Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Did you by any chance see "Meet The Press" this morning?

Can Fred and his musical apoplexy be far behind,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:14:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Did you by any chance see "Meet The Press" this morning?

Can Fred and his musical apoplexy be far behind,

I'm surprised someone who is so indifferent towards national
politics would waste his time watching a TV program devoted
exclusively to national politics.

I'm surprised that someone who claims to be able to read...can't...

I've never said I'm indifferent to politics, "national" or otherwise.
What I've said is that it'll make very little difference to me who wins
the election to POTUS. As it stands, I'd rather it be McCain, but if it
had been, say, Richardson or Biden vs. Huckebee, I'd have leaned toward
the Dems.

That's rather odd, don't you think ?

That you apparently can't read? Naw, it seems quite common on ROFF...

IAC, while I suspect that your response means "yeah, I saw it...them
mean old reporters were just playin' politics as usual....," did you see
"Meet The Press?"

TC,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:21:46 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
...
IAC, while I suspect that your response means "yeah, I saw it...them
mean old reporters were just playin' politics as usual....," did you see
"Meet The Press?"

Nope, that's one I don't watch. We watch "Sunday Morning" on CBS
from 8:00 to 9:30 then Bob Schieffer til 10:00, ABC/Stephenopolous
from 10:00 to 11:00 then the last hour of CNN/Wolf Blitzer.

David Brooks had a puerile piece in the Times last week trumpeting
Obama's "downfall". I imagine he's spouting the same drivel on TV.

I didn't see the piece, but there was a mention of something that must
have been that.

IAC, the others, including your beloved NPR, apparently spouted the same
puerile drivel...if by puerile drivel you mean pointing out that Obama
ain't all that special after all - he is a snot-nosed kid with
more-than-average charm who has his good points and his bad, and that at
the end of the day, he's just another good, but rookie, politician. IOW,
he's as full of **** as any, and if he doesn't flame out, he'll
eventually be able to sling it as well as any...

OTOH, if by "puerile drivel" you mean a fawning admiration of Obama as a
"can do no wrong" bright shining light who, if elected POTUS, will make
everything perfect 14 seconds after taking office, and with whom many
are ****-scared of coming off as "racist" with or about, naw, none of
that drivel...

If you are interested in opinions that aren't "Rah-Rah-bama," you might
look around for a transcript - I'm gonna look up the Brooks' piece.

TC,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:21:46 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
...
IAC, while I suspect that your response means "yeah, I saw it...them
mean old reporters were just playin' politics as usual....," did you see
"Meet The Press?"

Nope, that's one I don't watch. We watch "Sunday Morning" on CBS
from 8:00 to 9:30 then Bob Schieffer til 10:00, ABC/Stephenopolous
from 10:00 to 11:00 then the last hour of CNN/Wolf Blitzer.

David Brooks had a puerile piece in the Times last week trumpeting
Obama's "downfall". I imagine he's spouting the same drivel on TV.

Found it and read it. What, in your opinion, makes it "puerile" and/or
"drivel," other than it a) disagrees with your opinions, and/or b)
paints Saint Barack as a mere mortal...?

R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:10:11 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
David Brooks had a puerile piece in the Times last week trumpeting
Obama's "downfall". I imagine he's spouting the same drivel on TV.

Found it and read it. What, in your opinion, makes it "puerile" and/or
"drivel," other than it a) disagrees with your opinions, and/or b)
paints Saint Barack as a mere mortal...?

It was a shallow, facile, snide column filled with half-truths
and unfair criticisms. Obama can't "connect" because he bowled
a 37 ? Fer chrissakes, how stupid is that ?

It's not the bowling a 37 - it's trying to appear as something someone
as supposedly smart as him ought know he isn't, be it a bowler or
anything else. His hubris told him that he could do it (or look at
least competent) and reality told him it ain't simply chunking a ball
down thataway and getting a strike every time. It's Obama's political
career thus far.

It was just your plain old, vanilla liberal bashing and standard
anti-intellectual diatribe from a Bill Kristol wannabe who has
neither the intelligence or gravitas to be Bill Kristol.

I think Brooks, like yourself, has seen the handwriting on the
wall and knows full well Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Ah, well, with those, um "facts," it's clear Brooks is completely
off-base...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

HTH,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
It was a shallow, facile, snide column filled with half-truths
and unfair criticisms. Obama can't "connect" because he bowled
a 37 ? Fer chrissakes, how stupid is that ?

It's not the bowling a 37 - it's trying to appear as something someone
as supposedly smart as him ought know he isn't, be it a bowler or
anything else. His hubris told him that he could do it (or look at
least competent) and reality told him it ain't simply chunking a ball
down thataway and getting a strike every time. It's Obama's political
career thus far.

What a silly bunch of piffle you spew. The only reason you see
uppity hubris is because that's what you want to see. I see a
gracious sense of humor and a self-effacing, healthy ability to
have a good natured laugh at his own expense.

You might want to swap out the Mississippi lenses on your glasses
for something a little more mainstream.

I predict that whoever wins the upcoming nominations and subsequent
elections it ain't going to make pundits out of either of you vapid
chumps......nor of anyone else who chooses to weigh in on this hoary
perennial twitfest.

Wolfgang
i mean, just imagine someone having something interesting or new to add to
the oldest continuing babel of blather in the history of humanity.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:21:46 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Nope, that's one I don't watch. We watch "Sunday Morning" on CBS
from 8:00 to 9:30 then Bob Schieffer til 10:00, ABC/Stephenopolous
from 10:00 to 11:00 then the last hour of CNN/Wolf Blitzer.

Pablum for breakfast?

d;o)

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:50:47 -0500, "Wolfgang" yapped
and whined:

Oh, OK, girl, I'll pat your sadly ironic empty little head...

I predict that whoever wins the upcoming nominations and subsequent
elections it ain't going to make pundits out of either of you vapid
chumps......nor of anyone else who chooses to weigh in on this hoary
perennial twitfest.

Um, like you...?

Wolfgang
i mean, just imagine someone having something interesting or new to add to
the oldest continuing babel of blather in the history of humanity.

I'm sure you do imagine just that...on any and all subjects and
threads...unfortunately, like in every other case, it wouldn't be you
doing the adding of anything new or interesting...but do keep clicking
your heels and wishing, Dorothy...apparently, it greatly bemuses some
folks...

Now sit up and beg, lil' pup,
Dickie or Dicklet or Barney or whatever you call me these days

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:50:47 -0500, "Wolfgang" yapped
and whined:

Oh, OK, girl, I'll pat your sadly ironic empty little head...

I predict that whoever wins the upcoming nominations and subsequent
elections it ain't going to make pundits out of either of you vapid
chumps......nor of anyone else who chooses to weigh in on this hoary
perennial twitfest.

Um, like you...?

Dang! How do you ALWAYS manage to trap me with these fiendishly clever
reversals?! :(

Wolfgang
i mean, just imagine someone having something interesting or new to add to
the oldest continuing babel of blather in the history of humanity.

I'm sure you do imagine just that...on any and all subjects and
threads...unfortunately, like in every other case, it wouldn't be you
doing the adding of anything new or interesting...but do keep clicking
your heels and wishing, Dorothy...apparently, it greatly bemuses some
folks...

Now sit up and beg, lil' pup,
Dickie or Dicklet or Barney or whatever you call me these days

Oh death, where is thy sting?

Wolfgang
i mean, can the boy bludgeon or what?
p.s. it's dicklet......dicklet. and you weren't aware of that, huh?
:)

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:21:46 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Nope, that's one I don't watch. We watch "Sunday Morning" on CBS
from 8:00 to 9:30 then Bob Schieffer til 10:00, ABC/Stephenopolous
from 10:00 to 11:00 then the last hour of CNN/Wolf Blitzer.

Pablum for breakfast?

So, could one of you rocket scientists explain to me how it is that all of
you manage to survive the devastating broadsides with which you pummel one
another and which the rest of us so justifiably dread?

Wolfgang
razors, bombs, clubs, chainsaws, thermonuclear devices......all metaphors
pale

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wall and knows full well Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Jon.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wall and knows full well Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

See, that's the nice thing about being a predator.....the world turns out to
be SO simple.

Wolfgang
who, silly thing, thought there just MUST be more to it than that.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

SNICKER

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

wrote in message
...
SNICKER

Yet another sign that you don't shiv a git, huh? :)

YMMV, HTH, POTUS, oprah, oprah, emeril, absinthe oprah, absinthe, ansinthe.

Wolfgang
who supposes that pain as a way of life must get tedious. on the other
hand, as a spectator sport it always remains fresh.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Nope, that's one I don't watch. We watch "Sunday Morning" on CBS
from 8:00 to 9:30 then Bob Schieffer til 10:00, ABC/Stephenopolous
from 10:00 to 11:00 then the last hour of CNN/Wolf Blitzer.

Pablum for breakfast?

Sunday Morning has gone downhill since Charles Kuralt died
but it's a habit of longstanding. As for the talking heads,
it's part of being an informed and responsible voter. I read
the editorial page of _The Wall Street Journal_ too even
though it can cause nausea.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:18:54 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

I read
the editorial page of _The Wall Street Journal_ too even
though it can cause nausea.

Really? I find it uplifting when I get a chance to read it.

d;op

Now, Fox News, *that's* where you should be. vbseg

Dave

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:18:54 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

I read
the editorial page of _The Wall Street Journal_ too even
though it can cause nausea.

Really? I find it uplifting when I get a chance to read it.

d;op

Now, Fox News, *that's* where you should be. vbseg

Now, clearly, the boys (both of whom, remember, have stuck sharp things in
their eyes to become invisible) either believe this exchange proves, once
again, that they are witty, urbane, well informed and clever.....or they are
willing to pretend to believe it. Any thoughts on which of the
possibilities is the more pathetic?

stevie?

chuckie?

mikie?

freddie?

jonnie?

dicklet?

Seriously.

Wolfgang

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:02:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wall and knows full well Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Jon.

The situation as it stands today indicates there will be no "stomping"
by or of anyone. It'll likely be much like 8 years ago, damned near
50-50. I wouldn't be surprised at a real squeaker. And I'm sure
Hillary and Screamin' Howie have whole packs of lawyers warming up their
BS. Can you paint any halfway reasonable picture in which whatever
combination of Dems vs. McCain would produce anything much different?
Heck, even if the Dems have the "meltdown" that is looking more and more
possible, I can't see McCain doing better than about 55%, maybe a little
better if he picks a strong veep AND the Dems continue into a
cluster**** of a convention that Hillary takes AND Obama ****s down his
leg and settles for veep and politics as usual. I can't imagine Hillary
getting more than about the high 40s, Obama being the current probable
best of two not-so-good choices, probably in the 48-52% range, depending
on who he picks - if it's Hillary, it'll be President McCain. The US is
simply too polarized and the candidates simply have too many weaknesses,
real or manufactured/perceived.

About the only way any "stomping" might occur would be if, ahem, it were
a McCain-Obama ticket stomping the field. Since that isn't really
likely, anyone who predicts landsides might as well, oh, I don't know,
promise they'll have all the troops in Iraq out in two years or
something stupid like that...

TC,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:02:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wall and knows full well Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Jon.

The situation as it stands today indicates there will be no "stomping"
by or of anyone. It'll likely be much like 8 years ago, damned near
50-50. I wouldn't be surprised at a real squeaker. And I'm sure
Hillary and Screamin' Howie have whole packs of lawyers warming up their
BS. Can you paint any halfway reasonable picture in which whatever
combination of Dems vs. McCain would produce anything much different?
Heck, even if the Dems have the "meltdown" that is looking more and more
possible, I can't see McCain doing better than about 55%, maybe a little
better if he picks a strong veep AND the Dems continue into a
cluster**** of a convention that Hillary takes AND Obama ****s down his
leg and settles for veep and politics as usual. I can't imagine Hillary
getting more than about the high 40s, Obama being the current probable
best of two not-so-good choices, probably in the 48-52% range, depending
on who he picks - if it's Hillary, it'll be President McCain. The US is
simply too polarized and the candidates simply have too many weaknesses,
real or manufactured/perceived.

About the only way any "stomping" might occur would be if, ahem, it were
a McCain-Obama ticket stomping the field. Since that isn't really
likely, anyone who predicts landsides might as well, oh, I don't know,
promise they'll have all the troops in Iraq out in two years or
something stupid like that...

Wow! Well, that's what we pay your for......hard nosed analysis of the
tough stuff that nobody else will touch.

Wolfgang
still, the utter boldness and clarity of it all is staggering.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:51:39 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:18:54 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

I read
the editorial page of _The Wall Street Journal_ too even
though it can cause nausea.

Really? I find it uplifting when I get a chance to read it.

d;op

Now, Fox News, *that's* where you should be. vbseg

Dave

Air America and Michael Moore...

....and the NYT except when they screw up and say something that might be
construed as denying that Obama is the second coming...I can hardly wait
to see the Times if McCain picks Lieberman...it'll be like free
ham...yeah, yeah, yeah, calm down, it's just a joke...

I thought it was pretty interesting that a Hamas leader "endorsed"
Obama, noting that he seemed a lot like John Kennedy...of course, these
are some of the same folks who think Hitler was a whole lot better than
John Kennedy...

TC,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
... Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.

And I don't think I'm being too sanguine.

No, no, not a bit of it. A tad uxorious or quotidian perhaps......even
superamalgamated or just a soupcon flammulated......but no, never sanguine.

Wolfgang
hey, when the boy is ripe, he's ripe.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:24:59 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
... Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.

Um, he didn't win...three times in the same election...

And I don't think. I'm being too sanguine.

There, that's better...

HTH,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

HAT TRICK!!! HAT TRICK!!!

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:24:59 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.

Gore lost. Live with it.
He *should* have run away with it, but when you lose your *own
state*.........

So did Kerry. Live with it.


Dave

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

wrote in message
...
The situation as it stands today indicates there will be no "stomping"
by or of anyone. It'll likely be much like 8 years ago, damned near
50-50. I wouldn't be surprised at a real squeaker.

what gives you this impression? IMO, the country is less divided along a
50/50 fault line than it was then.


And I'm sure
Hillary and Screamin' Howie have whole packs of lawyers warming up their
BS. Can you paint any halfway reasonable picture in which whatever
combination of Dems vs. McCain would produce anything much different?

Obama will kick McCain three ways to Sunday. By US standards, he may indeed
win by a subtantial margin. He puts states in play for the Dems that haven't
been so for a while. I'll bet you a cold one(or three), publicly, now, that
Obama can beat McCain by 60 electoral votes.

Tom
p.s. forget about Hillary, she is dead, and her campaign staff shows the
signs of knowing it, the past few days here
in PA.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.

Gore lost. Live with it.
He *should* have run away with it, but when you lose your *own
state*.........

So did Kerry. Live with it.

We've all been living with it over the past seven plus years.
Shrub's approval rating is around 30%. Which begs the question;
How in the hell can 30% of the people in this country have their
stupid heads so far up their moronic asses as to *APPROVE* of
George W. Bush ??!!?? It boggles the mind.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.


Gore lost. Live with it.
He *should* have run away with it, but when you lose your *own
state*.........

So did Kerry. Live with it.


We've all been living with it over the past seven plus years.
Shrub's approval rating is around 30%. Which begs the question;
How in the hell can 30% of the people in this country have their
stupid heads so far up their moronic asses as to *APPROVE* of
George W. Bush ??!!?? It boggles the mind.


They're the people who wouldn't mind if he ate their children.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:32:24 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

We've all been living with it over the past seven plus years.

Good. d;o)

The Dem Congress (both Houses) has even less approval rating than
Bush.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:59:20 -0700, rw
wrote:

They're the people who wouldn't mind if he ate their children.

You're weird, Barnard. Really weird.

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
You're weird, Barnard. Really weird.



....this occurs to you after, what, a decade or more, on ROFF?g
Tom

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:25:36 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

..this occurs to you after, what, a decade or more, on ROFF?g

Yeah, but he never mentioned eating my kids before. That is weird,
even for Barnard. Must be the Wolfgag influence on him. g

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:10:01 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
The situation as it stands today indicates there will be no "stomping"
by or of anyone. It'll likely be much like 8 years ago, damned near
50-50. I wouldn't be surprised at a real squeaker.

what gives you this impression? IMO, the country is less divided along a
50/50 fault line than it was then.


And I'm sure
Hillary and Screamin' Howie have whole packs of lawyers warming up their
BS. Can you paint any halfway reasonable picture in which whatever
combination of Dems vs. McCain would produce anything much different?

Obama will kick McCain three ways to Sunday.

If the election were next week, no way, no how. Which is not to say
McCain would kick his tail, either. But there's too much time for
shtick betwixt now and November to predict what _will_ happen then. And
I think Obama has more to lose in meantime because he is still
kinda-sorta the media darling golden boy now...hey, Hillary was all but
the nominee last year...

By US standards, he may indeed win by a subtantial margin.

And he may up and decide he no longer wants to be Prez and calls for
folks to write in Paris Hilton for the job...and of course, there's the
whole "US standards" thing...lately, that's been trying to figure out
who 6 goobers in Possum Anus, FL REALLY wanted to vote for and fighting
over the dangling dingleberries it in court. And remember, he the
delegates he has because Hillary's hubris gave them to him - literally -
in the caucuses...and it's not the first time some would-be dictator,
um, caught a cold ****ing around in the, um, "Cauc(a)s(e)s"

He puts states in play for the Dems that haven't
been so for a while.

I'm not so sure how much, and he will likely lose some play that a more
solid-appearing Dem with some real chops might get - Richardson, for
example. Plus the whole race and religion (both the real, ala Wright,
and the horse****, ala Islam) thing is too wild a card to speculate
upon. The Wright thing has hurt him and the "elitist" thing all the
more so, but... If he does much of anything that portrays himself - or
really, confirms what some suspect and I suspect the Rovettes will be
helping along - as some elitist liberal intellectual atheist, he's done.
Also, I'm sure some people say they would vote for him because they are
afraid to say they wouldn't and appear racist, when they wouldn't
actually vote for him if he were white, blue, or chartreuse, but I don't
think anyone really has a good handle on those numbers. Bottom line -
IMO, it's too early to make hard-and-fast calls, but given the facts as
of 4PM eastern, no one is gonna stomp anyone

I'll bet you a cold one(or three), publicly, now, that
Obama can beat McCain by 60 electoral votes.

I'm sure you would...you appreciate sucker bets as much as I do...and
don't appreciate being the sucker any more than I do...

Would you bet me $100,000.00USD, publicly, now, that a ticket consisting
of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich can beat any other ticket you can
imagine by every single electoral vote?

I mean, they can...they won't, but they _can_...which, of course, leads
to a debate about what "can" means...

IAC, I've no problem with the idea that, being reasonable, Obama might
win by 60 electoral votes over McCain...but McCain, at this moment, is
just as likely to do the same over Obama. I've been speaking more of
the popular vote, which really doesn't elect the Pres or Veep, but it
what most look to. Assuming all electors stay faithful, I'd say the
actual vote (electors) would mirror the popular, so assuming Obama and a
reasonable veep, like Richardson vs. McCain-so-so veep, it's about a
toss-up, with a _slight_ edge to McCain. If it's Obama-Clinton vs.
McCain-Lieberman, it'll be President McCain.

Tom
p.s. forget about Hillary, she is dead, and her campaign staff shows the
signs of knowing it, the past few days here
in PA.

I don't know about that. And that's another thing Obama has to face -
he's spending, what, 12 mil in Penn alone - that ain't change, brother.
I'd offer as a possible that both have slammed a little too much dick to
be second fiddle, but neither really has a clear choice as running mate.
To make matters worse, one choosing the other might be seen as the best
hope (ala Billy's little "unstoppable force" shtick) but also the
biggest risk. Frankly, I think the Clintonistas and pseudoDems have
once again put the Democratic Party into a real mess, and 2008 might not
be the year they get out of it.

TC,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

wrote in message
...
If the election were next week, no way, no how.

However, it isn't....hence, my wager. This campaign runs for a while, which,
I think you will find, will play to Obama's favor. Mostly, for reasons no
specific to him, but which he will be able to articulate, regarding McCain's
ideas for moving the nation ahead.

I'm not so sure how much, and he will likely lose some play that a more
solid-appearing Dem with some real chops might get - Richardson, for
example.

I like Bill Richardson, too, but let's face it. He has the charisma of
oatmeal.

Plus the whole race and religion (both the real, ala Wright,
and the horse****, ala Islam) thing is too wild a card to speculate
upon. The Wright thing has hurt him and the "elitist" thing all the
more so

really? The poll numbers, plus casual conversation here in East Central PA
say otherwise. Most real folks know the smell of bull****, and seemingly,
are less tolerant of it this season. What 'pundits' opine, and columnists
write, seems to convey less momentum to a campaign than it once did.
Strange phenomenon: we live within a world where 'everything' becomes
newsworthy, yet, most folks filter out more and more of it.


Would you bet me $100,000.00USD, publicly, now, that a ticket consisting
of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich can beat any other ticket you can
imagine by every single electoral vote?

I'd wager that much that the pairing in question might have trouble beating
a traffic ticket.....and, yes, I see where your suspicions lie in my
original wording. Let me restate it(at the lower buy-in level of a couple
brews): Obama WILL beat John McCain by 60 electoral votes in the 2008
election. Sorry to infer an attempt at a dubious bet.

I don't know about that. And that's another thing Obama has to face -

he'll deal with your not knowing alright, I figureg.

he's spending, what, 12 mil in Penn alone - that ain't change, brother.

he's picking up 40 mil a month in contributions, largely small sums from
people he can return to for more, if/when he needs it.

I'd offer as a possible that both have slammed a little too much dick to
be second fiddle, but neither really has a clear choice as running mate.
To make matters worse, one choosing the other might be seen as the best
hope (ala Billy's little "unstoppable force" shtick) but also the
biggest risk.

this part, I generally will agree with. Not with the explaination which you
gave about the party, however. The Dems will be just fine. Only if the
primary ugliness runs into the actual convention, will they have a problem.
It won't. Obama will be the nominee-apparent within 45 days, I will guess.
After that, the party love-fest will heal most of the wounds, the Clintons
will fade to elder-statesmen/ Teddy Kennedy type past-tense status, and,
with hope, Obama picks a running mate slightly less controversial than
William Ayers. Lieberman can, and will, get painted with the same pro-war,
pro-Israel brush as McCain, maybe in worse fashion, and that pairing would
lose out of just sheer fear of the consequences of them in charge. It would,
however, temper McCain a bit to have Joe out on the trail with him to
whisper corrections in his ear, and calm down the temper tantrums. He has
that job down pretty damned well!

Tom

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:45:52 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
If the election were next week, no way, no how.

However, it isn't....hence, my wager. This campaign runs for a while, which,
I think you will find, will play to Obama's favor. Mostly, for reasons no
specific to him, but which he will be able to articulate, regarding McCain's
ideas for moving the nation ahead.

And there is something Hillary is right about - she and McCain have been
pretty thoroughly vetted, plus, most anything short of bestiality or
kiddie porn that comes from even slightly partisan sources, however
true, looks, well, partisan, and won't effect the true believers, but
Obama isn't all that vetted and has made some pretty amateurish moves on
his own. Plus, while Hillary and her minions (not all of her
supporters) are as vicious a pack of political jackals as anything GOP,
they have had to show _some_ restraint in attacking one of their own.
OTOH, I saw Carvelle in the last couple of days, and his smirk alone
told me this thing ain't over even after it's over. IAC, what Hillary
has thrown at him will pale at what's coming if he's the nominee. And
it won't be just from the GOP (or even "surrogates") - he's a black guy
who admitted he did pot and coke, he's from Chicago, he's a "liberal,"
and the "elitist" thing is probably at least a little true. He's not
some white war hero married to a beautiful gal who sets fashion trends
whose daddy is hooked up with the mob and whose biggest public hurdle is
being Catholic.

I'm not so sure how much, and he will likely lose some play that a more
solid-appearing Dem with some real chops might get - Richardson, for
example.

I like Bill Richardson, too, but let's face it. He has the charisma of
oatmeal.

Plus the whole race and religion (both the real, ala Wright,
and the horse****, ala Islam) thing is too wild a card to speculate
upon. The Wright thing has hurt him and the "elitist" thing all the
more so

really? The poll numbers, plus casual conversation here in East Central PA
say otherwise.

And if East Central PA were the only voters for the POTUS, that would be
significant. However, they don't, and IAC, this isn't the election. I
suspect that things will shift back and forth before it's over and it'll
just be a question of who gets the chair when the music stops.

Most real folks know the smell of bull****, and seemingly,
are less tolerant of it this season.

Uh-huh...that's why no "news" show even mentions what Britney Spears did
yesterday, no one knows what Paris Hilton thinks of some girl's ass,
what pop tart is pregnant (or not), or who's leading the pack on
American Idol...

What 'pundits' opine, and columnists
write, seems to convey less momentum to a campaign than it once did.

Bull****. Media, traditional and otherwise, is what got a nobody one
term senator who really hasn't done anything but be black(ish) and have
some stage presence into a horserace for the Dem nomination.

Strange phenomenon: we live within a world where 'everything' becomes
newsworthy, yet, most folks filter out more and more of it.

See above Britney's **** and Paris' opinion...

Would you bet me $100,000.00USD, publicly, now, that a ticket consisting
of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich can beat any other ticket you can
imagine by every single electoral vote?

I'd wager that much that the pairing in question might have trouble beating
a traffic ticket.....and, yes, I see where your suspicions lie in my
original wording. Let me restate it(at the lower buy-in level of a couple
brews): Obama WILL beat John McCain by 60 electoral votes in the 2008
election. Sorry to infer an attempt at a dubious bet.

Hell, I'd have bet the brews on the dubious bet, so sure, what the
hell...but are you sure enough to bet some serious coin - say 5 grand?
I'm not.

I don't know about that. And that's another thing Obama has to face -

he'll deal with your not knowing alright, I figureg.

Actually, that's the issue - what's he gonna do? How's he gonna deal?
Who's he gonna deal with? Look, all BS aside, I think this guy is still
a big unknown - not bad, not good, unknown. And in politics, unknown is
very, very bad - one name: Eagleton. The next thing you know, Tricky
Dick wins by a landslide...

he's spending, what, 12 mil in Penn alone - that ain't change, brother.

he's picking up 40 mil a month in contributions, largely small sums from
people he can return to for more, if/when he needs it.

Hardly. Oh, I'll accept that the majority, in number of contributors,
are smallish sum individuals who more-or-less believe in Saint Obama,
but he's getting money (and help) from folks that will come someday and
ask for a favor...and he better have his lips all puckered up for a
little ring-kissing when they do...

I'd offer as a possible that both have slammed a little too much dick to
be second fiddle, but neither really has a clear choice as running mate.
To make matters worse, one choosing the other might be seen as the best
hope (ala Billy's little "unstoppable force" shtick) but also the
biggest risk.

this part, I generally will agree with. Not with the explaination which you
gave about the party, however. The Dems will be just fine. Only if the
primary ugliness runs into the actual convention, will they have a problem.

Um, they have a problem. Unless Hillary loses by something like 639% to
0% tomorrow, everything seems to indicate she's gonna fight
Clinton-style until it's way past over.

It won't.

Uh, perhaps you've heard of his opponent - Hillary
somethingoranother...hell, the bitch whacked Vince Foster on a whim...

Obama will be the nominee-apparent within 45 days, I will guess.

Heck, depending on who you talk to, he was that back in Iowa, so...

After that, the party love-fest will heal most of the wounds, the Clintons
will fade to elder-statesmen/ Teddy Kennedy type past-tense status, and,
with hope, Obama picks a running mate slightly less controversial than
William Ayers.

Maybe Al Sharpton or Michael Moore would be interested...

Lieberman can, and will, get painted with the same pro-war,
pro-Israel brush as McCain, maybe in worse fashion,

Yeah, having a semi-conservative pro-war Jewish veep is gonna keep money
away from McCain big time...for a whole lot of serious power (and money)
people, if it's a choice between pro-Israel and some dude that wants to
meet with Ahmadinejad, pro-Israel wins, and I'm not just talking about
US-based Jews. OTOH, for a whole lot of other serious power (and money)
people, screw Israel. Again, it's pretty hard to tout the winning horse
in a race with the sheet so blurry...

and that pairing would
lose out of just sheer fear of the consequences of them in charge.

See above.

TC,
R

It would,
however, temper McCain a bit to have Joe out on the trail with him to
whisper corrections in his ear, and calm down the temper tantrums. He has
that job down pretty damned well!

Tom