did to him in the general election. We might point out that Kerry was a decorated war veteran, an accomplished senator, and popular with the liberal base of the Democratic Party.
It is the position of the Space that we somehow convince our fellow Democrats to choose an alternative. Thus far we deem the best suited to be Evan Bayh of Indiana (Thank you Rich Bachelor for bringing him to our attention). He is telegenic; has a lovely blond wife; has two adorable twin sons; his father was the beloved figure Birch Bayh; and he plays well to middle class voters. We know, we know, you want someone who is more than just palatable to the public. We say get your candidate elected, then make changes. Oh, watch out for the McCain / Gulianni ticket. Think Hillary can beat Mr. POW and MR. 9/11 ??????? You want 8 years of that??
POSTED BY JACQ AT 8:45 PM
17 COMMENTS:
cats dig me said...
I expect lots of comments here, folks. Now is not the time to become complacent!
SUNDAY, APRIL 23, 2006 10:01:00 PM
Jacq said...
Refreshing....
It's still the good old boy network. Hills doesn't have a chance, alas. Despite the numerous other countries in the world that have women presidents, the US is still not gonna let it happen.
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006 11:21:00 AM
cats dig me said...
Its that damn puritanical streak we have in this country. We still think that a woman is going to have PMS and nuke the world. What a buncha shit! W is far more likely to incinerate the planet.
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006 12:36:00 PM
Jacq said...
True, very true.
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006 1:41:00 PM
carrier said...
Buy the Bayh?
Bayh's our guy?
It would be foolhardy to think that because the president's poll numbers are down in April it somehow translates into victory for Dems in November. A long hot summer lurks between.
Exchanging personal liberty for corporate oppression is not the way to go. No matter how sweet our 401K's grow...it isn't worth it.
And a little bit of that liberty flies out the window with every seat filled with a Republican legislator.
Big government isn't a bad thing as long as the folks that cast votes are still pulling the strings, running the show. At this time that is not the case.
The only way to counter the clowns with the clamps on the beltway is to gridlock them. That means winning a majority in at least one house of congress.
They will steer the issues away from the national questions and try to focus at the state and local levels. We can't let that happen. That is where these ethereal pages should come in handy.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006 9:42:00 PM
cats dig me said...
Don't let McCain fool us any longer either. He is an ultra conservative in moderate's clothing pretending to respect the liberals. He talks the moderate talk alright, but if you look at his voting record you'll see that he rubber stamps the Bush agenda with an alarmingly high frequency. He introduces legislature in the senate that sounds great to liberals and progressives, knowing full well that the bill has no chance in hell of becoming enacted. But then he can say "Hey lookit what I did my liberal pals" and fool us into voting for him. He even had the Hollander, himself, fooled a few years ago. Take our country back now in the fall elections just in case we run into that McCain train wreck.
FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 2006 12:34:00 AM
KEvron said...
"Hillary Clinton cannot win the 2008 presidential general election."
maybe not, but what can she do for dems in '06? she may not be presidential material, but get her on the stump and she's going to help a few more dems into both houses.
KEvron
SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2006 1:35:00 AM
carrier said...
True. She may not have the national appeal to win a general election, but the former first lady could be instrumental in rallying the democratic faithful this summer and fall.
SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2006 8:22:00 PM
Jacq said...
I definitely don't trust McCain. Ms. Clinton has a lot of potential but I'm still leary.
I don't know, Carrier. Money still makes the US go round. That's all most people seem to care about.
MONDAY, MAY 01, 2006 11:32:00 AM
cats dig me said...
I am all for Hillary stumping about the country. She just may be able to energize those soccer moms. If what I suspect is about to happen (and I am right about these things a scary amount of the time) actually comes to pass, we may not need to worry overly much about the Whitehouse race for a time. We need to have us a house in '06
MONDAY, MAY 01, 2006 3:31:00 PM
Jacq said...
Scary? Did you say Scary???
TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2006 5:58:00 AM
cats dig me said...
Scary to those who are amongst the uninitiated. I have developed a certain intuition about these things which usually proves to be correct. One little ol' house in 06, all we need. People involved just need to get together, make a decision, and let their feelings be known. Everybody has got to be sick of all this Bush nonsense by now.
TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2006 6:46:00 AM
Jacq said...
In getting the House together, there's a lot more involved than just the decision-making. It goes deeper than that. Some need to be in and others need to know when their terms have been expired. Sometimes it takes longer than we'd like.
Looking forward beyond 2006 myself.
TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2006 1:16:00 PM
cats dig me said...
Yep, you're right Jacq. We need to prepare for 08 now. Hopefully the Dems can convince the populace their guy is the right man for the big job after throwing out any unnecessary guys from the other houses. Imagine if we do this just right we might have that house we acquire for many years to come. Then we can do some fantastic things once there is no Bush around.
TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2006 8:05:00 PM
Jacq said...
Anticipation of the unknown. Scary thing.
THURSDAY, MAY 04, 2006 1:20:00 PM
cats dig me said...
Its all in the timing. Nice thing about time? As it goes by the scary unknown factors diminish and the possibilities present themselves. I must admit a bit of trepidation about 06, but am confident that beyond that things will probably turn out fine. Imagine a world without Bush in Washington. That place seems so far away and remote, but everything that happens there affects us all huh?
THURSDAY, MAY 04, 2006 1:33:00 PM
Jacq said...
I suppose then that we should never rush to judgement or have unrealistic expectations. I hate disappointments. But the end result may please everyone if the timing is right. I believe in that for sure.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
A Quiz for You (especially you, Jacq!)
You are most like: | ||
|---|---|---|
 Don't be fooled by the title of an "Occasional User". Your on your way to being a full out addict! Beware the addiction.
| ||
| Take this quiz: The Quiz Addiction Quiz | ||
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Bert Johnson - Artistic Soul
Bert Johnson, a long time friend and local character extraordinaire, died last week at the tender age of 44. Rather than fill this post with tears and sadness, I have opted to share some of my favorite Bert tales. First though, to my friend I say: Bert you were the kindest, most compassionate, heartfelt, man on the planet Earth. I know you felt tremendous pain all your life. I hope you have found peace wherever you are now.
There is an annual play held in the Astoria area called Shanghaied in Astoria. It is a campy, raucous, melodrama , in which the audience is encouraged (required actually) to participate. We boo and hiss, yell and scream, make inappropriate remarks about the character's looks and heritage, and especially throw popcorn all over the theater. Bert managed to show up so drunk, and be so obnoxious, that he became the only person in the production's 3 decade history to be thrown out AND permanently banned.
There is a small town south east of here called Birkenfeld. To me it seems less like a town and more like a really, really, big tavern. Like it takes up about 3 acres. The town is so small that one citizen had the address on his driver's license listed as "the white house behind the tavern". One fine summer evening, Bert and I picked up our old friend Dave and brought him to his home town to party it up with his relatives (uh, which was most everyone in town). The entire population was there at the tavern, engaged in one activity or another. Its one of those places common in rural America where the tavern doubles as a general store, post office, realty company, drug store...you get the picture. For several hours Bert and I soaked up the local atmosphere, which consisted of country music blaring over some blown-out speakers, ribs burning away on a makeshift oil drum barbecue, and little kids sitting at 50 foot long wooden tables eating corn dogs while the adults drank copious amounts of cheap, rot gut beer. That was perfect for Bert. He liked his crowds loud and rude, and his beer cheap and yella. Now you may remember that I mentioned a guy named Dave. Dave is louder, drunker, and more obnoxious than Bert was, and that is not an easy thing to accomplish. Bert and I both kept wary eyes about this here little redneck establishment/town as we swilled down the awful beer with the citizenry, wondering what sort of drama would enfold. Early on in the night Bert found Dave's younger sister and they proceeded to disappear out to the huge, ramshackle back porch the tavern boasted. In the meantime, Dave went off to have a chit-chat with his older sister, who happened to be in the ladie's room at the time. You see where this is going, right? Yep, sure enough, no sooner was Dave all kicked back in there, when an 11 year old girl walked in to use the toilet. You could actually hear her screams over the Hank Williams Jr. song. The ensuing madness was a thing of beauty. Imagine the Jerry Springer show coupled with Benny Hill on crack, and you'll have a good picture of that wonderful half hour. The banjo player in the corner never stopped playing and kept perfect accompaniment to the melee. Now I'm not sure if it was Dave's brother bill, or his other brother Bill, who came up to me and said "Chuck, we really like you and Bert, but we can't put up with brother Dave's bullshit. You and Bert are welcome to come back in the future, but right now we need you to throw Dave in your truck and get the hell out of town" Looking up at the twenty some country boys standing around our table, I was convinced pretty quickly. Four of the biggest farm boys picked Dave up by all four limbs and literally threw him into the bed of my pick up. I slammed my beer and made a quick beeline for Bert. There he was, shorts pulled down to his ankles, with Dave's sister's ankles up over his shoulders. He didn't pay much attention to me as I ran by screaming for him to get in the damn truck, but when he noticed the entire town piling on to the porch he pulled his pecker out pretty quickly and actually beat me to the car. As we rode off down Highway 202 laughing our fool asses off, Dave cursed and screamed obscenities, and the populace of Birkenfeld stood in the parking lot and waved us a pleasant goodbye. Bert was so proud to have finally been kicked out of an entire town.
No one, not even Bert himself, knows quite how it happened. Bert got himself permanently banned from Burger King. All we know is that it happened late at night and Bert was roaring drunk. This was more than ten years ago and the ban is still in effect to this day. Fast food restaurants have a stupendously high turnover rate in their personnel and hundreds of employees have come and gone over the past decade. Still every employee there knows to bar entry to the infamous Bert Johnson.
Then there was the time when the bosses at the KOA KAmpground where Bert was seasonally employed found him passed out on their riding lawn mower. He had placed a brick on the gas pedal and tied the steering wheel to the left with some rope. He enjoyed a long nap while the mower kept making left-hand circles for hours.
You may be wondering about the pink bunny ears. Bert had the audacity to show up to one of our halloween parties without a costume. We picked this one out especially for him out of the goofy costume's box.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Better Not Cave, Dems
Updated: 1:37 p.m. PT June 7, 2007
The Democratic-controlled Congress passed legislation Thursday to loosen restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, but the bill’s supporters lacked the votes needed to override President Bush’s threatened veto.
The 247-176 House vote marked the second time in recent weeks that Democratic leaders chose to confront Bush over an issue on which they command widespread public support, following a veto struggle over a proposed troop withdrawal timetable from Iraq.
This time the controversy is at the uneasy intersection of medical research and politics, involving a type of cell that the National Institutes of Health says might serve as “a sort of repair system for the body.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., appealed to Bush moments before the bill passed to sheath his “cruel veto pen,” and sign legislation that she said could help “save lives, find cures and give hope to those suffering.”
But the president responded quickly with a written statement that accused majority Democrats of recycling an old measure that he vetoed a year ago. Under the bill, “American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing that line would be a grave mistake,” he said in a statement issued in Germany, site of a summit of world leaders.
The bill drew the support of 210 House Democrats and 37 Republicans. Despite the bipartisanship, the total was 35 votes fewer than needed to override a veto.
The Senate cleared the bill several weeks ago by a margin that was one vote short of the two-thirds needed to overcome Bush’s objections.
No suspense
There was no suspense about the outcome in the House, although personal experience punctuated Thursday’s hour-long debate to an unusual degree.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the bill’s chief Democratic supporter, spoke of her daughter’s struggle with juvenile diabetes. “As you can imagine, I am anxious about the idea of my child having to manage such a serious condition all by herself” once she goes to college, she said. “I share this anxiety with many parents of affected children.”
Moments later Rep. James Langevin, D-R.I., paralyzed since a gun accident severed his spinal cord several years ago, addressed the House from his motorized wheelchair. An opponent of abortion, Langevin said, “My education on this issue has filled me with tremendous hope, not only that stem cell research might one day lead to a cure for spinal cord injuries, but that one day ... families will no longer watch in agony as a loved one with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s gradually declines.”
Opponents of the measure said they, too, support medical research, but insisted that the use of embryonic stem cells was the wrong approach on moral grounds — and possibly not even the most promising one scientifically.
“You’re talking about spare embryos now, but if it ever did work ... it would require the killing of millions of embryos,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.
He said a recent report by the U.S. Catholic Conference listed numerous breakthroughs involving medical research conducted with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid, none of which involve the destruction of a human embryo.
Several opponents of the measure also cited a day-old report from scientists who said they had succeeded in turning ordinary skin cells from mice into an embryonic state.
Clear political subtext
Whatever the scientific implications, the political subtext was clear.
The stem cell legislation was one of six bills that Pelosi placed at the top of her agenda when Congress convened, and she chose to preside when the measure passed. So far, the only other measure among the six to make it to the White House was a minimum wage increase.
According to the National Institutes of Health Web site, scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998.
There were no federal funds for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would make it available for lines of cells that already were in existence.
Elected with the strong support of abortion foes and other conservatives, he said at the time his decision was designed to balance concerns about “protecting life and improving life.”
He also limited the funds to cell lines derived from embryos that were surplus at fertility clinics, and that had been donated from adults who had given informed consent
Advocates of the veto-threatened legislation argue that the number of stem cell lines available for research is smaller than needed, and that some of the material has become contaminated over time by mouse embryonic skin cells that typically are placed at the bottom of culture dishes used in the research.
The bill would permit funding for research on embryonic stem cells regardless of the date of their creation, as long as they were donated from in-vitro fertilization clinics, they would “otherwise be discarded” and donors gave their approval.
“No stem cell would ever be taken from an embryo that was not destined to be destroyed in any event,” said Rep. Mike Castle, a Delaware Republican who has long bucked his party leaders to support the measure.
The Democratic-controlled Congress passed legislation Thursday to loosen restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, but the bill’s supporters lacked the votes needed to override President Bush’s threatened veto.
The 247-176 House vote marked the second time in recent weeks that Democratic leaders chose to confront Bush over an issue on which they command widespread public support, following a veto struggle over a proposed troop withdrawal timetable from Iraq.
This time the controversy is at the uneasy intersection of medical research and politics, involving a type of cell that the National Institutes of Health says might serve as “a sort of repair system for the body.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., appealed to Bush moments before the bill passed to sheath his “cruel veto pen,” and sign legislation that she said could help “save lives, find cures and give hope to those suffering.”
But the president responded quickly with a written statement that accused majority Democrats of recycling an old measure that he vetoed a year ago. Under the bill, “American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing that line would be a grave mistake,” he said in a statement issued in Germany, site of a summit of world leaders.
The bill drew the support of 210 House Democrats and 37 Republicans. Despite the bipartisanship, the total was 35 votes fewer than needed to override a veto.
The Senate cleared the bill several weeks ago by a margin that was one vote short of the two-thirds needed to overcome Bush’s objections.
No suspense
There was no suspense about the outcome in the House, although personal experience punctuated Thursday’s hour-long debate to an unusual degree.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the bill’s chief Democratic supporter, spoke of her daughter’s struggle with juvenile diabetes. “As you can imagine, I am anxious about the idea of my child having to manage such a serious condition all by herself” once she goes to college, she said. “I share this anxiety with many parents of affected children.”
Moments later Rep. James Langevin, D-R.I., paralyzed since a gun accident severed his spinal cord several years ago, addressed the House from his motorized wheelchair. An opponent of abortion, Langevin said, “My education on this issue has filled me with tremendous hope, not only that stem cell research might one day lead to a cure for spinal cord injuries, but that one day ... families will no longer watch in agony as a loved one with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s gradually declines.”
Opponents of the measure said they, too, support medical research, but insisted that the use of embryonic stem cells was the wrong approach on moral grounds — and possibly not even the most promising one scientifically.
“You’re talking about spare embryos now, but if it ever did work ... it would require the killing of millions of embryos,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.
He said a recent report by the U.S. Catholic Conference listed numerous breakthroughs involving medical research conducted with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid, none of which involve the destruction of a human embryo.
Several opponents of the measure also cited a day-old report from scientists who said they had succeeded in turning ordinary skin cells from mice into an embryonic state.
Clear political subtext
Whatever the scientific implications, the political subtext was clear.
The stem cell legislation was one of six bills that Pelosi placed at the top of her agenda when Congress convened, and she chose to preside when the measure passed. So far, the only other measure among the six to make it to the White House was a minimum wage increase.
According to the National Institutes of Health Web site, scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998.
There were no federal funds for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would make it available for lines of cells that already were in existence.
Elected with the strong support of abortion foes and other conservatives, he said at the time his decision was designed to balance concerns about “protecting life and improving life.”
He also limited the funds to cell lines derived from embryos that were surplus at fertility clinics, and that had been donated from adults who had given informed consent
Advocates of the veto-threatened legislation argue that the number of stem cell lines available for research is smaller than needed, and that some of the material has become contaminated over time by mouse embryonic skin cells that typically are placed at the bottom of culture dishes used in the research.
The bill would permit funding for research on embryonic stem cells regardless of the date of their creation, as long as they were donated from in-vitro fertilization clinics, they would “otherwise be discarded” and donors gave their approval.
“No stem cell would ever be taken from an embryo that was not destined to be destroyed in any event,” said Rep. Mike Castle, a Delaware Republican who has long bucked his party leaders to support the measure.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The More You Tighten Your Grip, Tarkin, The More Star Systems Will Slip through Your Fingers - Princess Leia
Court Rebuffs F.C.C. on Fines for Indecency
By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, June 4 — If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting context.
That, in essence, was the decision on Monday, when a federal appeals panel struck down the government policy that allows stations and networks to be fined if they broadcast shows containing obscene language.
Although the case was primarily concerned with what is known as “fleeting expletives,” or blurted obscenities, on television, both network executives and top officials at the Federal Communications Commission said the opinion could gut the ability of the commission to regulate any speech on television or radio.
Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the F.C.C., said that the agency was now considering whether to seek an appeal before all the judges of the appeals court or to take the matter directly to the Supreme Court.
The decision, by a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a sharp rebuke for the F.C.C. and for the Bush administration. For the four television networks that filed the lawsuit — Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC — it was a major victory in a legal and cultural battle that they are waging with the commission and its supporters.
Under President Bush, the F.C.C. has expanded its indecency rules, taking a much harder line on obscenities uttered on broadcast television and radio. While the judges sent the case back to the commission to rewrite its indecency policy, it said that it was “doubtful” that the agency would be able to “adequately respond to the constitutional and statutory challenges raised by the networks.”
The networks hailed the decision.
“We are very pleased with the court’s decision and continue to believe that the government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment,” said Scott Grogin, a senior vice president at Fox. “Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families, through the many parental control technologies available, what is appropriate viewing for their home.”
Mr. Martin, the chairman of the commission, attacked the panel’s reasoning.
“I completely disagree with the court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families,” he said. “The court says the commission is ‘divorced from reality.’ It is the New York court, not the commission, that is divorced from reality.”
He said that if the agency was unable to prohibit some vulgarities during prime time, “Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.”
Beginning with the F.C.C.’s indecency finding in a case against NBC for a vulgarity uttered by the U2 singer Bono during the Golden Globes awards ceremony in 2003, President Bush’s Republican and Democratic appointees to the commission have imposed a tougher policy by punishing any station that broadcast a fleeting expletive. That includes vulgar language blurted out on live shows like the Golden Globes or scripted shows like “NYPD Blue,” which was cited in the case.
Reversing decades of a more lenient policy, the commission had found that the mere utterance of certain words implied that sexual or excretory acts were carried out and therefore violated the indecency rules.
But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”
Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.
“We find that the F.C.C.’s new policy regarding ‘fleeting expletives’ fails to provide a reasoned analysis justifying its departure from the agency’s established practice,” said the panel.
Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had no comment about the ruling.
Although the judges struck down the policy on statutory grounds, they also said there were serious constitutional problems with the commission’s attempt to regulate the language of television shows.
“We are skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its ‘fleeting expletive’ regime that would pass constitutional muster,” said the panel in an opinion written by Judge Rosemary S. Pooler and joined by Judge Peter W. Hall. “We question whether the F.C.C.’s indecency test can survive First Amendment scrutiny.”
By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, June 4 — If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting context.
That, in essence, was the decision on Monday, when a federal appeals panel struck down the government policy that allows stations and networks to be fined if they broadcast shows containing obscene language.
Although the case was primarily concerned with what is known as “fleeting expletives,” or blurted obscenities, on television, both network executives and top officials at the Federal Communications Commission said the opinion could gut the ability of the commission to regulate any speech on television or radio.
Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the F.C.C., said that the agency was now considering whether to seek an appeal before all the judges of the appeals court or to take the matter directly to the Supreme Court.
The decision, by a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a sharp rebuke for the F.C.C. and for the Bush administration. For the four television networks that filed the lawsuit — Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC — it was a major victory in a legal and cultural battle that they are waging with the commission and its supporters.
Under President Bush, the F.C.C. has expanded its indecency rules, taking a much harder line on obscenities uttered on broadcast television and radio. While the judges sent the case back to the commission to rewrite its indecency policy, it said that it was “doubtful” that the agency would be able to “adequately respond to the constitutional and statutory challenges raised by the networks.”
The networks hailed the decision.
“We are very pleased with the court’s decision and continue to believe that the government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment,” said Scott Grogin, a senior vice president at Fox. “Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families, through the many parental control technologies available, what is appropriate viewing for their home.”
Mr. Martin, the chairman of the commission, attacked the panel’s reasoning.
“I completely disagree with the court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families,” he said. “The court says the commission is ‘divorced from reality.’ It is the New York court, not the commission, that is divorced from reality.”
He said that if the agency was unable to prohibit some vulgarities during prime time, “Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.”
Beginning with the F.C.C.’s indecency finding in a case against NBC for a vulgarity uttered by the U2 singer Bono during the Golden Globes awards ceremony in 2003, President Bush’s Republican and Democratic appointees to the commission have imposed a tougher policy by punishing any station that broadcast a fleeting expletive. That includes vulgar language blurted out on live shows like the Golden Globes or scripted shows like “NYPD Blue,” which was cited in the case.
Reversing decades of a more lenient policy, the commission had found that the mere utterance of certain words implied that sexual or excretory acts were carried out and therefore violated the indecency rules.
But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”
Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.
“We find that the F.C.C.’s new policy regarding ‘fleeting expletives’ fails to provide a reasoned analysis justifying its departure from the agency’s established practice,” said the panel.
Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had no comment about the ruling.
Although the judges struck down the policy on statutory grounds, they also said there were serious constitutional problems with the commission’s attempt to regulate the language of television shows.
“We are skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its ‘fleeting expletive’ regime that would pass constitutional muster,” said the panel in an opinion written by Judge Rosemary S. Pooler and joined by Judge Peter W. Hall. “We question whether the F.C.C.’s indecency test can survive First Amendment scrutiny.”
Friday, June 1, 2007
GOP desperate, pull a John Kerry out of their Ass
Fred Thompson, Hollywood actor and former US senator possibly going to run as GOP candidate? Hollander's views are published in the last paragraph.
Washington - He has been a lawyer, a US senator, and a TV actor, and now Fred Thompson has made it clear that he's ready to audition for the role of a lifetime, president of the United States.
The 6-foot, 6-inch Tennesseean enters the 2008 race late, but not too late, analysts say, particularly because about half the Republican electorate has indicated to pollsters that the choices so far are less than inspiring. The top tier of GOP candidates all have perceived flaws, and thus Republican activists believe room remains for a straight-ahead fiscal and social conservative who knows how to play to the cameras. The folksy, avuncular manner and Southern twang also don't hurt.
"I think Thompson is going be formidable," says John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
Former Senator Thompson has not yet formally entered the race, but has explored the possibility for months and is now hiring staff. His advisers have told reporters he will formally announce over the Fourth of July holiday in Nashville. Without spending a penny, he already places in the GOP's top tier of candidates, at times breaking into double digits. The question is how much of that early support is really a vote for "none of the above," rather than an affirmative choice by Republican primary voters.
And, as Gen. Wesley Clark learned four years ago in the race for the Democratic nomination, it's one thing to be wooed by supporters with a draft campaign, but another thing entirely to actually run and open yourself up to the scrutiny and criticism of the news media and opponents. The difference, with Thompson, is that he has political experience and a bit of a shtick, which General Clark did not. Observers expect Thompson to dust off the red pickup truck that made regular appearances during his first Senate race.
Still, he has his work cut out as he seeks to introduce himself to Americans. Even if he's a familiar face to fans of NBC's "Law and Order" as District Attorney Arthur Branch, few voters could get beyond square one on Thompson's issue positions.
"Most people don't know much about Fred Thompson," says Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan political report. "Some know he's an actor, some know he's a senator, [but] I don't think anybody has gone through his political record with a fine-tooth comb. He's hardly an ideologue."
In easy comparisons with the nation's last (and only) actor-president, Ronald Reagan, Thompson probably does not stack up at this stage in that he lacks the defined ideology that turned Reagan the man into Reagan the movement. Thompson, in contrast, garners attention from the figure he cuts, and less from anything he did as a senator. In his eight years in Congress, he was not known as a leader on any particular issues.
"There are plenty of people who find him intriguing or appealing, because they see in him whatever they want to see in him," says Mr. Rothenberg.
Thompson's late entry into the race also raises questions about how much he really wants to be president – and whether he has the fire in the belly to embark on such a grueling race. But, some analysts say, the fact that Thompson was not born wanting to be president, in the manner of a Bill Clinton, does not necessarily hurt him. In Thompson's case, the fact that he has spent much time considering the possibility, being thorough and cautious, could help him.
"Ronald Reagan didn't have the burning desire to be president either," says Mr. Geer. "The American public could find that potentially attractive about Thompson."
Still, Thompson will face a steep task in fundraising, as the top tier of candidates have already raised at least $10 million each. Some analysts note that the Republican field's lower fundraising totals for the first quarter of 2007, in comparison with the Democratic field's take, show that there is a great reserve of untapped GOP money out there for Thompson.
Of the top candidates in the race, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani enjoys wide name recognition but holds liberal views on social issues, which could kill his chances when voters start tuning in – especially religious conservatives. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, though a conservative on most issues, is also seen as unreliable by the Christian right. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wins points for his executive experience, but his recent shift to the right also leaves some conservatives cold.
Thompson is expected to gain in the polls when (and if) he does formally join the race. And if Thompson remains competitive, showing poll numbers in the top tier, that could deter another lurking Republican, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, from entering the race. Mr. Gingrich has long hinted at launching his candidacy in September, but if Thompson catches on, Gingrich may be frozen out.
"Where is Gingrich going to go?" says Tony Fabrizio, a GOP pollster unaffiliated with any '08 candidate. "He's already 100 percent known by [the party]. It will be tough for him to gain support until other people drop out."
Who Thompson hurts in the existing field and who he helps is open to speculation. Some analysts suggest that Mr. Giuliani gains, because Thompson's entry dilutes the conservative field. But it may be that Thompson takes away from all the front-runners.
Another unknown is how effectively Thompson will use all the modern tools of communication, particularly those that involve cameras. But given his long experience in television and film, Thompson could have a leg up over the other candidates. And for a taste of the Thompson style, the video of the former senator responding to liberal filmmaker Michael Moore about healthcare in Cuba, posted on Youtube.com, is one place to start.
• Zoe Tillman in Washington contributed to this report.
HOLLANDER SAYS: My initial thoughts on this are that Thompson is a slightly better actor than Reagan, and I have no idea what his politics are other than that he is conservative. Seems to me that the Republicans are looking for someone who shares their conservative values who will also be palatable to the general American public. They are wrong. Its the same thing the Dems did in the last presidential election by picking John Kerry. The thinking is always "We REALLY like this guy so everybody else will like him almost as much, and we will win!" All Thompson will do is dilute the Republican pool of candidates (like Ross Perot did) and take thunder away from the top-tier runners. Just as with the Democrats in 2004, all the in-fighting will further deplete the energy and capital of the Republican slate. Whomever runs against the chosen Democrat will be wiped from the map (barring a major Democratic sex scandal such as Obama and Hillary Clinton getting caught screwing each other's brains out on video) Hmm...how about Clinton / Obama for '08?
Washington - He has been a lawyer, a US senator, and a TV actor, and now Fred Thompson has made it clear that he's ready to audition for the role of a lifetime, president of the United States.
The 6-foot, 6-inch Tennesseean enters the 2008 race late, but not too late, analysts say, particularly because about half the Republican electorate has indicated to pollsters that the choices so far are less than inspiring. The top tier of GOP candidates all have perceived flaws, and thus Republican activists believe room remains for a straight-ahead fiscal and social conservative who knows how to play to the cameras. The folksy, avuncular manner and Southern twang also don't hurt.
"I think Thompson is going be formidable," says John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
Former Senator Thompson has not yet formally entered the race, but has explored the possibility for months and is now hiring staff. His advisers have told reporters he will formally announce over the Fourth of July holiday in Nashville. Without spending a penny, he already places in the GOP's top tier of candidates, at times breaking into double digits. The question is how much of that early support is really a vote for "none of the above," rather than an affirmative choice by Republican primary voters.
And, as Gen. Wesley Clark learned four years ago in the race for the Democratic nomination, it's one thing to be wooed by supporters with a draft campaign, but another thing entirely to actually run and open yourself up to the scrutiny and criticism of the news media and opponents. The difference, with Thompson, is that he has political experience and a bit of a shtick, which General Clark did not. Observers expect Thompson to dust off the red pickup truck that made regular appearances during his first Senate race.
Still, he has his work cut out as he seeks to introduce himself to Americans. Even if he's a familiar face to fans of NBC's "Law and Order" as District Attorney Arthur Branch, few voters could get beyond square one on Thompson's issue positions.
"Most people don't know much about Fred Thompson," says Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan political report. "Some know he's an actor, some know he's a senator, [but] I don't think anybody has gone through his political record with a fine-tooth comb. He's hardly an ideologue."
In easy comparisons with the nation's last (and only) actor-president, Ronald Reagan, Thompson probably does not stack up at this stage in that he lacks the defined ideology that turned Reagan the man into Reagan the movement. Thompson, in contrast, garners attention from the figure he cuts, and less from anything he did as a senator. In his eight years in Congress, he was not known as a leader on any particular issues.
"There are plenty of people who find him intriguing or appealing, because they see in him whatever they want to see in him," says Mr. Rothenberg.
Thompson's late entry into the race also raises questions about how much he really wants to be president – and whether he has the fire in the belly to embark on such a grueling race. But, some analysts say, the fact that Thompson was not born wanting to be president, in the manner of a Bill Clinton, does not necessarily hurt him. In Thompson's case, the fact that he has spent much time considering the possibility, being thorough and cautious, could help him.
"Ronald Reagan didn't have the burning desire to be president either," says Mr. Geer. "The American public could find that potentially attractive about Thompson."
Still, Thompson will face a steep task in fundraising, as the top tier of candidates have already raised at least $10 million each. Some analysts note that the Republican field's lower fundraising totals for the first quarter of 2007, in comparison with the Democratic field's take, show that there is a great reserve of untapped GOP money out there for Thompson.
Of the top candidates in the race, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani enjoys wide name recognition but holds liberal views on social issues, which could kill his chances when voters start tuning in – especially religious conservatives. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, though a conservative on most issues, is also seen as unreliable by the Christian right. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wins points for his executive experience, but his recent shift to the right also leaves some conservatives cold.
Thompson is expected to gain in the polls when (and if) he does formally join the race. And if Thompson remains competitive, showing poll numbers in the top tier, that could deter another lurking Republican, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, from entering the race. Mr. Gingrich has long hinted at launching his candidacy in September, but if Thompson catches on, Gingrich may be frozen out.
"Where is Gingrich going to go?" says Tony Fabrizio, a GOP pollster unaffiliated with any '08 candidate. "He's already 100 percent known by [the party]. It will be tough for him to gain support until other people drop out."
Who Thompson hurts in the existing field and who he helps is open to speculation. Some analysts suggest that Mr. Giuliani gains, because Thompson's entry dilutes the conservative field. But it may be that Thompson takes away from all the front-runners.
Another unknown is how effectively Thompson will use all the modern tools of communication, particularly those that involve cameras. But given his long experience in television and film, Thompson could have a leg up over the other candidates. And for a taste of the Thompson style, the video of the former senator responding to liberal filmmaker Michael Moore about healthcare in Cuba, posted on Youtube.com, is one place to start.
• Zoe Tillman in Washington contributed to this report.
HOLLANDER SAYS: My initial thoughts on this are that Thompson is a slightly better actor than Reagan, and I have no idea what his politics are other than that he is conservative. Seems to me that the Republicans are looking for someone who shares their conservative values who will also be palatable to the general American public. They are wrong. Its the same thing the Dems did in the last presidential election by picking John Kerry. The thinking is always "We REALLY like this guy so everybody else will like him almost as much, and we will win!" All Thompson will do is dilute the Republican pool of candidates (like Ross Perot did) and take thunder away from the top-tier runners. Just as with the Democrats in 2004, all the in-fighting will further deplete the energy and capital of the Republican slate. Whomever runs against the chosen Democrat will be wiped from the map (barring a major Democratic sex scandal such as Obama and Hillary Clinton getting caught screwing each other's brains out on video) Hmm...how about Clinton / Obama for '08?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
