Petula Clark Fest: The Pop Culture References
I want to draw your attention now to three pop culture references to Petula Clark's 1964 monster hit, "Downtown."
The first is found in one of the best Seinfeld episodes ever, "The Bottle Deposit." That's the one where Kramer and Newman concoct a scheme to redeem bottle deposits in Michigan for a profit, by using Newman's postal truck. This episode also involves a set of JFK's golf clubs and Brad Garrett as the crazy Saab mechanic.
The George subplot in that episode has George trying to figure out cryptic instructions from his boss at the Yankees. George, for some reason, doesn't want Mr. Wilhelm to know that he has no idea what this project is that he is supposed to be working on. We pick up the action here:
(George has his head down on his desk. Wilhelm walks jauntily along the corridor and enters the office.)
WILHELM: So...
(George snaps awake.)
WILHELM: ...did you go down to payroll?
GEORGE: (standing) Yes, payroll. Yes I did. Very productive. Payroll... paid off.
WILHELM: (pleased) Well then, I guess you'll be heading downtown then, huh?
GEORGE: Oh, yeah. Downtown. Definitely.
WILHELM: Well, I'm very interested to see how this thing turns out.
GEORGE: (to himself) Yeah, you said it. (to Wilhelm) Uh, excuse me, Mr. Wilhelm. Uh, do you really think... Well, is this downtown trip really necessary, you know, for the project?
WILHELM: Oh no, you've got to go downtown, George. It's all downtown. Just like the song says.
GEORGE: The song?
WILHELM: There's your answer. Downtown.
(Wilhelm leaves.)
GEORGE: (thoughtful) Downtown.
Now we move to Monk's Diner, as Jerry and George try to decipher what Mr. Wilhelm meant.
JERRY: The song Downtown? You mean the Petula Clark song?
GEORGE: Yeah.
JERRY: You sure he didn't just mention it because you happened to be going downtown?
GEORGE: I think he was trying to tell me something, like it had some sort of a meaning.
JERRY: Okay, so how does it go?
GEORGE: 'When you're alone, and life is making you lonely, you can always go...'
JERRY: '... downtown.'
GEORGE: 'Maybe you know some little places to go, where they never close...'
JERRY: '...downtown.'
GEORGE: Wait a second. 'Little places to go, where they never close.' What's a little place that never closes?
JERRY: Seven-eleven?
GEORGE: 'Just listen to the music of the traffic, in the city. Linger on the sidewalk, where the neon lights are pretty.' Where the neon lights are pretty. The Broadway area?
JERRY: No, that's midtown.
GEORGE: 'The lights are much brighter there. You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares, just go...'
JERRY: '...down town.'
GEORGE: 'Things'll be great, when you're...'
JERRY: '...downtown.'
GEORGE: I got nothing, Jerry. Nothing.
JERRY: Well, 'don't hang around and let your troubles surround you. There are movie shows...'
GEORGE: You think I should come clean? What d'you think, you think I should confess?
JERRY: How can you lose?
I love that scene.
The next pop culture reference is from just a few weeks ago. The opening scene of this season's Lost. It's interesting watching it again, because you can see subtle clues that Juliet is really the disgruntled employee in the whole "Other" hierarchy. I have no idea why they picked that particular song for the opening. Apparently their original choice was a Talking Heads song, but they couldn't get permission to use it, so they went with "Downtown" instead.
The third pop culture reference is the most obscure. It's from the 1993 art film Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould, about the eccentric Canadian classical pianist. According to Wiki, Gould apparently thought that Petula Clark was "the best female vocalist of his generation" and he "published several essays praising her talent and achievements."
I've never seen 32 Films, have you? I went through my art film phase years ago, I don't know if I could sit through it anymore.
1
Annie:
Have you noticed? No one gives a rat's ass about Petula Clark.
Posted by: shelly at November 17, 2006 05:36 AM (YadGF)
2
heh now, some of us like the old gal. Check this out, I was watching The Quiller Memorandum last night on TCM, and Downtown was playing in the background in the bowling alley scene. Very Kewl.
Posted by: Casca at November 18, 2006 06:42 PM (2gORp)
Petula Clark Fest, The Beatles?
I really can't stand The Beatles. So this next video was already at a disadvantage from my point of view. It's from the October 17, 1967, episode of The Hollywood Palace (see below for a description of that show).
In this number, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band consists of Petula Clark on triangle, Lynn Redgrave on cymbals, and Noel Harrison on bass drum.
Noel Harrison is the son of legendary stage actor Rex Harrison. You probably know his father as professor Henry Higgins from the film My Fair Lady. Anyway, Noel Harrison did a lot of tv work, but he also sang "The Windmills of Your Mind" in one of my favorite Steve McQueen movies ever, The Thomas Crown Affair.
I found all this out, by the way, through skilled cross-referencing of IMDb and Wikipedia.
Anyways, the following video is most notable for the way they butcher Sgt. Pepper, which is a song that under the best of circumstances will cause me to change the radio station whenever it comes on. But do watch the intro, because I have more trivia to tell you about that.
Did you recognize the guy at the beginning? Yes, that was the one and only George Sanders. I will always remember him best for his portrayal of Addison DeWitt, the duplicitious Broadway gossip columnist in All About Eve. But he also stood out in Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent and Rebecca, and as Lord Wotton in The Picture of Dorian Gray. George Sanders epitomized the sarcastically droll over-educated Englishman.
You might also know that George Sanders married two of the Gabor sisters. He famously commited suicide in 1972 near Barcelona, because he was simply bored. I don't doubt it, if he was taking jobs like the one in that video above.
Posted by: Scof at November 16, 2006 12:31 AM (LvTNO)
5
You people do know that beetles are cockroaches right? Eh, they had a few nice songs, but most of beetlemania was fueled by female hysteria, just like our common culture. Sgt Peppers = root canal.
Posted by: Casca at November 16, 2006 08:17 AM (Y7t14)
Posted by: Matt at November 16, 2006 08:18 AM (10G2T)
7
What's up with all you knuckle-draggers that don't like the greatest band of all-time? I have Revolver playing in my car CD right now - easily one of the greatest albums ever made. McCartney's arrangement of "Elenor Rigby" alone makes the album a classic. No other band has had a bigger impact on popular music. That's just a fact.
Posted by: blu at November 16, 2006 11:40 AM (w2RJn)
Posted by: annika at November 16, 2006 01:37 PM (wOZ8M)
9
I do love the Ramones. Public Enemy not so much. (Will anybody be listening to Public Enemy in 30 years?) And the Sex Pistols flat-out sucked. Not even very good musicians. But all very important I'll grant you. I still think critical opinion is overwhelmingly on my side especially from the perspective of musical arrangement and impact on bands that followed. Look at chord progressions and musical arrangements prior to and after The Beatles.
I'll just have to chalk up your errors to youth and inexperience ;-)
Posted by: blu at November 16, 2006 01:58 PM (w2RJn)
Posted by: annika at November 16, 2006 03:18 PM (zAOEU)
11
I think I see the problem here. Blu thinks pop music is actual, you know, music. Prolly digs Michael Jackson, too.
The Beatles made great elevator music. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Happy to be a knuckle-dragger at November 16, 2006 03:52 PM (10G2T)
12
This is so awesome...I thought I was the only person who doesn't like the Beatles!
Posted by: Sarah at November 20, 2006 05:59 AM (7Wklx)
Petula Clark Fest, The Homestretch
It's now the evening of Petula Clark Fest day! Did you know that there are seven pages of YouTube videos that have been tagged "Petula?" Because I'm so awesome, I have sifted through many of them so that I can bring you only the best.
Just in case you haven't gone crazy today with the song "Downtown" running through your head like some inexorable virus, here's another pretty good video. It's most notable for the perfectly bored young ladies with their perfectly bouffanted hairdos, circa 1964. I swear one of them looks exactly like Barbra.
Or, skip over that one and check out Petula's medley with Dean on The Dean Martin Show. Petula was Dean's guest five times and she even helped him to roast the great William Conrad once.
Petula Clark appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show twelve times. Here she is singing "My Love." This video is quite possibly her first appearance on the Sullivan show, March 14, 1965, since "My Love" hit number one on the Billboard Hot 100 a month earlier.
It's a catchy tune, though not my favorite. I wonder if perhaps Petula was annoyed at having to stand in one spot the entire time.
If you watched the interaction between Dean and Petula in the video above, you might have asked yourself, as I did: I wonder if he's bangin' her? Well, I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that they did end up in bed together. See below.
1
Well, that was just frickin' adorable. I always loved Petula Clark when I was a boy--that video made me jealous. They are both so comfortable in their abilities, just an ease of talent.
Posted by: DBrooks at November 15, 2006 09:25 PM (PlDdK)
2
BTW, did you notice she is wearing the same dress above with Dean that she wore in the video of Downtown from Top of the Pops? That would never happen today.
Posted by: DBrooks at November 15, 2006 09:33 PM (PlDdK)
3
Yes, DBrooks, I did notice that. Who could've anticipated YouTube back in the 60's?
Posted by: annika at November 15, 2006 09:38 PM (qQD4Q)
4
Annika - it so seems like Dean and Petula must have been banging it up. How affectionate and flirty and close they seemed - especially in that first clip. He keeps looking her up and down - she keeps looking him up and down.
I love that guy. DAMMIT. I don't care who knows.
Posted by: red at November 16, 2006 07:11 PM (vHp9U)
5
Also - it';s damn hard to sing when you're LYING DOWN.
Posted by: red at November 16, 2006 07:14 PM (vHp9U)
Here's a lovely production of the bilingual tune "This Is My Song." The clip is from the late 60's variety show The Hollywood Palace, of which Wiki says:
The Hollywood Palace was an hour-long television variety show produced by Nick Vanoff. It was broadcast weekly (generally on Saturday night) on ABC from January 4, 1964 to February 7, 1970. It began as a mid-season replacement for the short-lived Jerry Lewis Show, another variety show which had lasted only 3 months. It was staged at the El Capitan Theater in Los Angeles, which was renamed The Hollywood Palace during the show's duration.
Unlike similar programs such as The Ed Sullivan Show, guest hosts were used instead of a permanent one. Among the performers and hosts on the show were Bing Crosby, Bette Davis, Frank Sinatra, Milton Berle, Sammy Davis Jr., Sid Caesar, The Rolling Stones, Groucho Marx, Tony Bennett, Judy Garland, Jimmy Durante, The Supremes, Ginger Rogers, The Temptations, Phyllis Diller, and many other famous faces. The off-screen announcer for each program was Dick Tufeld.
A number of popular music performers got their start on the show. For example, The Rolling Stones made their first US television appearance June 13 1964, and The Jackson 5 made their first national television appearance on the October 14, 1969 episode of the show.
In a famous June 1964 telecast, controversy ensued when The Rolling Stones, upset with guest host Dean Martin's sarcastic comments directed at them throughout the program, refused to perform a second scheduled musical number. [links omitted]
Sounds like that was appointment tv, Sixties style.
Posted by: annika at
03:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.
Annika asked me to write an introduction today to Petula Clark's poem, "The Theatre." I immediately thought of her best known song, "Downtown" of course. Petula Clark is one of the most successful female artists of all time, just in terms of the number of hits she has had. After "Downtown", she had 15 consecutive Top 40 hits. That's insane. To me, it feels like she has always been there.
But I also thought about my aunt - who was in the Broadway show Blood Brothers with Petula, and understudied Petula's part. This was a big deal for my aunt, who had been in the business for years, but was making her Broadway debut in Blood Brothers. The entire O'Malley clan, the crowd of nieces and nephews, all flocked to New York to see my aunt on Broadway. Most of us are in the theatre as well, actors, directors, writers. We knew that the whole "one big break" thing is kind of a myth, that it often takes a couple of little breaks to lead to the REALLY big break, but still, it was very exciting to go see her.
We sat in the darkened theatre, and Petula was the lead, of course, and she was fantastic (great recording, by the way, if you like Petula Clark. It's definitely worth listening to) - but all we could see was our aunt, in her smaller part. Petula Smetula. LOOK AT OUR AUNT ON BROADWAY. If our aunt had a funny line, we all HOWLED with laughter. When our aunt made an entrance we all gripped hands together. Afterwards, we went backstage - there were about 15 of us - ranging in age from 25 to 7 years old (you know, Irish Catholic family). And there was Petula Clark. What I remember now, and what came up for me when Annika asked me to write this piece today - is how sweet she was to all of us, and also - how much she GOT that we were there for our AUNT, not for her. Ms. Clark put her arm around my aunt, and said to all of us, grinning, "Isn't she just marvelous?" It was like she was just another member of the ensemble. She's Petula freakin' Clark! But she also somehow understood that this was a big moment for my aunt, and she was supportive and cool about it. I always liked her for that. Another star would have sniffed at all the little kids clamoring backstage to see a cast member other than her! But Petula Clark just stood there, enjoying my aunt's success vicariously.
Enough about that. Annika sent me the poem below and I'll just say one or two quick things about it. It's obviously not a very good poem, just in terms of language or form. It's not T.S. Eliot. But I found it strangely touching, because of its sincerity. It doesn't have any pretension (which is more than you can say for a lot of poetry!) It is honest. Perhaps I can relate to it because I grew up in a theatrical family, and I am an actress myself. She is speaking about my life, about something that is important to me.
more...
Posted by: gcotharn at November 15, 2006 03:47 PM (Rhyyb)
3
I agree: Technically, the poem leaves a little something to be desired. But if it speaks to you--then it's not really that bad a poem.
Delightful post, Sheila.
Posted by: Victor at November 16, 2006 07:37 AM (WHtgF)
Petula Clark Fest: Sign Of The Times
Fans of British roadsters, goofy choreography, 60's mod fashion, and lip-synching will love this one.
The dancing is like a characature of an Austin Powers number. But I have an even more outlandishly choreographed YouTube clip in the queue, stay tuned.
I love 60's fashion. It reminds me of that movie Blow Up. Did you ever see it? I saw it a few months ago on TCM. It's a wild movie about a British fashion photographer in the 60's. I can't even imagine what it must have been like to be young and hip in the early 60's. There was this veneer of innocence and exhuberance, yet under the surface was all this shit that exploded later on in the decade. Sign of the times.
Posted by: Victor at November 15, 2006 11:12 AM (WHtgF)
2
The 60's mod clothes I'm iffy about, but I think it is their mutation in the 70's that is responsible for the ugliness of that decade. There is not an uglier decade than the 70's. Everything is brown and yellow and green with wide ties with wider stripes and stupid ass turtlenecks and nylon pants and big ass collars and shit, only thing good about the decade was the Streets of San Francisco...
Posted by: Scof at November 15, 2006 11:45 AM (a3fqn)
3
And Joe Don Baker movies! Scof, how can you forget JOE DON BAKER MOVIES!?!?!?
Posted by: Victor at November 15, 2006 12:32 PM (WHtgF)
4
Check out the guy under the car! His choreography is cracking me up - you can't even see his head.
Posted by: red at November 15, 2006 01:20 PM (opupt)
5
Annika,
Did you notice the photographer was a young David Hemmings who went on to really big things as Robert Vaughn's partner on the "The Man From Uncle"? Vaughn is currently in a very enjoyable series on BBC America called "Hustle".
Posted by: Strawman at November 15, 2006 02:42 PM (9ySL4)
6
I didn't realize that. Although I've never seen the Man from UNCLE. Blow Up is one of those movies that when it's over you think "what just happened?" and then you're forced to re-think what it was all about. Because it's not about a murder, which is what you think its about while youre watching. It's actually a really sophisticated commentary on that particular society. Plus Vanessa Redgrave is fantastic in it.
Posted by: annika at November 15, 2006 03:23 PM (zAOEU)
7
I forgot about ol' Joe Don! its probably because I'm still bitter over not winning the haiku contest, mine was the best. damn't.
Posted by: Scof at November 15, 2006 03:34 PM (a3fqn)
8
Robert Vaughn's partner on "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." was David McCallum, not David Hemmings.
BTW, "Blow-Up" was remade as "Blow Out" in 1981, starring John Travolta as a sound engineer who stumbles upon a murder.
Posted by: Your Protagonist at November 17, 2006 10:54 AM (gpGTB)
Petula Clark Fest!
Not only is today Poetry Wednesday, but it's Petula Clark's birthday! She turns 74 today, and she's still performing and just released a Christmas album.
Petula Clark . . . is an English singer, actress and composer, best known for her upbeat popular international hits of the 1960s. With nearly 70 million recordings sold worldwide, she is the most successful British female solo recording artist to date. She also holds the distinction of having the longest span on the international pop charts of any artist—51 years—from 1954, when "The Little Shoemaker" made the UK Top Twenty, through 2005, when her CD "L'essentiel - 20 Succès Inoubliables" charted in Belgium. [links omitted]
So today is Petula Clark Fest day at Annika's Journal. In lieu of balloons, cotton candy and rides for the kiddies, I will just post some YouTube videos. Plus, today's poem is the one and only poem written by Petula Clark, and I have a very special guest blogger to introduce it!
So lets start the festivities with Downtown, from the British variety show Top of the Pops:
Two things impress me about that clip. One, no lip-synching and the band rocks! And two, the male dancers are frikkin' hilarious! They're like George Michael meets James Bond. (Actually if you think those dancers were funny, wait til you see what I got for you later today.)
Spin Digest
It's almost a week since the election and the punditry has coalesced into two distinct themes. I'll digest them for you right now, so you can enjoy the rest of the week without having to bother with the news at all.
The Right: Republicans lost because they didn't try to please the conservative base. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that most Americans are pissed about Iraq, don't believe the President's "stay the course" line anymore, and think it's time to either win or get out. No, the election was really about prescription drug entitlements.
The Left: Not only is Nancy Pelosi really smart and a grandmother, she isn't liberal at all. She's actually a centrist. All Americans are ecstatic that she's in charge of the country. Except for those Republicans, who are very sad. On the other hand, George H. W. Bush is in charge of the country, which would normally be bad, except we like him now.
Take the rest of the week off, but don't forget to visit here as often as possible for more essential analysis.
1
Great analysis Annika and I think the jury is still out on why the republicans lost and the democrats won. I love the concept that winners have (some number, 100 perhaps?) loads of fathers and losers are orphans. If you were to ask me, and so far exactly no one has... the lack of passion is why the republicans lost. Hurricane Katrina all by itself is enough for the republicans to have gotten their heads handed to then. Add Duke Cunningham (one of my heros from VN I was in country working on F4's when he became an ace) a old guy going off to jail for influence peddling, Tom Delay's problems and Mark Foley hitting on boys? Its a miracle that there are any republicans left on capital hill. The thing I'd be seriously worried about if I were George Bush nowadays is being impeached as he's got no friends on the Hill. This is the same senerio that caused the downfall of Richard Nixon and for a number of reasons didn't cause it for Bill Clinton. It should be an interesting 2 years...
Posted by: Drake Steel at November 13, 2006 11:04 PM (5uuIt)
2
Annika,
I don't think the issue of how smart she is or just how she is, is really so important. Smart people do stupid things all the time and the inverse is equally frequent.
Is Bill Frist a smart guy? Presumably he is, being a doctor and all that goes with that. But whaaat was he doing when he jumped on the Teri Schiavo band wagon and went so far as to proffer an emphatic diagnosis with out examining her or her records? It was stupid not to mention cruel and politically motivated. Smart as he may be he was at the mercy of his black hearted desire to position himself in this matter in a way he thought would be benificial to the Party and his personal political asperations. As the psychiatrist that saw Carmela SOprano that one time might ask Bill, "so how is that going?"
Smart ain't all its cracked up to be. It is all to often trumped by ambition, carelessness and avarice. These are componants of character, a far more important issue than smart.
Posted by: Strawman at November 14, 2006 09:36 AM (9ySL4)
3
liberal is the missing word in the first sentence
Posted by: Strawman at November 14, 2006 09:37 AM (9ySL4)
4
A circumstance beyond our control, oh oh oh oh
The phone, the tv and the news of the world
Got in the house like a pigeon from hell, oh oh oh oh
Threw sand in our eyes and descended like flies
Posted by: fav song at November 14, 2006 11:17 AM (a3fqn)
5
"Smart ain't all its cracked up to be. It is all to [sic]often trumped by ambition, carelessness and avarice. These are componants of character, a far more important issue than smart."
I agree. Bill Clinton taught us that years ago.
Posted by: blu at November 14, 2006 12:20 PM (w2RJn)
6
Blu,
That is quite true. But if your thinking that W on the other hand is dull witted, uneducated, poorly spoken, but has a good character you are mistaken.
Posted by: Strawman at November 14, 2006 01:51 PM (9ySL4)
7
Nope - not thinking that. After all, he's hardly dull-witted and is certainly very well-educated. Wouldn't make any sense now would it? Thanks for making things more cogent for other readers, however.
Posted by: blu at November 14, 2006 02:51 PM (w2RJn)
MNF Pick, Week X
Tonight we have Tampa Bay at Carolina. Tampa Bay's record is 2 and 6. Carolina is 4 and 4. Ho-hum. I don't even plan to watch the game. I got a lot of DVR to catch up on.
The Panthers are heavy favorites, at 10 points across the board. Ninety-three percent of Yahoo! Pick'em users think Carolina will win. As always, the question is will they cover.
Carolina has held a fourth-quarter lead in seven games, and lost three of them. Overall, the Panthers have been outscored 104-42 in second halves and 77-30 in fourth quarters.
Said Smith after the loss to Dallas, "When we get up 14 points, sometimes we act like it's a hundred points."
This game is a great opportunity for the Bucs to improve their record. I'm still waiting to see last year's defense emerge. Tampa Bay has been a horrible first half team, and Carolina is a horrible second half team. I think it evens out, with Carolina winning, but not covering the spread. Last time these two teams met, seven weeks ago, Carolina won by two points.
Therefore, take Tampa Bay plus the ten points.
Update: Thanks Ronde. Way to cover your man. Grrrr.
1
Just a freakin' minute there missy. Number ONE is going to stomp the wolverine shit out of number two, hehehe number two, on Saturday, and you've said nada. There are some bitches around here who need to be slapped. Did someone say Scof, who threw down his lunch money without even getting points on the Ann Arbor rodents? The line is -6 on the Buckeyes now. I plan to do my big betting at the end of the week after the rest of the retards and Buckeye haters beat that down to about -3. LMAO, three TD's is more like it! But idiots have money, and they must bet it.
Oh yes, and where is that Steer & Queer lover Kyle at? He like the longhorn hopes are gone with the wind, humiliated at the hands of Kansas Fucking State! Colt McCoy looked like a kid waiting for the "special" bus as he stood on the sidelines, lmao. Oh yes, they're MUCH better than when they played the Buckeyes. Keep repeating those words of affirmation, and we'll be looking for you in the Outback Bowl doing a rematch of last year with USC.
Cause now we're looking for Cal to produce a quality win on Saturday night against USC, so USC can thump the green dwarfs the following Saturday. That should get the top ten unfucked, except for those BEast teams. WTF let those losers in? Rutgers ranked ahead of Ohio State by the computers? Figures don't lie... but sometimes they fly in the face of reason. I guess Rutgers is as good as anyone to scrape off the bottom of our cleats in January.
Posted by: Casca at November 13, 2006 07:34 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: annika at November 13, 2006 08:09 PM (qQD4Q)
3
Heh now, buck up, we need you guys to come through in the clutch here, not choke like UCLA. It's REALLY hard to have an undefeated season. Particularly if you don't own the officials and sportswriters like USC does. Cal needs to prove they're men first before they can be champs. They need to beat USC. Until then, think about this:
•29:34 — Time, out of 660 game minutes, Ohio State has trailed this season.
•17:15 — Time that Michigan has been behind.
•329 — Rushing yards allowed all season by Michigan.
•21 — Passes intercepted this season by Ohio State.
•104-13 — Ohio State's first-quarter combined score in 11 games.
•86-23 — Michigan's combined score.
•24-24-2 — Michigan-Ohio State series in last 50 years.
•9 — Unbeaten seasons ruined in past Michigan-Ohio State games.
•5-8 — Record of team coming in with the higher Associated Press ranking in
this series since 1993.
•0 — Previous Michigan-Ohio State games to feature No. 1 vs. No. 2.
•1 — Games in the last 40 years in which both Michigan and Ohio State came
into the game unranked (1987).
•2,191 and 1,932 — Passing yardage this season for Ohio State quarterback
Troy Smith and Michigan quarterback Chad Henne.
•343 and 534 — Passing yards all season for Ohio State quarterback Cornelius
Greene and Michigan quarterback Dennis Franklin in 1973, last time these
teams met as unbeatens. They didn't call those offenses "3 yards and a cloud
of dust" for nothing.
•6 — Losses Michigan had to Ohio State and Ohio State had to Michigan in the
13 seasons between 1968-80.
•5 — Losses Michigan and Ohio State each had to the rest of the Big Ten
combined in those 13 seasons.
•1967 — Last game not a sellout.
•2-10-1 — John Cooper's record against Michigan from 1988-2000.
•4-1 — Jim Tressel's record since taking over for Cooper.
Posted by: Casca at November 13, 2006 09:06 PM (2gORp)
4
OK, I've been on overload this week with clients, but here's my take: Casca has lost it. The water in Columbus is definitely tainted and he drank too much of it.
Cal is going to get a thrashing. We don't like them and they are coming to our house where we have not lost a game in five years. Plus, their star running back has ankles like Annika and cannot stay healthy. Plus, our defense has found its soul and gets better every game. Plus Booty has clicked with Jarret and Smith and they have it down pat. Six points is a steal; we'll be up three touchdowns by the end of the third quarter and putting in the fourth string.
We're gonna be in Glandale on January 8, folks, and we're gonmna take OSU and their Midwest crap and stuff them.
P.S. What ever happened to two paragraphs, Casca? Did you fall off your German Tricycle again without your helmet on?
Posted by: shelly at November 14, 2006 07:46 PM (SLFj+)
5
That's my limit on reading, not writing. Mwahahaha, there's nothing I'll relish more than to see USC limp into Glendale with their dirty skirts.
Now perhaps you'd like to step up to the betting window, and put some of that hot air on the team you'll mostly likely face in Pasadena on New Years Day, Michigan. The line is -6.
Posted by: Casca at November 14, 2006 10:18 PM (2gORp)
6
The mere color blue is enough to turn me off; forget it. Why should I bet against the second best team in America playing about the fifth or sixth best.
No, I like OSU in this one; you guys need to be virginal for Glendale.
But, you are welcome to take six points and Cal if you like.
Posted by: shelly at November 15, 2006 05:41 PM (SLFj+)
7
Bye the bye:
OSU is a full 7 points pal. Nice try.
Posted by: shelly at November 15, 2006 06:22 PM (SLFj+)
8
Wow, what a Defense. Only gave up 39 points. Tressel must be very proud.
This game only proves one thing: You don't have to pay off the quarterback or a reciever or ball carrier to fix a game or shave points; you just need to get to the center.
Posted by: Shelly at November 18, 2006 06:08 PM (SLFj+)
Despite Recent Unpleasantness, Saddam Still Popular With Liberals
I won't dirty my blog with video of Bill Mahr, but I do want you to check out this clip, on YouTube. It's called "Farewell to Douchebags," and it's a look back at some faces we've probably seen the last of (or not).
Mahre sets it up by noting how they do the same thing during the Oscars each year, with the dead person reel. Some people inevitably get more applause than others, and sometimes there's an audible pause while people decide how much acclamation to bestow. Mar gives an example "they go, oh DeForest Kelly . . . okay we liked him"
Now watch the video and listen to the hearty applause given at Tom Delay's or Karl Rove's pictures and then compare it to the uncomfortable semi-silence at Saddam Hussein's picture. The audience was like "uh uh do we cheer? oh shit, shit whatdowedo?!" It's liberal brain lock.
1
Bill Mahr is the "liberal I'd like most to punch."
The studied arrogance mixed with the pseudo-intellectualism make it impossible NOT to want to bitch-slap the no talent ass clown.
Posted by: blu at November 12, 2006 05:12 PM (w2RJn)
2
"pseudo-intellectualism"? I guess someone who went to Cornell (ivy league) cannot be an intellectual. He is quite talented by the way. Blu, you might feel the urge to clown him probably because some of his jokes bring truth and humor at the same time - why does that bother you?
Posted by: Derek at November 12, 2006 08:03 PM (qrKVb)
3
talk about a smirk. wallace has nothing on this guy.
Posted by: annika at November 12, 2006 08:47 PM (qQD4Q)
4
Wow! Cornel!! Really? Gee, my opinion of that idiot has really changed now. For now on, I'll just ignore his lame jokes and the ad hominem attacks he substitutes for rational argument.
Tell ya what, Derek, many of us that chime in at Annika's brilliant blog have multiple degrees from prestigious schools. Does that make us intellectuals?
And what really bothers me is that Mahr is, at best, a second-rate humorist and certainly no more than a third-rate "intellectual," who pretends to be both and then demands to be taken seriously by those who call him on his sophistry -his nice little BA from an "Ivy League" school notwithstanding.
BTW, Al Franken went to even a better school (Harvard), and he's an even bigger idiot. (And, though it might seem improbable, even less funny.)
Posted by: blu at November 12, 2006 09:42 PM (w2RJn)
5
Blu,
I just think you wish you could crack wise and in poor humor on TV and this is all sour grapes. Go tell Moxie how her Cornell degree is no better than Mr. Mahr's.
I think he is pretty funny and usually watch and get a few good laughs notwithstanding his smirk, smarm and the clear appreciation he has for himself.
Posted by: Strawman at November 13, 2006 07:54 AM (9ySL4)
Posted by: Scof at November 13, 2006 09:59 AM (a3fqn)
7
"notwithstanding his smirk, smarm and the clear appreciation he has for himself."
True dat....
Posted by: blu at November 13, 2006 10:37 AM (j8oa6)
8
Actually, Straw, instead of watching trash like Mahr, you should check out Andy Garcia's "The Lost City" and get an artistic glimpse of the terror imposed by your heroes in Cuba.
Posted by: blu at November 13, 2006 01:29 PM (w2RJn)
9
blu,
First off, Andy Garcia is an unwatchable actor. Skin crawlingly bad.
In spite of that i did see, I think, most or part of Lost City. I thought it just another personal ax to grind lament by the deposed gentry who really only care for rights with regard to earning money but couch their displeasure with socialism in terms of the human spirit. Basically the same bullshit that our govt. always uses when it is itching to depose a government that is leaving the sphere of Capitalism i.e. Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, Iraq, etc. We don't differentiate fascist from communist. If they have declared themselves to be in the other camp, the camp that denies the establishment of sweat shops, bottling plants for coke or Pepsi, extractors etc. and generally refuses to allow their population to be exploited and their terrain to be raped for the profit of off-shore partners then they become enemies of democracy. Look how well Nigeria is doing with all their oil wealth. Manly of Jamaica was declared a commie because he wouldnÂ’t let the bauxite extractors run roughshod. Cuba would be in the same shape if not for the revolution. Gambling, prostitution, organized crime, tourist trade, hotel workers, peasants picking fruit for American growers, oh, and maybe some parliamentary democracy that had no commitment to governing for the people.
Posted by: Strawman at November 13, 2006 02:21 PM (9ySL4)
10
I love baiting you into defending those murderous thugs. Reminds folks how truly unhinged your politics are.
The film was fair to the history. It showed Batista and his allies for the thugs they were; but then went on to show how much worse off Cuba and its people were/are once Che and his butchers started with their "ends justify the means" insanity. Aside from that, though, the film was a vehicle to show people the beauty of Cuban music.
Posted by: blu at November 13, 2006 03:16 PM (w2RJn)
11
BLu,
Would you not call Iraq "ends justify the means" insanity??
Posted by: Strawman at November 13, 2006 04:43 PM (9ySL4)
12
Annika,
The applause meter thing with Rove and DeBug is quite right if you sit and think carefully. Of the three Saddam did the least damage to America.
Posted by: Strawman at November 13, 2006 04:47 PM (9ySL4)
13
I think you incorrectly assume that the typical Mar audience has the same capacity for rational thought that you do, Straw.
Posted by: annika at November 13, 2006 06:32 PM (qQD4Q)
14
I riPed ofF All my pewbick hairs with my bear hands after reEding that up abbove..
Posted by: Spanky at November 13, 2006 08:11 PM (dFOlH)
15
Straw,
If you can't see the difference between enslaving people under the yoke of totalitarianism and delivering them from it, then you're a moral neophyte.
Posted by: blu at November 13, 2006 08:35 PM (w2RJn)
16
Blu,
The only problem with your rejoinder is that NOBODY has been delivered from tyranny and the price for delivering NOBODY has been very high. We have been throwing lead lifesavers to people that were still swimming.
Posted by: Strawman at November 14, 2006 08:19 AM (9ySL4)
17
Yeah, the non-Sunnis in the Sadaam era weren't under tyranny. May I suggest, perhaps, I history book. Or maybe a talk with anybody that managed to escape Sadaam's Iraq. It's one thing to complain about the U.S. war strategy and offer a critique of the current DEMOCRATICALLY elected government in Iraq; it's quite another to re-write history.
Posted by: blu at November 14, 2006 11:25 AM (w2RJn)
Posted by: blu at November 14, 2006 10:16 PM (w2RJn)
20
We've thrown everybody into a caldron of chaos, fear and insecurity and have no idea how to set it straight. No fucking idea. Oh, they voted so they can go to their graves licking blue fingers. Sounds like 72 virgins to me.
Posted by: Strawman at November 19, 2006 07:00 PM (9ySL4)
1
Wow! i began to fall asleep but it is quite sweet track if you are into this sort of easy listening music.
I am more into funk, house and electro.
But on a sunday morning bit of classical music will not go amiss!.
Honestly, it is not a bad track
goodluck222
Posted by: charles keel at November 12, 2006 06:32 AM (qb1FB)
Posted by: annika at November 12, 2006 11:15 AM (MktKo)
3
Very cool Annikster cat. Are you sure you're not my age?
Posted by: Mike C. at November 12, 2006 07:19 PM (Eodj2)
4
Wow. I almost burned my house down, but it's quite a sweet track if you are into this sort of bluegrass music.
I'm more into headbanger, heavy metal and techno.
But on a Monday morning, a bit of country and western will not go amiss:;!!.
Honestly, it's not a bad track.
Goodnight666
Posted by: DBrooks at November 13, 2006 07:41 AM (PlDdK)
Posted by: Casca at November 13, 2006 08:23 AM (NmR1a)
6
Thanks much for posting this vid. We're big Blossom fans in this house, and though I've heard the track many times, I'd never seen Blossom perform. So nice. Even my daughter (10) can pick out her voice. The next step for her is to tell the difference between Blossom and Stacey Kent.
Love your blog.
Posted by: bluemoonpaul at November 13, 2006 09:34 PM (1daqY)
7
hello..great blog..my first visit...love Petula and im a HUGE fan of Blossom Dearie..ive seen her a couple of times...thanks for the clips..im not sure what your relationship (cousin??) to Sheila O'Malley is..but i've been one her best friends for MANY years...if we havent met..nice to meet you and great stuff..thanks!!!
Posted by: mitchell at November 15, 2006 09:49 PM (YadGF)
Brittany Dumped K-Fed By Text Message
Just heard about this:
A video of Britney Spears' soon-to-be ex-husband apparently getting a text message informing him that the pop princess had filed for divorce became the most viewed item on the YouTube Internet site on Thursday, with more than 1 million hits.
The Web video shows Federline taping a reality television show and talking about Spears being his biggest fan -- until he gets a text message. Then he puts his head in his hands, rips off his microphone and disappears, returning 30 minutes later visibly upset.
Posted by: Casca at November 11, 2006 07:43 AM (2gORp)
3
Actually it's Canadian television, sooooo I guess their next.
Posted by: TBinSTL at November 11, 2006 12:35 PM (MSiPb)
4
Once more we see that women are inherently cold and evil. They seek out vulnerable men for the express purpose of dragging them out into public and humiliating them.
That's the thanks we get for letting them vote!
Posted by: TBinSTL at November 12, 2006 12:59 AM (MSiPb)
5
I normally don't comment on post of this type, but I could help but see this as true 'reality' TV.
Posted by: will at November 12, 2006 05:15 AM (h7Ciu)
6
I found myself laughing my --- off watching this. Ain't technology wonderful?
Posted by: Mike C. at November 12, 2006 07:24 PM (Eodj2)
7
Artists play different parts not only in their professional lives, but in their private lives, too. Tears and running away won't make him the great star he wants to be. Anyway, their relationship won't last long.
Posted by: Scof at November 10, 2006 10:56 AM (a3fqn)
5
Happy Birthday, teufel hunden!
Andy, you started when I did and stayed two years longer. East or West?
Posted by: Matt at November 10, 2006 12:43 PM (10G2T)
6
I'm sitting here surfing and drinking some Jarhead Red, produced by the Marines at the Firestone Vineyards, and posting about the Marine Marathon and the opening of the new Marine's Museum in Virginia.
Semper Fi and God Bless the Marines!
Posted by: irishlass at November 11, 2006 12:21 AM (BPJO6)
7
I've had Jarhead Red, and I've had an Irish lass... both surpassed my expectations.
Who knew that Scof was one of the misguided children, semper fi mac.
Posted by: Casca at November 11, 2006 07:51 AM (2gORp)
8
Happy belated birthday wishes to my fellow Marines, both current and former. And Happy Veterans Day to all of us, regardless of branch.
USMC
1965-1969
G/2/5 and G/2/7
1966-1967
Posted by: Muddley at November 11, 2006 12:12 PM (WCg0/)
9
231 years of ignorant Nazis!
BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!
Posted by: Barry the Great at November 11, 2006 02:26 PM (Rwro7)
10
Barry, I'm sure that your dick would fit nicely in my pencil sharpener. I'll have to introduce you to it sometime, before I present your well deserved Darwin Award to you, cockslot.
Posted by: Spanky at November 11, 2006 03:35 PM (dFOlH)
11
Barry's name links to a Ted Rall site. If you don't know him, have a look. The guy is a certified nutball - Barry obviously follows in his footsteps.
Posted by: blu at November 11, 2006 05:23 PM (w2RJn)
12
Matt,
I was West: (Wpns Co, 2nd Battalion, 1st Mar Div). First two year I was on barracks duty in London. I went to the infantry after that.
Posted by: Andy at November 13, 2006 10:14 AM (zGJwm)
13
2/1, eh? I don't know many West Coast guys. I had a few buddies in 11th Marines, one in 1st Tanks. I wouldn't be surprised if you bumped into a couple of my TBS classmates at some point, though.
Posted by: Matt at November 13, 2006 04:29 PM (10G2T)
1
Random comment then:
Damn that Lousiville quarterback!
Posted by: Scof at November 09, 2006 09:21 PM (LvTNO)
2
About time we got back to something important! Dawn Summers... isn't she some kind of dumb bitch?
LMAO, so I awake from my old man nap at the end of the first half of the game, and Rutgers is down big. I'm comforted that I slept through the betting window since I was going to bet them as the dog. What a great second half! So much for the NOT-SO Big East.
Posted by: Casca at November 09, 2006 09:39 PM (2gORp)
3
Almost sounds as if he'd been waiting to make that joke ever since he opened the envelope.
Posted by: Victor at November 10, 2006 06:52 AM (WHtgF)
I Blame Bush
No one loves and supports this President more than I do. But after yesterday's debacle I have to say it: I blame Bush.
It was a debacle, and don't let anybody tell you different. The voters threw forty Republicans out of office, and they would have thrown Bush out too, if they'd only had the chance. Not a single Democratic incumbent lost, and the carnage would have been much worse if it had not been for Gerrymandering.
Clinton's famous catch phrase was, "It's the economy, stupid." It's pretty obvious that the American people sent a message this year, and the message was, "It's the war, stupid." That there are Republicans out there who failed to hear this message is one of the truly astounding things about yesterday's election.
Hugh Hewitt is the prime example. Don't get me wrong, Hugh Hewitt knows more about government and politics that I could ever hope to learn. His radio show is the highlight of my listening day. And he has done amazing work for the party before, as he will again. But Hugh's Townhall column today was so clueless, I think he must need some time off.
In an essay that's 1,351 words long, Hugh failed to cite the Iraq War even once as a possible cause for the Republicans being thrown out on their asses yesterday. Instead, incredibly, he blames John McCain:
The post-mortems are accumulating, but I think the obvious has to be stated: John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority while the conduct of a handful of corrupt House members gave that body's leadership [to] the Democrats.
That's an incredible example of denial. Look, I'm no McCain fan. I've already placed on the record my vow never to vote for him, even in a general election. But what percentage of swing voters — the middle third who decided this election — do you think even know what the Gang of 14 was? Not many, I'd wager. And how many of these swing voters would eagerly admit that the Iraq War was their number one issue? I'd say virtually all of them.
Listen carefully to what I'm saying. The principled base might have been pissed off at Republican betrayals, but the base still turned out yesterday. The middle third, the independents, the swing voters, they're who I'm talking about. They're the ones who led the revolt, and their issue was the War. Any one of you can verify this for yourself by asking a few questions around the water cooler.
I'm not saying that we Republicans lost because Americans want to cut and run. Don't believe that bullshit. I absolutely do not believe that the majority of Americans think their country is engaged in an immoral war. I believe that Americans wouldn't really care whether there were WMD in Iraq, if the war was over and won by now. Most Americans want to win, and they can't understand why we haven't yet. The 2004 election was America's rejection of the hate-America crowd who believe the Iraq War was wrong, immoral, what have you. Those people are a loud but small minority. In 2004, Americans made a different choice and said to the President, "We're sticking with you, now go get it done."
And the problem this time around was that, two years later, the President still had not gotten it done.
We can blame the media all we want. We can blame the Cindy Sheehans and the Michael Moores and the Jimmy Carters and the Kos Kids and the George Soroses all we want. They deserve blame. But the fact remains, George W. Bush was handed a vote of confidence by the American people in 2004, and he did not get the job done. Not only that, he took our patience for granted.
The patience of a Democratic people is a historically fickle thing. It would be nice if it weren't so fickle, but it is. And that's part of the ground that President Bush had to fight on. You can't excuse it by saying, as we've heard for three years now, "It's hard work. Stay the course. Stay the course." Americans demand results. We're willing to sacrifice; we're willing to be patient; we're willing to trust our leaders. But ultimately, we demand results.
And 105 brave souls lost in the last month is not results.
We can say that the media is not reporting the real progess being made in Iraq, and I believe that's true. But at some point you gotta ask, "Can we stop with the building schools and the passing out candy, and just win this thing — and get our people home?"
President Bush's task is often compared by people on my side of the aisle to Lincoln's task during the Civil War. Lincoln is said to have stood firm in the face of vehement opposition. He stayed the course during the darkest days, and won through to victory. But the comparison, as it looks right now, is not an apt one. Lincoln fired a shitload of generals. Lincoln demanded results, and eventually he got results. Look, I love Rumsfeld for the way he talked back to the media. I was willing to support Rummy through thick and thin, despite what the generals thought of him. But the war plan was Rumsfeld's baby, and as soon as he stopped getting results, he should have been gone.
I understand that the enemy adapts. I get it. But to use a football analogy, we're sick of the three and outs. We need to see some first downs here, guys.
I supported the decision to go to war against Saddam. Even knowing what I know now, I still support that decision. But my support is given with the assumption that we're in it to win. We simply must win. As I said before, there is no third way in Iraq.
Victory in Iraq — let's just call it "success" at this point — should be defined like this: any situation in Iraq that would enable us to bring our troops home without everything we've done in the last three and a half years falling to pieces once we leave. I'm not sure that the Democrats have any idea how to accomplish this, but I also know that the President sure as shit hasn't gotten us there yet.
So that's why we Republicans lost the House and Senate yesterday. There's plenty of other reasons you can cite to me, and they're all valid criticisms, I'm sure. Culture of corruption, Foleygate, Delaygate, etc. Dubai Ports, Harriet Meiers, even the Gang of 14, if you like. The Bridge to Nowhere, earmarks, amnesty, Hurricane Katrina, whatever. The list goes on and on. But there's one thing I'll argue 'til I'm out of breath. The American people would have forgiven any of those things — hell, all of those things — if only we knew that our boys were coming home soon, and victorious.
1
I think you are exactly right. When a company doesn't perform, you don't blame the stock boy, you blame the CEO. When the party gets its collective ass kicked, you look to the party leader. I think Bush's press conference today was one of the best appearances of his Presidency. Maybe if he had learned a few of these lessons a couple years ago, we would be celebrating yet another Republican sweep.
Posted by: Frank at November 08, 2006 09:31 PM (thL0H)
Posted by: reagan80 at November 08, 2006 09:32 PM (dFOlH)
3
Well said, annika.
My biggest gripe with the Bush administration has been it's inability (or flat unwillingness) to use the bully pulpit a la FDR in building and maintaining support for the war effort.
And the inability/unwillingness to adapt has had me banging my head on walls for months.
Posted by: KG at November 08, 2006 10:38 PM (AC0TE)
4
KG, you are exactly right. The failure of Dubyah's administration is the failure to communicate and thus failure to lead. The perception of futility, true or not, is a very dangerous thing. You'd think that they never lived through the Clinton years, where all we got was nonstop 24/7 lies to feed the media cycle. So much for Rovian brilliance. Ya gotta feed the beast.
Posted by: Casca at November 09, 2006 12:23 AM (2gORp)
5
Annie - Well put, but Frist and Hastert have to take blame as well. When only 16 percent of Americans approve of the job you're doing, you should expect to take a hit if you are in charge (worst approval rating for Congress ever according to WSJ/NBC poll).
As for the efficacy of the bully-pulpit, I agree the President has not done a good job in even making most the U.S. government, let alone the American people, be involved in this war. Although Clausewitz and Sun-Tzu are perhaps over-quoted, there is merit to the notion of knowing the conflict you are entering, including knowing yourself and the enemy. Read the following:
The Iraq Syndrome
John Mueller
Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005
Posted by: Col Steve at November 09, 2006 02:06 AM (CtqPV)
6
Very well put, Annika. Like you, I like and support GWB. My one real problem with him has been, as Casca and KG say above, his failure to consistently and persuasively make the case for our efforts in Iraq. What has begun to really concern me is the idea that, in additon to the President's acknowledged difficulties communicating effectively, perhaps a much more serious problem is he really doesn't have an effective strategy to communicate. I completely agree with you that the American people might dislike many of the Republican foibles you list, but that all of that would have been overlooked if they saw real, demonstrable progress in Iraq. Your allusion to three and outs vs. a few first downs is well chosen. There are many people who just want to get out of Iraq, but there are almost certainly more who want to see us get more agressive, and, as you say, "just win this thing." By God, I am one of them. If it appeared to the public that we were winning this thing, the Republicans would have cruised through Tuesday's election.
Posted by: DBrooks at November 09, 2006 06:44 AM (PlDdK)
7
So riddle me this... why is it that the Democrat nominee in CT who is anti-war lost so badly to the formerly-Democrat-now-independant candidate who supports the war in Iraq?
I think the war was a major part of it, but scandal after scandal and no restraint on the size of the gov't... it was too much. Talk to your water cooler coworkers and find out what they want to happen. I'll bet they're just like you, they want victory and they want the troops home. But both sides want that.
The Republicans lost their way and stopped standing for what got them in power. Victory over Iraq is not what got them in power.
Posted by: Darkmage at November 09, 2006 07:34 AM (Ly6MF)
8
Annika,
Well reasoned, cogent thinking about the loss. I agree, if any demonstrable progress had been made in Iraq, Americans, the tack sharp and attentative group that they are would have let all the malfeasance, pedophilia, graft, bridges to nowhere, and other trespasses against Democracy heaped on America pass. When manipulated by fear, trumped up as it was, they will always lick the hand of the one who promises protection like the dog that was beaten hours before.
I, as you well know and care less, do not feel the invasion was the least bit necessary and given how it could not be justified without resorting to lies and cherry picked "intel", neither did the Bush gang. They have paid the price in a limited way. Losing control of the legislature is a small price to pay for the destruction of Iraq, 20,000 maimed and 3000 dead Americans. (I'll leave the Iraqi's out of this since none of you give a shit about them). When and if Bush is tossed into the dock, pronounced a criminal on the scale of, lets say Saddam (who was responsible for far fewer deaths and far less destruction), and sentenced to hang, then I'll be confidant he paid the price for his decisions.
Posted by: Strawman at November 09, 2006 08:05 AM (9ySL4)
9
You're trackbacks don't work. So, this will have to suffice.
Posted by: Robbie at November 09, 2006 08:18 AM (foLp3)
10
If you trust exit polls, Lieberman won because:
2/3rds of the voters were 45 yrs or older and they went mid-50% for Lieberman while Lamont only got mid-30's.
44% of the voters said Bush was not the dominant factor and 15% said they supported Bush -Lieberman got 70% of both those groups' vote.
Even of those who strongly (46%) or somewhat (20%) disapproved of the war in Iraq, Lieberman still got 30% and 62% respectively.
Lieberman got 55% of the independent vote.
And most telling, almost 60% said Lamont did not have enough experience and Lieberman got 75% of that vote (and the Republican got most of the rest). 15% of the 40% who thought Lamont had enough experience still voted for Lieberman.
In other words, Lamont needed to offer more than we differ on the war.
Annie -
I don't completely agree on the 3 and out analogy. If we are using football, I believe the more appropriate reference is people don't know where the first down markers and the goal line are. We have had a National Strategy for Victory in Iraq since Nov 2005 and I bet 999 out of 1000 people couldn't name the 3 broad tracks and the main objective under each. Every now and then the President will say "we've trained X number of Iraqis" but there is no context for that statement. In the football analogy, the team has had a 5 yard gain but nobody is sure if we are in in 3rd and short or 3rd and long.
Read Ralph Peter's op-ed in USA Today (2 Nov) -- and recall Hamilton's discussion in Federalist Papers #23: "means ought to be proportioned to ends."
Posted by: Col Steve at November 09, 2006 08:51 AM (pj2h7)
11
If Straw wants Bush dead so much and can't afford to hire an assassin by conventional means, I recommend that he use this method of bargaining instead when contracting the hit.
Posted by: reagan80 at November 09, 2006 11:15 AM (dFOlH)
12
The beginning of the end for the Republican revolution of '94 was exemplified by the sound of a zipper being pulled down.
It belonged to the genius who engineered the revolution and was making it tick.
I blame Newt Gingrich's dick.
Posted by: shelly at November 09, 2006 11:30 AM (SLFj+)
13
First time poster, long time reader...
I have to disagree with you on one thing. I think 54 percent or so of the American voting public DID vote for cut and run Tuesday. I think the so called "libertarian" wing of the party is turning isolationaist, and that the fabled "swing voters" made a conscious decision that we should just cut our losses, and load up that last chopper out of Saigon, so to speak. What worries me, and what truly hurts, is that if we do that, it WILL probably be Vietnam redux...we'll essentially be leaving the people we went to help to die, while we turn our short attention spans to the latest Lost episode or how many touchdowns Peyton Manning threw.
Ironically, the Democrats have made much hay about how we're wasting the lives of our soldiers in Iraq. If we do pull out, then that's exactly what we'll have done, as all of our efforts there will have been for naught.
Posted by: Douglas at November 09, 2006 11:44 AM (IfCcM)
14
you and I dont disagree Douglas. What happened is that the "cut and run" line was easy to sell to the swing voters. It wouldn't have been if there had been tangible progress in Iraq, instead of a situation that everyone admits is now getting worse.
Posted by: annika at November 09, 2006 12:06 PM (zAOEU)
15
Col Steve -
You give the American public too much credit. I'd say 999 out of 1000 (alas myself included) don't even know there are broad tracks with objectives.
Posted by: DHammett at November 09, 2006 12:34 PM (J7BEJ)
16
So, in the end, "Mission Accomplished" isn't and Rumsfeld took the fall. But where do we go from here? Do we cut and run, or do we listen to the generals that say that we need many more troops in Iraq? Even if Gates proposes the latter policy, it's not going to get through Congress. And Bush may even discover the veto and actually veto any troop reductions. So, in essence, the post-Rumsfeld troop levels will stay at the Rumsfeld-preferred levels - not too many, not too few.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at November 09, 2006 02:08 PM (YWsCw)
17
One tires of that old canard, Canadastan breath. It was the ship that posted THEIR "Mission Accomplished" Banner upon returning to port from a long deployment, not the White House.
Posted by: Casca at November 09, 2006 03:21 PM (2gORp)
18
Funny how the MSM has never bothered correcting that obvious distortion and in fact has perpetuated it without a hint of shame. Just one of the many lies spread by the Left that would never be allowed by the MSM if the tables were turned.
Posted by: blu at November 09, 2006 03:35 PM (/J4yP)
Posted by: Leif at November 09, 2006 05:14 PM (bakP3)
20
Blu, Casca,
ThatÂ’s bullshit. Pure wishful bullshit that the troops lettered the sign, posted the sign and the poor schnook of a president and his oblivious handlers inadvertently allowed it to become his backdrop. Idiotic thinking.
If I remember that was the horseshit the Presidents press people cooked up as the excuse after everybody went nuts with what a piece of choreographed crap it was, him in his flight suit emerging from a plane where he sat in the 2 seat 30 miles off San Fran. Strutting his arrogant dimwitted ass across the deck. You think he saw the sign and thought "gee, I wonder if this might be a bit premature, might be kinda grandstanding like, better check with the media people and see if they thought this through". His people did the sign. His people put him under the sign; his people thought this was a fucking great idea because their heads were so far up their collective asses they thought the war was OVER and Iraq a nice secure protectorate! It was a seriously printed banner, not a paint brush on a sheet; it didn't get done spontaneously by the crew. The crap you get yourselves to believe is astounding.
Posted by: Strawman at November 09, 2006 06:30 PM (9ySL4)
21
White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign
Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say
From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Posted: 9:18 AM EST (1418 GMT)
Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.
Posted by: Strawman at November 09, 2006 06:34 PM (9ySL4)
22
Perhaps it works both ways:
1. For swing voters, Iraq is the big issue.
2. For some of the base and some of the libertarians it was the spending and corruption.
If you had good Iraq results but still had the other stuff, it might have turned out differently.
That said, if Iraq remained the same, but there had been excellent control of fiscal spending, no corruption, and good policies made, then it could also have been different.
Posted by: Aaron at November 09, 2006 07:16 PM (/nf1E)
23
"The crap you get yourselves to believe is astounding."
Kind of like "Bush is responsible for more deaths than Sadaam"? Yeah, it is amazing to see the crap that people get themselves to believe.
The fact remains that the sign was associated not to the President or to a completed war but to that specific ship and its mission. Get over it.
Posted by: blu at November 09, 2006 09:31 PM (/J4yP)
24
Strawfuck, we have learned some things from you here, e.g. you are both a fool and a liar, and you know nothing of the military. Back under your rock, slimey.
Posted by: Casca at November 09, 2006 09:55 PM (2gORp)
25
I believe the disillusionment of the independents, and many of the 'base', was a combination of factors. The war issue was not just about a lack of victory, but about the full understanding of deception, followed by a number of other scandals that showed how arrogant some right-wingers really were.
The Gang of 14 was a ringing alarm that the arch-conservatives put back on snooze.
One of the final kickers was the private denigration of conservative religious leaders, discouraging or angering that portion of the base.
A Culture of Corruption is one thing, but to snicker at them behind their back supplied a handful of coffin nails.
People have short memories, however, so this does not mean 2008 is by any means a foregone conclusion.
Posted by: will at November 10, 2006 06:42 AM (h7Ciu)
26
Blu,
Whether or not the sign was inspired by the tired sailors and marines who were out 190 days, it was hijacked by the president for his purposes. Right? Did anybody care what the original impetus was and what does it really matter? Should the MSM have reported on the event and put a crawl on the bottom of the screen explaining that the giant, 50 foot long, professionally made by the white house staff, red white and blue "Mission Accomplished" banner was the idea of the sailors and should in no way be construed to be the opinion of the president who is standing under it shouting "mission Accomplished" and waving his draft dodging hand like an ass." Yep, that should been the disclaimer
I guess in your distorted mind that would have made the press objective and unbiased.
Are you really being this foolish? Why Casca is is no mystery.
Posted by: Strawman at November 10, 2006 09:18 AM (9ySL4)
27
"The Gang of 14 was a ringing alarm that the arch-conservatives put back on snooze."
excellent. that's such a great quote, i wish I'd said it first, will!
Posted by: annika at November 10, 2006 09:19 AM (qQD4Q)
28
Feel free to use it if it strikes a chord.
On another note, was it just a couple of days ago that blu and strawman were having a reasoned discourse? I look forward to more of those, when they are both ready again.
Posted by: will at November 10, 2006 10:02 AM (h7Ciu)
Posted by: Strawman at November 10, 2006 11:34 AM (9ySL4)
30
"when they are both ready again."
Both? I can appreciate the fence straddling, but it isn't Blu's fault that the comments degenerate. It can't be avoided since he's dealing with someone that is certifiably batshit crazy.
Posted by: reagan80 at November 10, 2006 11:41 AM (dFOlH)
31
Thanks Reagan80.
Will, you may not agree with me, but I don't believe that I was being unreasonable. And, if Straw believes he was right then he wasn't being unreasonable either. Disagreement is not unreasonable.
Does reasonable in your world mean that you bend over and grab your ankles? split every argument down the middle? or articulate what you really believe? If you want to be a nancy boy or a cajone-less moderate, go for it.
But, hey, we all play on Annie's playround, so I promise to double-check my work and make certain I'm more thoughtful in my disagreement.
Posted by: blu at November 10, 2006 11:54 AM (/J4yP)
32
Raygun,
Each time I re-read one of these old posts I still get a charge. Succinct, lucent, punchy, to the point and still a better evaluation of the reality of Iraq than anything you've ever written or thought of writing. Thanks for the memories.
You know its not that i don't feel for the guy's wife and kids, i really do. I just am so saddened by his thoughtless behavior and the choices he made as to how best to care for his family. A single guy with no dependants wants to drive a truck around Bagdad dodging IED's and rpg's is different. BTW, whatÂ’s keeping you over here? Lot's of opportunities for sharp dressed militarist like yourself.
Posted by: Strawman at November 10, 2006 03:04 PM (9ySL4)
33
i don't agree...
the President is the only one who has waged a serious GWOT...
some Conservative pundits, critics, etc., got tunnel visioned, missing the larger picture.
the GWOT...
the Man who was asked by the American Public after 9-11, did so, was abandoned.
Conservatives seem to blame the Man for everything, but who expected him to do it alone?
for 6 long years the Liberals demeaned and slandered him, and Conservatives failed to defend him.
the wimpy Rhinos in the Senate only increased the problem, and the weak House Republicans helped with the folly as well.
but i would 'carry the water' for this President anyday.
i never expected perfection, and understood the alternative nightmare in the unethical DNC.
Posted by: hnav at November 11, 2006 09:57 AM (cAv4a)
34
It's appalling to hear or see the phrase "cut and run," used by so many people who've never had to stand and fight.
Posted by: Marc at November 14, 2006 01:07 PM (KKAZS)
Some Quick Notes On The Punditry
Here are some notes that occur to me, reading the various conservative pundits doing their various post-election stuff.
1. I keep reading about how it's the Democrats' turn to govern. Congress does not govern. Congress legislates. It takes three branches to govern. Keep that in mind.
2. I keep reading about how "we'll get 'em back in two years." Not so fast. Iraq is the biggest problem that needs to be fixed, and soon. If Iraq is fixed, to the satisfaction of the electorate, then guess who gets the credit. Not us. If Iraq gets worse, Republicans might have a chance to say I told you so, but guess who the electorate will blame. Not the Democrats. And I for one, desperately want a victory in Iraq, regardless of who gets the credit. If that means a longer time in the wilderness, so be it. Our men and women in arms deserve victory, for all they've sacrificed. I hope, hope, hope, that victory is really part of the Democratic plan, and now that they've won, I'm willing to give them a fair chance to make their case.
3. I think yesterday eliminated four sure losers from running for the Republican nomination in '08. Santorum, Frist, Allen, and Romney. These guys all had their appeal for hopeful conservatives (maybe not Frist, who was an abysmal leader from the start), but none of them, in my view, had a snowball's chance against Hillary/Obama in today's environment. I'm glad they're off the table.
Update:
4. As the day wears on, I'm more and more disappointed with most of the big name pundits on the right: from Hugh Hewitt (who blames John McCain?!?!), to Rush Limbaugh (who boasts that Republicans are better than Democrats because we're not crying about fraud after a loss, then in almost the same breath demands an ACORN investigation). The first step is admitting there's a problem, fellas.
1
Santorum, Frist, and Allen are all out -- but Romney? I'm not sure how he comes out of this looking bad. Explain.
Posted by: Hugo at November 08, 2006 12:51 PM (yLeev)
2
Hugh asked my question exactly. Ahnold's victory proves that the right GOP candidate can attract Democratic voters in Blue States. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states, yet Mitt Romney is a popular GOP governor there. I think yesterday enhanced his chances of nomination.
Posted by: Ralphyboy at November 08, 2006 12:57 PM (skVyJ)
3
Bush has had the better part of four years to get this right, with a Republican Congress backing him up. I don't trust many Dems on national defense, but if guys like Lieberman and Webb are allowed to lead on this issue, I'm willing to give 'em a chance. Victory means a democratic, independent Iraq with a relatively stable government (not necessarily without any crime or terrorism). I really don't care how we get there.
Posted by: Matt at November 08, 2006 01:00 PM (10G2T)
4
Santorum doesn't belong on that list. One of the days other big losers is our answer to Obama, Ken Blackwell who lost the Governor's race in Ohio.
Posted by: Casca at November 08, 2006 01:01 PM (Y7t14)
5
Annie,
No, we won't get 'em back in two years. But if this makes the Repubs remember what they used to be all about, it'll be worth it to me if it takes six or eight years to get 'em back. Because if the only choice is Dems and Dems (Lite), well, fuck -- we might as well just go ahead and get it over with.
Posted by: Matt at November 08, 2006 01:04 PM (10G2T)
Posted by: reagan80 at November 08, 2006 01:39 PM (dFOlH)
7
Deval Patrick (who makes Mike Dukasis look like a centrist) won by a landslide over Romney's Lt-Governor. Given Massachusetts is already bluer than blue, the results reinforce the fact Romney has no coattails. He was elected in 2002 in the wake of 9/11 with less than 50% of the vote because of his outsider against the democratic Beacon Hill insiders image (and his opponent ran a terrible campaign). Note how the Rhode Island Republican Governor won re-election by touting his taking on the corrupt insiders image in spite of a democratic landslide (even the RHINO Lincoln Chaffee got booted by a guy who's only platform was Linc Chaffee = more George Bush friendly Senate).
Romney = republican equivalent of nominating Mike Dukasis in 1988.
Posted by: Col Steve at November 08, 2006 01:57 PM (pj2h7)
8
The elephant in the room associated to Romney is his religion. Is this country ready for a Mormon President? Is the Republican Party ready for a leader that comes from a cult? I don't want to offend anybody, but these people believe some pretty crazy stuff. Many of us mock Islam for its bizarre beliefs. What do you think the MSM and opponents are going to do with Mormon beliefs?
Hey, I think Romney is an attractive candidate: well-spoken, smart, thoughtful, and he appears very genuine. But let's not pretend that his religion doesnÂ’t matter. It does. It will.
For me the most fundamental issue is the GWOT. I want somebody who understands it, will confront it, and is willing to talk honestly about it. Secondly, I want somebody who believes in smaller (but effective) government. Thirdly, I want a leader who understands basic economics and that Keynes was wrong. A social conservative is fine, but if he/she wants to place abortion and gay marriage on the front burner, I want nothing to do with them. Those issues have to be lower priority and, in fact, are issues that should be determined by individual states. Further, I donÂ’t want another Rep who claims to be conservative but spends money on social programs like fucking LBJ.
For the time-being, IÂ’ll be supporting Giuliani for 2008.
Posted by: blu at November 08, 2006 02:18 PM (j8oa6)
9
"A social conservative is fine, but if he/she wants to place abortion and gay marriage on the front burner, I want nothing to do with them." That's why Romney would lose in '08.
I had read that the Patrick victory in MA was considered a repudiation of Romney as governor. Thanks Col Steve for explaining the details.
Posted by: annika at November 08, 2006 02:22 PM (zAOEU)
10
Having not been in office during the bloodbath, Giuliani comes out on top.
If the Republicans can finally get the message that you need to not piss off your base, and you need to make reasonable appeals to people's concerns and their pocketbook instead of just trying to scare them.
Then they can (under new leadership) make a strong comeback. Because moderate conservatism will always sell well in this nation if the people believe you.
Of course, if the Dems pick up the torch and work with the president to ease us out of Iraq, keep some of the tax cuts so the economy doesn't slow down, and act mature about border security and immigration reform, then they will be the majority party forever.
However, I am pretty sure they are incapable of such sober judgments.
Posted by: kyle8 at November 08, 2006 03:43 PM (BytpM)
11
Ms. Annika,
I listened to Rush for all three hours today. Your tid-bit in #4 certainly was not a faithful summary of his election thoughts, which were actually fairly thoughtful and pretty tough on the current Congressional leadership and the Administration.
Your Rush bias is almost as bad as my Michael Savage bias. (I'm not comparing them, BTW.)
Posted by: blu at November 08, 2006 04:21 PM (/J4yP)
12
Boy, how much fun is this? I am savoring every moment of listening to you folks sift through the ashes.
Had only Iraq remained on the map then none of this would have happened. We would still be over flying, they would still have no WMD's or any other capacity to do any harm, Afganistan might be stable and poppy free, and Bin Laden dead. ANd let's not forget the untold numbers of young jihadists that might still be living in their parents home, going to High School or University, with no burning desire to run off to Iraq to confront the infidels. Gee, that scenerio really scares me, how about you Blu? Two more years of the dim wit and a good shot at '08. How bad that would have been from your perspective?
Posted by: Strawman at November 08, 2006 05:05 PM (9ySL4)
13
Savor it, Straw. Your side won. You should enjoy it while you can.
But, here is the rub. Now you guys have to govern. That will be a problem though because you don't have any ideas...besides raising the minimum wage (and putting teenagers out of work.) It might actually be fun to watch a brain-dead and morally bankrupt party try to govern. (Quick: tell me the three big ideas for public policy that Dem ran-on for this election?)
I'm dying to hear the Dem plan for the first 100 days. Here's what I suggest: raise the minimum wage; grant amnesty for illegal aliens; layout pullout plans from Iraq. And, of course, begin the impeachment case against Bush and the war-crimes trial for Rummy.
My prediction is two years of Dems doing nothing, hoping they can coast into '08 without hurting themselves too much.
Posted by: blu at November 08, 2006 07:45 PM (/J4yP)
14
At least I'm content with the fact that Straw's side was on the receiving end of the Donkey Punch of 2004.
Posted by: reagan80 at November 08, 2006 09:15 PM (dFOlH)
15
Blu is right, Annika, Rush didn't demand an investigation of ACORN. He couldn't. The investigation of ACORN began before Election day.
Posted by: Vinnie at November 08, 2006 11:19 PM (/qy9A)
16
<>
and the Tooth Fairy really exists. Pacifying the Pashtuns was never going to be easy, and there is no way in hell we could pacify them AND eliminate their poppy growing proclivity.
Maybe some of the dumber jihadis would not have made the trip to Iraq, but the serious ones would have been in Pakistan for sure.
Posted by: Aaron at November 09, 2006 02:47 AM (svXR7)
17
Blu,
If you had read my post and not read into it, you would notice I did not say a word about Democrats and their ideas for governing. (Although I don't agree with you about the minium wage. losing teenagers who presumely have no dependents but increasing the income to a family that might have two low wage earners in not a bad thing.) I don't think they have much of a chance of resolving Iraq in a way that resembles Annie's definition of "winning". I don't think anybody at this point does. This is one fucking omlet congealing on the pavement. The Bush gang, fat stupid and full of a mandate they did not posses wriggled down a hole and got stuck. Like the Intrepid, which six tugboats have failed to move, Democrats or anyone else that might be enlisted to get their sorry asses out of this are destined to fail. This is why I think Rove's strategy was to lose the election, turn the pot of steamy shit over to the Dem's and then ask America in two years how they liked the meal. This will give them a fighting chance in 08, the alternative would have led to a rout in 08 since the meal the R's would be serving up would be no tastier
Posted by: Strawman at November 09, 2006 09:05 AM (9ySL4)
18
"I think Rove's strategy was to lose the election..."
lol, even when you win, it's a Rove conspiracy!
Posted by: annika at November 09, 2006 11:00 AM (9v8pa)
19
A,
These people are nuts. I was talking to one of the moonbats yesterday, who obviously is reading one of the myriad of looney left-wing blogs, and he said something to the effect that Bush was suffering from early signs of dementia based on his inability to speak well. You see, according to the moonbats, Bush was a pretty decent speaker - not stumbling over his words like he does now - when he was governor of Texas. All of this is of course absurd - he was mocked in Texas for his less than gifted speaking abilities. But, as Straw often proves, if you keep repeating your own lies long enough (e.g. Bush is responsible for more deaths than Hussein), you begin to believe them.
So, though we have lost, always remember who the opposition is - these people. It's sort of like losing a game to an inferior opponent because you took them too lightly. You are rightly embarrassed but also realize that you are superior in every fashion and will beat them 9 out of 10 times.
Posted by: blu at November 09, 2006 11:17 AM (/J4yP)
20
Amen, blu. I'd rather be strong in '08 than '06.
Posted by: Casca at November 09, 2006 11:44 AM (Y7t14)
21
Blu,
Straw reminds me of the poseur from the bar scene in Good Will Hunting.
Posted by: reagan80 at November 09, 2006 11:49 AM (dFOlH)
22
speaking of losing to an inferior opponent, SC sure came back from that OSU loss. 42 to nothing against Stanford!
Posted by: annika at November 09, 2006 12:11 PM (zAOEU)
23
Other than history, there's no reason to assume that the Democrats can't "govern." The first Article of the Constitution is about Congress, and in the original view the President was the person who executed Congress' wishes. Over the years (especially since Andrew Jackson), the President has taken more and more responsibility for setting the direction of the country, but some argue that recent presidents have been unConstitutional in their actions (the main gripe - waging war without a formal declaration from Congress as required by the Constitution). Theoretically, the Democrats could govern by setting an agenda and passing bills that reflect their wishes, hoping that President "What's a Veto?" Bush will just roll along. Contrast this with Gerald Ford, who knew what a veto was and knew how to use it.
Also, I wouldn't count 2006 losers out just yet, for two reasons. First, you can bounce back from a loss - look at Richard Nixon. Second, unlike those in office, the losers have a whole lot of free time to go to Iowa and New Hampshire, and if George Allen can make a persuasive case in the coffeshops, he may get more than "Big Mo."
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at November 09, 2006 02:16 PM (YWsCw)
1
An easy decision for Rove, he's gone. Shows some Bush leadership (since he did lose this election for us because the congressional leadership defaulted to him on the country's agenda), PLUS it Gives the dems something practical to wrassle with; i expect extensive hearings and questioning of the nominee, which isn't bad per se. And, in listening to the prez's press conference right now, truly I hate bush's frat boy chuckle.
Posted by: Scof at November 08, 2006 12:29 PM (a3fqn)
2
A few months ago I read an interview with an outgoing Army general, logistician-type, who helped write the war plan for Iraq. He said very plainly that Rummy refused to let them even plan for the post-war period, and finally threatened to fire anyone who so much as mentioned it again.
That's when I went well and truly sour on Rummy. Good riddance.
Posted by: Matt at November 08, 2006 12:46 PM (10G2T)
3
What's up with the White House? Appointing a guy who had his first nomination as CIA director withdrawn because of linkage to Iran-Contra is opening up a can of worms when the point of Rumsfeld's resignation is to defuse controversary. Can't wait for Carl Levin to schedule the nomination hearings on the same day as Daniel Ortega's inauguration in Nicaragua!
What about floating Joe Leiberman's name? I doubt he'd take it given CT has a Republican governor, but that would have opened up some interesting possibilities. At the mid-term point of a lame duck Presidency, the Secretary of Defense will have little impact on the future of the military. The focus is on executing and institutionalizing the policies and strategies -- actually managing and running the Department of Defense. This nomination is not to recycle a family loyalist.
The good thing is the in-box of many Pentagon action officers just became significantly lighter.
Posted by: Col Steve at November 08, 2006 12:48 PM (pj2h7)
4
How about the fact that Rummy is SecDef until his heir is blessed & sworn. He's a good soldier. He can make a few unpopular decisions that can help the guys doing the dirty work, and take the blame with him.
Posted by: Casca at November 08, 2006 03:39 PM (Y7t14)
It's A New Day
It looks like I was almost spot on with my Senate predictions. If things turn out as they look like they're headed, the only race that I will not have called will be Virginia, and that only by a couple thousand votes. So I think you all better start paying attention to me. ; )
Regarding the California ballot, the news this morning is particularly disheartening. Tom McClintock lost the Lt. Governor's race to John Garamendi. I like Garamendi, but McClintock was a solid guy, and very popular. I really thought he was going to win, but this is a Democratic year and he had an R by his name.
Jerry Brown is our new Attorney General. This guy is a disgrace. His opponent had some hard hitting ads, which sounded like they were made up because they were so outrageous, but in Jerry Brown's case, the attacks were true.
Our anti-Kelo proposition went down by five points. I don't think proponents spent enough money advertising that one, though.
All the bonds won, and the parental notification measure lost. No surprise there.
The only really good California result I can point to is that Cruz Bustamonte did not win the Insurance Commissioner job. (And no, I do not include Arnold's win as a good thing.) Oh, and Prop 87, the alternative energy referendum, also went down handily.
I have a post-election post in my head, which I've been ruminating on since last weekend. It's coming, I just don't have time to write it now. The working title of the piece is "I Blame Bush," so stay tuned.
A final note before I rush off to class, and I'm sincere about this. Despite yesterday's defeat, today is a good day.
1
Annie, you were so kind to me in my bitter disappointment two years ago. I know that mix of frustration and resolve you feel now.
Let's take it out on Arizona, USC, and Stanford.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer at November 08, 2006 09:47 AM (yLeev)
2
During this excursion into the political wilderness, our guys will hopefully learn to stop acting like Johnson Democrats. I'm confident that the Cooch-eunuch...err...I mean...Kucinich Democrats in the House will self-destruct before 2008. Maybe Bush will finally start to veto some spending bills instead of being a damn Third Way-er.
Posted by: reagan80 at November 08, 2006 10:02 AM (dFOlH)
3
Hugo, you bring a tear to my eye.
Yes, let's hope Cal runs the table too.
Posted by: annika at November 08, 2006 10:19 AM (zAOEU)
4
Oh, Surprise, surprise! He dumped Rumnuts! How quickly two years go by.
Constently assessing, constently changing tactics, constantly assessing the objective.
Now I'll work with the democrats so that we can do big things for America.....together.
I thought we were gonna do fine yesterday......Shows what I know, heh heh.....
What a schmuck. Homer Simpson is more presidential
Posted by: Strawman at November 08, 2006 11:25 AM (9ySL4)
5
The Jerry Brown thing scares me the most, I think, and there's not much margin for error left in California. You called him a disgrace, but I think that was being polite...
Posted by: Mike at November 08, 2006 12:59 PM (Eodj2)
6
A state that would elect Jerry Brown deserves him. Fucking unbelievable.
With that said, the only liberal talk show I've ever listened to and actually liked was Jerry Brown's show. Weird.
Posted by: blu at November 08, 2006 02:25 PM (j8oa6)