One might wonder why annika's bitch Casca has never been awarded the coveted Huge Comment of the Week^® prize. No longer. His comment to the post immediately below is beyond worthy.

The worst thing about the blogosphere is the infinite supply of know-it-alls. They offend those of us who do.

Posted by: annika at 06:09 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

If John McCain is nominated in 2008, i will not vote for him.

Who's with me?

HCOTW: Desert Cat!

Posted by: annika at 10:05 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It all depends on the alternative. But I will say that I can not vote for the man. He will not make it out of the primaries unless we have major crossover voters.

Posted by: Michael C at June 20, 2005 10:55 AM (yAKj9)

2 It depends on the alternative. If it is McCain vs. HRC where would you go???

Posted by: Prarieblogger at June 20, 2005 11:15 AM (95uDn)

3 i would write in someone.

Posted by: annie at June 20, 2005 11:41 AM (zAOEU)

4 why because he not NAzi?!

Posted by: Um Yeah at June 20, 2005 01:13 PM (MhJuU)

5 My first response was to say "hell yes I'm with you. Fuck that guy and his 'independent'thinking." But, the more I think of it, I'd rather have McCain than a Dem. McCain has some high profile fuck ups but he is still a pretty reliable conservative vote. He also is one of the more articulate spokesmen we have for providing justification for Iraq and the war on terroism. What places him beyond redemption, Annie? (I realize there a long list of items that could drive you fucking crazy.) I'm curious about what particulary pisses you off. Filibuster? McCain-Feingold? etc etc etc Anyway, he'll never win a Rep primary. So, this is just an academic exercise.

Posted by: Blu at June 20, 2005 01:15 PM (j8oa6)

6 I'm down. If that happens we'll talk. I'm sure I can turn you onto some delightful little third party w/o a chance in hell of winning but whose candidate makes you think , "yeah; true dat". But in any case when it comes to not voting for a RINO I got yo' back.

Posted by: Publicola at June 20, 2005 01:20 PM (bXrfV)

7 i knew i could count on you, Publicola. Blu, it's McCain Feingold (one of the shittiest pieces of law to come down the pike in a long time.) and his being a member of the "seven." On every issue that i've heard him speak about, McCain bends over backwards to be accomodating and collegial to the Senate Democrats. But does anyone really think that if he were president, the liberals would not try to demonize him the way they do every other Republican in existence?

Posted by: annie at June 20, 2005 01:26 PM (zAOEU)

8 yeah, He is a very very ambitious man, who loves to be in the limelight and dosent mind sticking it to his party. Also dosent care too much for the first amendment. Now some would call that being a politician, I call it, a no vote.

Posted by: Kyle at June 20, 2005 02:29 PM (7Re84)

9 McCain is a goldplated prick with no allegiance to anything or anyone but his own ambition. I plan to crossover to AZ to register to vote sometime this year.

Posted by: Casca at June 20, 2005 03:41 PM (qBTBH)

10 Most definitely. He's a Republican in the populist nutball tradition of Huey Long (D); that is, he has little in common with the Republican party's tradition of limited government, social conservatism, etc. He's affirmatively dangerous. Moreoever, he uses his war experience as a cudgel to silence his critics, which makes him an asshole under most common definitions. Plus, he rudely fanned flames of racial and religious unrest in criticizing Bush for visiting Bob Jones U in 2000, which was a below-the-belt criticism that basically implied Bush was a racist--which he most definitely is not, whatever his other faults may be. McCain would be like Bush's big government worldwide crusading side without the social conservative and limited government instincts of the traditional right. It would be about one thing: McCain's power and legacy.

Posted by: Roach at June 20, 2005 04:10 PM (MRlvg)

11 I will never support a Senator for President. They cannot win. Harding and Kennedy are the only two senators who have won the White House in the history of America. A Senator has a better chance of being struck by lightning than he has of being elected President. I am supporting a Governor to be named.

Posted by: Jake at June 20, 2005 04:53 PM (r/5D/)

12 I would probably write in myself. (Struggling at my new mu.nu site. *Sigh*)

Posted by: Mark at June 20, 2005 05:18 PM (Vg0tt)

13 Well I've voted for him and would be more than happy to see him run. I think the same qualities that make him seem like a bad senator, of late, would make him an effective president. None of us are going to get the dream candidate, so a McCain-Watts ticket is great comprimise.

Posted by: McCain-Watts in 08! at June 20, 2005 05:33 PM (x8hF4)

14 "Anyway, he'll never win a Rep primary. So, this is just an academic exercise." If only it were academic. My fear is that he's just the sort of egomaniac who, once it's clear to him as it is to the rest of us that he's not getting the GOP nod, might want to replay Perot '92 and thereby hand thw White House to the Dems (i.e., presumably HRC).

Posted by: Dave J at June 20, 2005 07:09 PM (ZKuUj)

15 Not to worry, in that case, someone will cut the punk.

Posted by: Casca at June 20, 2005 07:40 PM (qBTBH)

16 John McCain is a more reliable statist than he is a conservative. I, on the other hand, am only a Republican because I am a conservative/libertarian. Thus there is no conceivable reason why I would throw my vote away on a man who does not represent my political views. If he is nominated, I will vote for whomever the Constitutional or Libertarian parties put up. Would I sooner see the Hildebeest than the McCainiac elected? No, but unfortunately discerning the lesser of evils is pretty tough in this case. At least the Hildebeest would be stymied by a Republican House and Senate, whereas the McCainiac would mount the bully pulpit, the press would have a collective orgasm, and the Congress would probably roll over to do whatever he wanted.

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 20, 2005 08:23 PM (xdX36)

17 I'm with you, Annie. There's so much I admire about the guy, but much that I despise abbout him as a politician, particularly his certainty that he's smarter than the Founding Fathers. I couldn't vote for him. By the way, he'll be 72 in '08. Uncle Ronnie was only 69 in '80, so McCain may be a bit long in the tooth for the presidency, by recent standards. And he's had melanoma twice.

Posted by: Matt at June 20, 2005 08:29 PM (xIqZL)

18 Desert Cat has articulated the best reason i've seen for throwing away my vote, in the event of a Hillery McCain general election. Bravo. i'm dusting off the Huge Comment of the Week for you my friend.

Posted by: annika at June 20, 2005 09:00 PM (erSH9)

19 cool

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 20, 2005 11:30 PM (xdX36)

20 Casca's "cut the punk" comment gets my nomination.

Posted by: Mark MuNu at June 21, 2005 01:30 AM (TBkLy)

21 Damn. I said "i got yo back". I said "I'm down". Even said "true dat". Brother can't get no love round here But there's another reason, which appeals to me more. See even if McCain is the lesser of two evils, that still makes him evil. Sure, it's relatively better to vote for the false prophet than the antichrist (so to speak) but neither will endear you in Heaven. & when the lesser of two evils wins that seldom causes him/her to repent. If anything it fuels their ambitions which tend to gravitate toward the evil rather than the good. Hell look at Arnie. Lesser of two evils compared to a democrat, but yet no democrat governor anyplace in the u.s. has banned a type of bolt action rifle. when ya vote for thelesser of two evils ya get what ya pick - evil. & McCain (with his bill to de facto ban gunshows across the u.s. as well as his limits on free speech) is close enough to evil that him being the lesser of the choices would not endear me to the process, let alone casting a vote for him. (& the same applies for anyone in his position - I'm just picking on McCain cause I can). Shame we seldom have a choice between good & really good (like Kozinski v Ron Paul). Oh, & it's not throwing away your vote unles syou feel the goal is to pick the winner. It's never a wasted vote if you wouldn't regret the candidate you voted for winning.

Posted by: Publicola at June 21, 2005 02:42 PM (bXrfV)

22 If McCain is the nominee against Hillary, I'm voting for myself. Physics Geek for President! McCain is a strutting, self-important peacock whose sole purpose in life appears to be garnering positive review from the NY Times. It's too bad, really, since he served this country well during wartime and suffered in ways that I cannot imagine during his captivity. But that pain doesn't excuse his having become a gigantic asshole.

Posted by: physics geek at June 22, 2005 10:11 AM (Xvrs7)

23 I would choose McCain over any other Republican. I remember how he was targetted by the far right in the 2000 primaries after he surprised Bush with his upsets. Money flowed like floodwaters into the NRA, anti-abortion groups, and other arch right organizations, who proceeded to set up quick reaction call center campaigns intent on smearing McCain. The distortions and slander was so shameful that I began to question my 20 years as a stalwart Republican. Bush's cavalier 'We are in the delegate business' attitude finally convinced me to lead the Republican party on principle. I had spent so much time acting as an apologist for my former party; I now enjoy my independent stance, as neither side can shake free their extremists, so I will focus on supporting those who will do the best for American, vs. the special interests of either party.

Posted by: Will Stewart at June 29, 2005 11:29 AM (GzvlQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Last Week's (Sporadic) Huge Comment of the Week^® was a comment to my request for advice on which animated movie to see this weekend.*

Go for 'The Incredibles.' Speculate on what sex between Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl must have been like. Discuss the paradox of being a woman who basically is her own condom.

Dahahahaha!

Those of you with strong stomachs might want to check out Kevin's new line of Christmas cards.

P.S.: i might humbly remind everyone that annika's journal merchandise also makes a great holiday gift.
_______________

* We saw The Incredibles, which was a whole lot of fun, and i highly recommend it.

Posted by: annika at 10:06 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

This week's Huge Comment of the Week^® goes to Kevin Kim, for the bawdy poem he dedicated to me in his comment to my May 19 post about his blog:

May I live inside your thong?
Would that really be so wrong?
Laughing, playing, singing songs,
Twanging butt floss all night long?

That doesn't mean that anyone who writes a poem wins the coveted HCOTW award, but it doesn't hurt.

Since Kevin already walked away with the award once, this time he gets a very nice oak leaf cluster next to his name on the sidebar.

Posted by: annika at 03:44 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

Hello, i hope y'all had a nice Easter/Passover holiday. This weekend i've been fighting two viruses. (Or is it viri?) The first is some kinda flu that i suspect i caught on the plane last weekend. It's weird. Usually i start with a sore throat and end with a cough. This time i started with a cough and now i have a sore throat. The second virus is a crappy toolbar spyware thingie that attached itself to my Internet Explorer like the monster in Alien. i had to hack it up piece by piece to delete it. i'm still not sure if i got it all.

So that's my excuse for light blogging. But, i have selected a Huge Comment of the Week^®, so i haven't been completely idle.

This week's H.C.O.T.W.^® laureate is someone by the name of Anonymous, who commented on an old humorous bit i did way back on March 5, 2003, called Match The Idiotic Quote With The Idiotic Celebrity. i was pretty proud of that post, it being so clever and snarky. But this person Anonymous didn't seem too impressed by my humor.

so i bet all of the previous posters have never made mistakes before and find it easier to just put other people down because of their mistakes instead of look inside their own selves. im not saying that i like any of these 'stars' as role models, especially for little kids. i really dont think they are great role models at all for kids. but. as adults, i think its time we stop bashing things down and provoke change. its not productive to participate in giving these people money (however inadvertantly) by paying any attention whatsoever to them. to me, it seems as if all of you have bought into the whole cherade. i mean, britney, christina, allanis, paris, theyve all got you writing and making pages 'worthy' of stooping to their level and even discussing them. it just doesnt seem to make sense to me....... i dont mean to offend anyone here and id be more than happy to clear up my position on things, but im just amazed that this badmouthing can be any more valid than the whole entertainment crap. just dont pay attention if you dont like it. and if you really dont like it, do something about it.

Posted by: annika at 09:11 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

Picking a Huge Comment of the Week^® for the week of February 15 through February 21 was difficult for me. Two or three lengthy and civil debates occurred in the comments. The Kerry's Medal post garnered 21 comments. The Judge Warren post yielded 14, and the Scalia At Amherst post topped the list with 22 comments.

So you'd think there'd be a lot of good material for me to choose from when determining the newest winner. Not true.

Yes, there were many comments that were well reasoned and articulately written. In fact, most of them were. Unfortunately, since so many of you visitors chose to disagree with me, i had to throw out all of those comments.*

That left me with a good number of amazingly brilliant comments by one particular commenter whom i happen to think very highly of. That is, of course, me. But it wouldn't really be fair to award the coveted Huge Comment of the Week^® award to myself. Heh, i'd win it every week then, wouldn't i?

Well, now that i think about it, maybe that's not such a bad . . .

No, of course not. That wouldn't be nice. So anyway, i agonized over this week's selection more than i usually do. Everyone who took part in the debates of the last week, here on annika's j, deserves their own silver star. Or in some cases, maybe a purple heart.

i had the feeling that i should award a tie. Such a decision would be consistent with my well known fear of commitment, so it made sense to do so. Especially with so many deserving commenters.

But then i came across some information, which i considered sufficient to break the tie in a way that would be manifestly unfair to the other deserving candidates. i found out that one commenter is taking the bar exam this week. Not wishing to distract him with undue worry over the outcome of this latest Huge Comment of the Week^®, i have decided to bestow the honor upon Matt Rustler.

The winning comment is Matt's February 20th counter-argument to my counter argument to his counter-argument. The one which prompted him to point out, in his next counter-argument, that i had been "conspicuously silent" in response to some analogies he made in his previous counter-argument. Well Matt, there was a reason i was conspicuously silent, you bastard. Those were tough analogies to defeat. i'm still right, though.

And since Matt has already won the coveted prize once, he gets the very first Huge Comment of the Week^® Oak Leaf Cluster! Congratulations Matt, and good luck on the bar!

Then there's D-Rod, who called me a "vile slandering surrogate Bush lackey skankpuppy." That's okay, i consider those compliments. Except for "skankpuppy." i prefer "skank-kitten."

* Just kidding.

Posted by: annika at 07:56 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 4 kb.