Centerfield

I'll start with a politically moot, but relevant question: How many here who supported the war voted for Kerry? I was among that awkward group of pro-war Kerry voters. Although recent events have changed things, during the 2004 campaign I wasn't convinced the Kerry was going to pull out of Iraq like many thought he would. I wasn't that impressed with either candidate, to tell you the truth.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at June 22, 2006 08:15 PM

I wasn't that impressed with either candidate, to tell you the truth.

In over a quarter century of voting, I can say the same thing. Sad, isn't it?

Posted by: Tully at June 22, 2006 09:05 PM

Let's do the Time Warp agaaa-in!

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 22, 2006 09:09 PM

So, just WHICH Friday did you steal this thread from?

Posted by: Jon Kay at June 22, 2006 09:53 PM

I'll never tell--but Toto had a hit at #1....

It's just a jump to the left.

Posted by: Tully at June 22, 2006 11:19 PM

And then a step to the ri-ii-ight!

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 22, 2006 11:38 PM

But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane... ;-)

Posted by: PatHMV at June 23, 2006 12:09 AM

I am pro-action and supported Kerry who ran a terrible campaign. I agree with Tully. Is this the best America can put forth?

Kerry seems to have abandoned his promise on Iraq and Iran and he's doing it all over again. Gore has shown a bit of evolution, as a stand up comic.....

Posted by: Maxtrue at June 23, 2006 07:35 AM

Let's do the Time Warp aga-aain!

Well, there's always Hillary. She's probably the most pro-war Democrat out there. Too bad the same folks who like her position on the war would never vote for her as President.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 23, 2006 08:30 AM

Fletcher in KY is wrong to block blogs

Posted by: Daniel at June 23, 2006 09:20 AM

I was at Reagan airport over the weekend. The gift shop was sporting Hillary 2008 t-shirts with a nifty rosie the riveter motif, just like the poster here, but with Hillary's face.

I am pro-war, and I didn't vote for Kerry. i didn't vote for Bush either, I wrote in McCain-Lieberman. I don't believe that Kerry would be sporting his current position if he were the President. He'd be doing his best to make the current mission a success, and trying with little success to get more help from allies with our tough stinker of a war. His policy would be much the same, but he'd be casting himself as the guy in the tough spot cleaning up after the last guy's error. IOW, he'd still be the #1 bestseller at the jerk store.

So policywise the nation wouldn't be that much different or worse off, we'd just have a different group of people b!+ching about the President. But we'd be muddling through in a similar fashion.

Posted by: bk at June 23, 2006 09:53 AM

Anyone else watch the NBA finals? My overriding impression is that the NBA has a fundamental flaw in that the endgame's outcome can far too often swing on a referee's call.

The sports guy presciently called this in advance of the series, saying that the refs would help swing things for the Heat at their home games.

As a Celtics fan, I have no dog in this fight in either Dallas or Miami. But as a sports fan, I think its disgraceful that the outcome of each of the last 2 games was swayed not just by foul calls, but by terrible foul calls. In Game 5, Wade took the ball and hogged his way through the entire team, and might have possibly just gotten grazed AFTER letting go of the ball. Then he gets 2 shots to win the game. In game 6, the endgame was swayed when the ref called a foul on Nowitzki after Wade rammed his forearm into the guys chest. This is embarassing stuff, IMO.

Make me a ref, and I'm not calling a foul down the stretch unless a guy gets clobbered or fouled either hard or directly on the arms during the act of shooting. Ig a guy like MJ or Wade or Kobe or whoever takes the ball with 20 seconds left anf ignores his team and goes tunnel vision for the basket, I'm not bailing the guy out. If he gets hammered or a guy slaps his arm, then fine, Yes. But if he gets grazed or lightly bumped, too bad.

I can't help but wonder why most pro sports leagues can't find 20 or 40 or 100 guys to hire as officials who would intuitively understand this.

Posted by: bk at June 23, 2006 10:37 AM

To speak to Rafique's question, I thought initially (and still believe) that war against Saddam was justified. Not for the reasons that the administration chose to give, let alone for the reasons that (apparently) actually motivated them. But there was a case to be made nonetheless. And I voted for Kerry, in part because I thought the level of incompetence with which the Bush administration was waging the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan!) was giving us the worst of both worlds: the military was being trashed from lack of resources to do the job, and the threat from terrorists was growing unchecked.

Would Kerry have just pulled out? I doubt it, but I don't know. Would he have put in the resources needed to get the job done? I suspect that he would have tried, but been thwarted by a partisan Congressional leadership. But again, I don't know.

On the other hand, could he have done worse? I can't think how.

Posted by: wj at June 23, 2006 11:47 AM

So, Rafique and wj, would you say then that you come down on the McCain side on this war (i.e. right war, but not nearly enough troops?) I think you're right that we'll never know EXACTLY what President Kerry would have done (though I voted for him because I believed he WOULD find the right way to get out, at least within his four years in office.).

Were you of the opinion that Kerry might have prosecuted the war like Sen. McCain?

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 23, 2006 01:42 PM

Kinky Friedman has made the ballot in the Texas Governer's race! Not only that, in the latest polling, Friedman is currently running SECOND in the four-way race, ahead of both Independent candidate Carole Strayhorn and the Democratic candidate, Chris Bell. He's still a good way behind incumbent GOP governer Rick Perry, but his numbers are rising.

Among Kinky's campaign slogans are:

How hard could it be?

Texas can do better!

Why the hell not?

In support of Kinky's valiant campaign effort, I am making a contribution of $29.95 to his campaign. The lovely promised thank-you gift has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to contribute.

Well, why the hell not?

Posted by: Tully at June 23, 2006 01:56 PM

Way to go, Tully! I just noted on my blog that the Houston Chronicle seems determined to treat Kinky as the "fringe" candidate, even in a story noting that he gathered more signatures than money-bags Strayhorn. The Chron seems determined to paint this as a race between Strayhorn and Perry, and won't let the facts get in the way. For those who haven't done so, check out his platform, particularly on election reform. Slick Willy he's not, but Kinky has some good ideas that deserve more attention.

Posted by: WeekendPundit at June 23, 2006 04:51 PM

Well, there's always Hillary. She's probably the most pro-war Democrat out there. Too bad the same folks who like her position on the war would never vote for her as President.

That very much depends who the GOP nominates, doesn't it. As unpalatable as it may be, I can't say with hand on heart that I would never vote for Hillary; the big issue for me, of course, is always going to be judicial appointments, but if you had a scenario where Hillary was running against a Republican who I didn't trust to appoint better judges than Hillary, that issue would be moot (being lose-lose), and thereafter, it would be a question of who had an otherwise better platform. It's unlikely, but not impossible, that a GOP candidate could have an extreme right platform and Hillary a moderate / center-right platform. Very, very unlikely - but never say never. I don't share the Hillaryphobia of some on the right - to me, she's just another (albeit relatively moderate) democrat: dead wrong on some issues, not as wrong as other democrats on other issues, and actually right on a few things. Posted by: Simon at June 23, 2006 05:05 PM

Slick Willy he's not, but Kinky has some good ideas that deserve more attention.

Hey, how hard could it be? ;-)

Posted by: Tully at June 23, 2006 05:51 PM

bk, why should the rules be any different at the end of the game then during the rest of it? The rules are there for a reason. Consistency of calls bothers me more, therefore calling it differenty at the end is a bad thing to do. Pressure needs to be put on that the games is called on a consistent basis. What is a foul on Monday in the first quarter should be a foul on Thursday in the last ten seconds. Not calling fouls at the end of the game for the sake of keeping refs out is a bogus idea.

The officiating is bad becuase it is inconsistent. Fix that and the problem can be fixed. Ignoring it by saying no foul unless obvious at the end of a game is the wrong way to fix the problem.

Posted by: Jim M at June 23, 2006 06:54 PM

Simon vote for Hillary?

I thought pigs would fly first. (Hark! Was that a pork roast I spy at 12 o'clock high?)

Of course, that would depend on the GOP nominating Guiliani for the top spot, which ain't gonna happen, so put down your knives and forks, my high flying friends.

Still, it's a nice dream.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 24, 2006 02:07 AM

Mmm....pork roast...(incoherent drooling noise.)

Posted by: Homer Simpson at June 24, 2006 02:08 AM

I'd vote for Hillary...if she was running against a worse choice. As much as I really don't care for her, I think she's competent. I also think she's more concerned about historical legacy than political philosophy* and would thus do her best, and her best could be very good indeed.

[*--Is that as obtuse a way of saying ego-driven and self-centered as you've ever seen? But those aren't alway bad things.]

Posted by: Tully at June 24, 2006 11:42 AM

Simon vote for Hillary? I thought pigs would fly first. (Hark! Was that a pork roast I spy at 12 o'clock high?)

Pink Floyd played a gig together this year, for the first time since the early 80s, so pretty much anything is on the table where flying pigs are concerned. ;) Posted by: Simon at June 24, 2006 11:22 PM

I saw the pig the first time around. :-)

Posted by: Tully at June 25, 2006 10:39 AM

The rules should be enforced more lenietly at the end of the game because enforcement of the rules is so very subjective. So as the stakes get higher, you try to limit the subjective component and allow the players to determine the outcome.

I agree with you that ideally the rules would be enforced clearly and consistently. However, I view that as not especially realistic. How much history do you need to see before you regard such a notion as a vain hope?

Having seen hockey refs "put away their whistles" in overtime, I can testify that the result is a better product. Why call the rules more closely earlier in the game? To keep the game under conrol. Why back off near the end? To let the players determine the outcome. Hockey has shown over and over that this approach works.

See, the problem is the gap between the letter and the spirit of the rules. The letter says that touching is a foul. But the spirit of the rule is that a defender should not be rewarded for creating contact that hinders an offensive player in making a shot. As the stakes rise, the ref has to lean towards the spirit, evenas he enforces more to the letter to keep things in control earlier.

I submit to you that ALL good sports officials understand this.

Posted by: bk at June 26, 2006 09:00 AM

Simon, Please stand back from the ledge.

Do we NOT remember Hillary-Care??? Do we not remember, "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked some cookies, but...."

Now she's Pro-war and favors a Flag-burning amendment. If you believe this, please come see me because I have A BRIDGE IN THE GOBI DESERT that I'd to sell to YOU.

Can you not at least sense that Hillary Clinton is a FRAUD? That she will SAY and DO anything to get elected President?

Fortunately, I think the American people are wise to this, which is why the number of people that have already written her off as presidential timber is at 48%. This is also why the GOP desperately wants her to be the Democratic nominee.

I don't care whether Guliani is the nominee or not, would you not first decide for a 3rd party rather than vote for this Liberal-in-sheep's clothing?

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 26, 2006 12:23 PM

Cavalier829,
All I'm saying is that if the GOP takes the question of judges off the table, my vote is in play - which is really only a statement that each candidate will be assesed on the merits of their platform. But even if we end up nominating a candidate like that, the only person who readily jumps to mind as fitting such a description is Rudy Giulliani, and in such cases, it's hard to imagine a Clinton platform more appealing than a Giulliani platform.

I'm scarcely in any imminent danger of voting for Hillary, although I do point out again (I've said this before, I know) that if Biden shows any serious potential for getting the nomination, I will do whatever it takes to stop him, including working for Hillary. Here's hoping that Biden, too, shows "JOEmentum".

Posted by: Simon at June 26, 2006 12:29 PM

I don't care whether Guliani is the nominee or not, would you not first decide for a 3rd party rather than vote for this Liberal-in-sheep's clothing?

As noted in our previous exchange, there is no scenario I can imagine in which I would vote for any third-party candidate, ever, period. One hates to say never, but I simply can't imagine a scenario wherein it would even be on the table. I want my vote to matter, and I don't have a problem voting for the lesser of two evils, because one of them is going to win, and the lesser evil may still be evil, but it is also less evil. Less evil is better than more evil; what is so difficult to grasp about this? Posted by: Simon at June 26, 2006 12:34 PM

Simon, what state will you be voting in? If one or the other candidate is assured victory in your state, in what sense does your vote register as having made a substantive difference as to the outcome?

If you are voting in a state where the outcome is virtually assured and you believe both major candidates to be unacceptable, I maintain that registering your disaffection has more merit than choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich..

Posted by: bk at June 26, 2006 12:57 PM

I hear you Simon,

And I'd say that there are many more people that tend to think the way you do than the way I do on this.

To me it has always felt like a defeatist attitude. We know that the Dems and the Reps count on voters seeing THEM as the ONLY alternatives. AND there are elements in BOTH which work VERY HARD to take outsider candidates and TRASH them. It's NOT a fair fight, for sure, and many independents who might agree with a maverick on the issues simply WON'T vote in a party primary, because they don't consider themselves a member of that party.

Now I understand the futility of voting for a Libertarian, a Green (don't imagine you would anyway), or a Constitution Party candidate. (I voted Libertarian in '92 and '96 because of my disdain for Republicans like H.W. Bush and Dole couldn't be placated.) As long as these parties simply stand on the platforms they've had for decades there is NO reason to believe they'd EVER get any attention.

But if it came down to Hillary and Rudy, assuming no interesting 3rd party was out there, I'd vote for Rudy.

The harder case I'd say, given my angst regarding the immigration situation, would be Hillary vs. McCain. I'd look pretty hard at 3rd party options first before I'd gag on a Hillary vote.

The most important thing I guess I'd say is that if the time ever came to make that choice, do not be deluded into thinking she has ANY GENUINE Centrist convictions. There are some out there, like Mark Warner (whom I voted for Senate in '96) but outside of Lieberman who actually IS a maverick of sorts, there really ARE NO Centrists in the NorthEast of this country.

Part of the reason why Hillary ran for Senate in New York and not Arkansas.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 26, 2006 01:35 PM

I also see your point, Simon, regarding the Court nominations.

If W. wasn't Constitutionally prevented from running for a 3rd term, would you then be predisposed towards re-electing HIM, given his fidelity on this issue?

Now that I think about it, if it were W. vs. Hillary, I probably would vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 26, 2006 01:41 PM

Heh. I don't care what her convictions are, only her actions. Same with 'most any candidate.

All I want is a presidential ballot in my adult voting lifetime that does NOT have a Bush, Dole, or Clinton on it. Just for once! Is that too much to ask? (The last one was 1972, and I wasn't yet old enough to vote.)

I tend towards Simon's take on Joe Joe Biden Biden, aka "Xerox Joe," but I'd still take an opportunistic self-serving hack over an ideological Savior, any day. The first has self-interest in play, and can thus usually be reasoned with.

Posted by: Tully at June 26, 2006 04:04 PM

Amen, to that, brother.

If Hillary runs and fails in '08, then all we to worry about is Jeb and we'll soon be home free.

Oh forgot, no Libby for Veep, either please.

Gee, that IS a conspiracy isn't?

Yech.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 26, 2006 05:16 PM