Monthly Archives: November 2007

What Pat's Saying

It’s no secret that Pat Robertson’s gotten increasingly kooky over the years. As a result, having not paid a whole lot of attention to Pat for a fairly significant amount of time, I took his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani with a grain of salt and moved on. Others can’t move on, however.

Oddly enough, some of those engaged in the backlash against Robertson’s endorsement are the ones who often preface their words by pointing out how irrelevant he’s become.

What’s the hoopla about? Some Christian leaders are angered that Robertson endorsed a candidate who supports abortion rights, but I think I know what Pat was saying.

When Pat chose Rudy as his pick for president, Robertson reasoned his endorsement this way:

“The overriding issue before the American people, is the defense of our population against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists,” Robertson told the National Press Club audience. “Our world faces deadly peril…and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead.”

I think I understand what Robertson’s getting at.

What Pat’s saying, if I’m following this properly, is simply that no other issues matter if we’re dead. What Pat’s saying is that a pregnant woman getting blown up by a belt bomber won’t be deterred by overturning Roe v. Wade — the baby is dead either way, and so is everybody else involved. What Pat’s saying is that saving countless millions of Americans from a terrorist nightmare is the ultimate pro-life act.

What Pat’s saying is that, though he’d certainly prefer a candidate who believes there is no such thing as an abortion “right,” he’s also realistic enough to not want to make the dreadful mistake of electing somebody who might be weaker on national security just because he wants a pro-life president.

What Pat’s saying is that the opportunity to lessen and eliminate abortions in this country will require a moral climate that, though perhaps more difficult to attain with a “pro choicer” in office, will be impossible to reach in a nation that has been infiltrated by those who seek to destroy us, or, worse yet, in a nation that has a president who has sold out the White House and the rest of the nation to those same people.

At least, I think that’s what Pat’s saying. Then again, he might just think that Rudy’s the most likely to put a permanent smackdown on Hugo Chavez.

What Pat’s Saying

It’s no secret that Pat Robertson’s gotten increasingly kooky over the years. As a result, having not paid a whole lot of attention to Pat for a fairly significant amount of time, I took his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani with a grain of salt and moved on. Others can’t move on, however.

Oddly enough, some of those engaged in the backlash against Robertson’s endorsement are the ones who often preface their words by pointing out how irrelevant he’s become.

What’s the hoopla about? Some Christian leaders are angered that Robertson endorsed a candidate who supports abortion rights, but I think I know what Pat was saying.

When Pat chose Rudy as his pick for president, Robertson reasoned his endorsement this way:

“The overriding issue before the American people, is the defense of our population against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists,” Robertson told the National Press Club audience. “Our world faces deadly peril…and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead.”

I think I understand what Robertson’s getting at.

What Pat’s saying, if I’m following this properly, is simply that no other issues matter if we’re dead. What Pat’s saying is that a pregnant woman getting blown up by a belt bomber won’t be deterred by overturning Roe v. Wade — the baby is dead either way, and so is everybody else involved. What Pat’s saying is that saving countless millions of Americans from a terrorist nightmare is the ultimate pro-life act.

What Pat’s saying is that, though he’d certainly prefer a candidate who believes there is no such thing as an abortion “right,” he’s also realistic enough to not want to make the dreadful mistake of electing somebody who might be weaker on national security just because he wants a pro-life president.

What Pat’s saying is that the opportunity to lessen and eliminate abortions in this country will require a moral climate that, though perhaps more difficult to attain with a “pro choicer” in office, will be impossible to reach in a nation that has been infiltrated by those who seek to destroy us, or, worse yet, in a nation that has a president who has sold out the White House and the rest of the nation to those same people.

At least, I think that’s what Pat’s saying. Then again, he might just think that Rudy’s the most likely to put a permanent smackdown on Hugo Chavez.

Publisher to Pay Ted Kennedy 235,294 Bottles of Chivas for Memoirs

Twelve, an imprint of Grand Central Publishing, has purchased the worldwide rights to Ted Kennedy’s memoirs for $8 million. That equals 235,294 bottles of Chivas Regal Deluxe Blend, or 44,444 bottles of Chivas Regal Royal Salute. Obviously the senator is quite excited.

It’s the highest amount paid to a politician for a memoir since Dan Rostenkowski got 22,727 postage stamps for his book, “Pardon me, Mr. President,” which will be released just as soon as the content is transcribed from the wall of his old cell.

And the Voting Bloc du Jour for 2008 is…

Not long ago I was wondering what the “new” heavily courted voting bloc would be. Years gone by have seen Soccer Moms, NASCAR Dads, Office Park Dads, Reagan Democrats, Yuppies, Angry White Males, etc.

My question has been answered:

Fifty-year-old Carmen Cortez cleans buildings until 1 a.m. as a janitor in San Francisco and lives with her adult son. Courtney Harrell is a 32-year-old lesbian working in the film industry who rents an apartment with three others. Kathleen Moschel is a 63-year-old Republican and former Hallmark card store owner who lives in the Contra Costa County retirement community of Rossmoor.

Despite those differences, some political operatives and pollsters are herding these women into the same sprawling demographic: unmarried women. The “unmarried” bloc is emerging as this year’s trendy political moniker…

Hillary should easily win over this group, as she knows better than anybody else how to relate to people who aren’t in a committed relationship.

The only remaining question is what pollsters will call this group, as “unmarried women” isn’t nearly catchy enough. Given a demographers penchant for combining words, “Ringless Chicks” could easily become “Ricks.” Look for it going into next year’s election.

And the Voting Bloc du Jour for 2008 is…

Not long ago I was wondering what the “new” heavily courted voting bloc would be. Years gone by have seen Soccer Moms, NASCAR Dads, Office Park Dads, Reagan Democrats, Yuppies, Angry White Males, etc.

My question has been answered:

Fifty-year-old Carmen Cortez cleans buildings until 1 a.m. as a janitor in San Francisco and lives with her adult son. Courtney Harrell is a 32-year-old lesbian working in the film industry who rents an apartment with three others. Kathleen Moschel is a 63-year-old Republican and former Hallmark card store owner who lives in the Contra Costa County retirement community of Rossmoor.

Despite those differences, some political operatives and pollsters are herding these women into the same sprawling demographic: unmarried women. The “unmarried” bloc is emerging as this year’s trendy political moniker…

Hillary should easily win over this group, as she knows better than anybody else how to relate to people who aren’t in a committed relationship.

The only remaining question is what pollsters will call this group, as “unmarried women” isn’t nearly catchy enough. Given a demographers penchant for combining words, “Ringless Chicks” could easily become “Ricks.” Look for it going into next year’s election.

Oprah Stumping for Obama, Jammy Party Coming to a Town Near You

Great news, girlfriend! Oprah Winfrey is going to be travelling to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to campaign for Barack Obama.

Oprah agreed to endorse Obama after Barack agreed to a couple of terms. 1) Secretary of State, Dr. Robin Smith, and 2) The Department of Education will sponsor armed patrols of Oprah’s school in South Africa.

A poster pitching an Oprah/Obama event in Iowa includes some unnecessary information, however:

null

Fun With Homonyms and Phonetics

A couple of quick notes while another Monday drags on…

First, a laughable but appropriate homonym. From the New York Post: De Palma Iraq flick bombs

The world is so violent that even the anti-war crowd is bombing. When will the madness end?

Next, the Sheboygan Press shows us a name that is sure to put you at the top of any sexual offense suspect list:

Angelina Lor initially claimed that Pheuk Kue, 37, a convicted sex offender, took her to Green Bay against her will in September and held her there until she was able to escape about two weeks later.

Kue’s girlfriend, “Suki Ur Deek,” was unavailable for comment.

(h/t Boortz)

Monday's Column: "Good" Blacklisting vs. "Bad" Blacklisting

It’s been a while since I took a gratuitious swipe at liberal Hollywood, so today seemed like as good a time as any.

It all started when I read a story in the Washington Times about political leanings in Hollywood. It’s not a problem to find a proudly outspoken liberal in Hollywood, but when the Times contacted a dozen actors rumored to be conservative, none would comment for the story. Why?

Give a read to “Blacklisted: GOP freaks” for the rest of the story. You can “Digg” it here.

Monday’s Column: “Good” Blacklisting vs. “Bad” Blacklisting

It’s been a while since I took a gratuitious swipe at liberal Hollywood, so today seemed like as good a time as any.

It all started when I read a story in the Washington Times about political leanings in Hollywood. It’s not a problem to find a proudly outspoken liberal in Hollywood, but when the Times contacted a dozen actors rumored to be conservative, none would comment for the story. Why?

Give a read to “Blacklisted: GOP freaks” for the rest of the story. You can “Digg” it here.

Taxes, Fred Style

I’m back home now after about 24 hours near Detroit for my wife’s 20-year high school reunion, and one of the first things I read when I returned after a self-imposed day in news exile was that Fred Thompson would give us a choice as far as paying taxes goes.

When it comes to taxes and the IRS, usually these “choices” are simply deciding if you’d rather be shot, or hanged. Is Fred’s plan any different?

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson proposed an income tax plan Sunday that would allow Americans to choose a simplified system with only two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.

Ooh, that’s easy: I’ll take the 10 percent one.

Unfortunately it’s not that simple, but it’s a starting point for some good old “flat tax/fair tax” debate. Here are more details of what Thompson has in mind.