Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Senator Schilling?
Retired Major League pitcher Curt Schilling is expressing interest in filling the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy. He is a registered independent, but has supported the last two Republican presidential candidates as a resident of heavily Democratic Massachusetts.
Schilling pitched 8 seasons for the Phillies, and would not be the first former Phillies pitcher to become a U.S. Senator -- Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, served in the House from 1987 to 1999, and in the Senate since 1999, although he has announced his retirement this year.
Schilling is perhaps most famous for helping the Red Sox overcome "The Curse of the Babe" and finally win the World Series in 2004 after more than eight decades without a championship. He pitched a critical Game 6 in the ALCS that year against the Yankees, and famously did so on a stitched and repaired right ankle tendon. Though it seems unlikely that Schilling would be elected in Massachusetts (despite his obviously strong name recognition), he would at least be a politician who could justifiably wave a bloody sock, if not a bloody shirt.
26 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Sep 02, 10:58:00 PM:
Throwing up a little bit in my mouth.
By 
JPMcT, at
Thu Sep 03, 12:41:00 AM:
Yeah, vicki, I guess you're right. Massachusetts deserves another inebriated plutocrat. Values are only important when calculating the bribes, heh?
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 07:10:00 AM:
Vicki, that's what happens every time I see another pic of a Kennedy. Our political process is so broken it's scary, and our politicians are so pathetic it's a wonder the country has lasted this long. Al Franken's in the Senate. What more can you say?
Don't worry folks, I'm certain there has to be at least one brown felon that Obama owes a favor to that needs that seat. And he or she will be more than happy to get the in grill of anyone who opposes the One on any issue, starting with healthcare. Let's do this for the Tedster. Now, pass me another cocktail and another 'ho, will ya?
By joated, at
Thu Sep 03, 08:44:00 AM:
Having had to work for a living (and if you think the regimine of a successful major league pitcher isn't work, you're nuts) and run hs own business to boot, Schilling is probably more qualified than a third of the Senators currently in office.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 08:52:00 AM:
" Throwing up a little bit in my mouth. " But, of course, only a liberal wouldn't have the same reaction regarding a serial adulterer, sexual predator, substance abusing ,murderer like Ted. No, you folks idolize people like that, Castro, Che, Chavez, etc. So ,maybe, you can explain why anyone should pay the slightest bit of attention to you or your ilk ?
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 09:54:00 AM:
While Chuck Schilling might be considered a bloody joke as a Senator, he would at least present an improvement over Joe Kennedy, a.k.a Chavez’s Friend in Massachusetts. Joe’s Citizen’s Energy, which provides oil to the poor at lower prices, deals with Chavez’s CITGO for its oil. Joe, that friend of the poor, picks up a salary of of around $400K for his work, to augment his trust fund income tax sheltered in Fiji and other places.
From the New Republic article, Chavez’s Friend in Massachusetts.
Nor is Citizens Energy’s Venezuela scheme an option of last resort; there are other ways that low-income Massachusetts residents can get subsidized heating oil without empowering an anti-American autocrat. The government of Massachusetts, for instance, has a heating assistance program, and state power companies run a Good Neighbor Energy Fund to help those in need.
It would be one thing for Kennedy to rationalize his dealings with Chavez on utilitarian grounds (though the existence of the previously mentioned programs seems to weaken even that argument). But Kennedy has gone out of his way to defend and even praise Chavez, telling The Wall Street Journal in 2006 that the caudillo has done “so much more” for his country’s poor than any prior leader. (“Neither official statistics nor independent estimates show any evidence that Chavez has reoriented state priorities to benefit the poor,” the former Chief Economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly wrote in Foreign Affairs last year). As for concerns about Chavez’s assault on democracy, Kennedy drew a moral equivalence between the manifold abuses of the Chavista regime and our own government, saying that there’s “ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida.” That same year, he told The Washington Post that his deal with Chavez was “morally righteous.”
The great irony here is that John and Robert Kennedy were staunch anti-communists who believed in the robust assertion of American values abroad. As president, Kennedy established the Alliance for Progress, an aid program intended to serve as a bulwark against the communist infiltration of Latin America. According to Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation, which monitors Latin America, “What Joe Kennedy has done both in Venezuela and in the United States to whitewash the crimes of Hugo Chavez goes against everything his family members valued.” And that, much more so than nepotism, should disqualify him from the Senate.
Also note that in Thugoslavia, a.k.a. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, gasoline costs around 15 cents US per gallon, which is an enormous subsidy to the better-off who own automobiles.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 10:25:00 AM:
Thanks, just the reaction I expected.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 10:36:00 AM:
Speaking of Republican candidates, why don't all current Republican members of Congress and all those who will run as Republicans in 2010 take a very loud and very public oath to reject all earmarks while they are in office.
The dems can't do it because they need the bribes, kickbacks and fees paid to relatives. Where did Rangel get all that money, for example?
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 10:50:00 AM:
When Joe was one of the local Congressmen he showed, over and over, that he is as dumb as a rock, arrogant, and nasty. Joe does inherit his grandfather's greediness making $700K (not $400K) as head of what is ostensibly a charity.
Curt Schilling is ten times smarter and more articulate, and a decent human being. He's running judging by his comments this morning on local jock radio.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 11:55:00 AM:
While this is off-topic, it will help provide ammunition to those who want to bring down Joke Kennedy. For those who are interested in more information on Venezuela in the English language, I highly recommend the following blog sites
Devil’s Excrement. Economics. Recent article on Devil’s Excrement, a.k.a. oil
Daniel’s Venezuela News and Views. Excellent narratives.
Caracas Chronicles Recent article on how the recent shutting down of 34 radio stations has shut down non-government political discourse on radios. Check out its “first time visitor” link in the top right of the page.
Ahmadinejad on Chávez:
"I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chávez."
Chávez on Mugabe:
"You are and always will be a true warrior of freedom."
Not to mention Thugo’s “Gringo de Mierda” rant last year. TV ads connecting Joke Kennedy with Thugo could be devastating.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 11:56:00 AM:
Anon, you know this about Schilling because????????
Really, don't know a thing about him, don't follow baseball. Just wanted to see the nuts come out of the woodwork to defend him. Sorry, perverse pleasure.
I may continue to do this instead of meaningful conversation, which is my preference. I think it brings out the inner "Beck" in all of you.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 12:40:00 PM:
" instead of meaningful conversation, which is my preference "....And you are going to demonstrate this to us when, exactly ? This may be something of a surprise to those whom have read your posts, which tend to consist of deluded ,vicious ,vitriol and leftist diatribe. Usually of little or no substance.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 01:39:00 PM:
Ed, you are free to express your feelings. Never deluded, maybe sometimes vicious, vitriolic. Consider the source of some of the conversations. At times there needs to be a "devil's Advocate" in the conversation, the voice of the near left, which is what I am, and proud of it. Little or no substance, bull.
Sometimes in the spirit of levity, true. Read some of the posts after my comment. You will see some seething vitriol at it's worst, deluded and vicious way to the right. Too to the right.
I fear that when the righties try to rule the world we will lose many rights I hold dear, reproductive rights, the right to a religion other than a christian one and the right to express my opinion contrary to the "norm". Looking at some of these entries, case in point. Heartfelt fear.
Thugs, look to yourselves first.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 02:46:00 PM:
" You will see some seething vitriol at it's worst, deluded and vicious way to the right "..No I don't. What I do see ,however, is exageration on your part, hyperbole.
" I fear that when the righties try to rule the world "...There is another of your mistakes, and a little slip of the mask. Those in power should not rule, as the left has stated it does and desires, they should govern. That is a very different position.
" we will lose many rights I hold dear," I'm unaware of anyone whom would prevent you, or anyone for that matter, from reproducing. If you are referring to the debate about abortion, then you are being very disingenuous at least. There have been no pogroms launched against any religion in this country. Christianity is frequently the target of ridicule and derision in this country, as is Judaism. So your concern there is ,again , misplaced. It is worth noting that the violence perpetrated during the recent town halls about "healthcare reform" has come from the left, the union thugs, so, again, your concerns should lie with your side of the spectrum; not the right side. I suspect that your "heartfelt fear" is self inflicted and unfounded in reality, but, suit yourself.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 03:02:00 PM:
Whatever. You accuse me of being hyperbolic, maybe. I just saw a video of Glenn Beck commenting on the statues and friezes at the Rockefeller building in Rockefeller Plaza, pretty much saying that the building, built in 1939, was built on a foundation of communism and perpetrated socialism and communism throughout the structure and the entire plaza. If these people are the one's you are looking to for your inspiration, you are welcome to them. Give me Rachel Maddow any day. Smart, clear thinking, articulate and she actually makes sense. Glenn is heading for a breakdown and he will probably blame it on the left. Adjust that man's medication, please.
This is fun.
Watch it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/02/glenn-beck-finds-communis_n_275915.html
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 03:21:00 PM:
From Link to Vicky,
I have never watched Glenn Beck. Your insistence that folks here are fans -- and worse still that we think like him -- is tiresome. I'm not a fan of Rush either and have said so here. I put Olbermann in the same category. Maddow has flashes of integrity, but it's not enough to overcome her near-religious fervor in defending ideas that don't stand to reason.
When the history of the last decade is written, the failures of MSM will have a prominent place. They failed us on Iraq, they failed us on St Barack.
Link, over
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Sep 03, 03:28:00 PM:
"I may continue to do this instead of meaningful conversation, which is my preference."
I think I've yet to see one. All I see is, 'Glen Beck and Sean Hannity said X, conservatives are stupid!'
That may pass for meaningful conversation where you're from, but I see that as merely trolling.
"I just saw a video of Glenn Beck..."
Well look at that.
You know you've seen 1000x more of that guy than I have, right? And, apparently, than Link has. Given that simple data, it looks like *you're* the Beck/Hannity fan here.
Hmm.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 03:34:00 PM:
Vicki, I agree with your critics here. You claim "to do this instead of meaningful conversation, which is my preference.", while actually doing simple trolling. Throwing mud balls are your principal argument, usually.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 03:35:00 PM:
" I just saw a video of Glenn Beck "..Mssrs Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al are all entitled to there opinions and positions. I have never indicated my inspiration or my opinions are founded on the pontifications of the afore mentioned. My opinions and positions are based upon information that I glean from a variety of venues. Being familiar with Ms Maddow and the Huffington Post, I would question your reliance on them, or such similar, for unbiased or accurate information. Smart, clear thinking, sensible, in itself a topic for discussion and debate. Perhaps an expansion of your horizons beyond the echo chamber is in order.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 03:37:00 PM:
"there" should be "their", such is the price of ignoring preview.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 04:30:00 PM:
Here's a test for Vicky -- is she real or just another Chris Chambers in whiteface drag?
Please defend the Energy bill. I pick this because it's not as complicated as Healthcare.
Here's my position: If you believe in AGW, then we have a choice between going nuclear or living in tree forts. If you believe AGW is exaggerated (as I do) -- then we can do nothing. I'm still reluctantly for nuclear -- we need the energy independence. For once, we should follow the French.
The Energy bill is an abomination. Most clear thinkers believe it would actually increase CO2 emissions, by pushing jobs to India and China. Ask Hillary how hard they laughed at her in Delhi and Beijing recently. The Energy bill favors wind and solar, even though they don't scale. Go look at Spain and Denmark for proof. There's even more problematic stuff buried in the details.
But Obama still needs the Green vote so he's for it. He's also for "safe" nuclear, which is proof that he's a lying sack of shit and unqualified to lead anything. On the heels of Stiumulus, the Democrats pushing Energy convinced me they're irresponsible and actually dangerous.
I welcome your response,
Link, over
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 05:06:00 PM:
Pasadena Vicki:
I fear that when the righties try to rule the world we will lose many rights I hold dear, reproductive rights, the right to a religion other than a christian one and the right to express my opinion contrary to the "norm."
If you base your fears on fact, try this fact: twenty out of the last twenty eight and a half years have had "righty" presidents, and what you fear did not come to pass. As has been previously been pointed out, the “righty” presidents did not rule, but govern.
BTW, was it a “righty” or “lefty” president who suggested that information about “misinformed” people be sent to the White House? Was it a “lefty” or a “righty” Senate majority leader who told a newspaper’s employee, “I hope you go out of business?” This same Senate majority leaders called protestors “evil-mongers.” “Righty” ot “lefty?”
I just saw a video of Glenn Beck commenting on the statues and friezes at the Rockefeller building in Rockefeller Plaza, pretty much saying that the building, built in 1939, was built on a foundation of communism and perpetrated socialism and communism throughout the structure and the entire plaza.
I have seen Glenn Beck perhaps once in the last year, when cited at some blog, so at your suggestion, I saw this video. Apparently you watch a lot more Glenn Beck than I or many other posters here do.
Conclusion: hyperbole on your part. Or, you have difficulty in determining the gist of some information. The basic theme of Beck’s show was that much of the art at Rockefeller Center had Marrxist symbols in it, which is TRUE: “progressive” artists putting something over on their capitalist patrons. So what else is new?
I might not agree with all of Beck’s interpretations, but much of what he said was sensible. Diego Rivera’s inserting Marxist iconography into paintings for his Rockefeller patron may be news to YOU, but I heard about it from my high school Spanish teacher decades ago. Old hat for those with a decent level of education.
By , at
Thu Sep 03, 07:50:00 PM:
Was Energy for $500 too hard, Vicki? Let's try Stimulus for $100.
Coming into office in the midst of a financial crisis, Obama & Co had some options. The key was to 1) do things that happened quickly, 2) do things with a high multiplier, and 3) consistent with #1 and #2, help those in need. Thus, for example, we could all agree on extending unemployment benefits as part of the package.
We didn't need to send everyone on Social Security a bonus check. We didn't need to fund Nancy's pet projects. We especially didn't need to skew money away from burly men high multiplier construction jobs into a bailout of state governments and Medicare -- soft women's jobs -- as Nancy purposefully did. Men have a much higher unemployment rate than women right now. Last I looked, some men still support families.
We especially didn't need to have most of the spending come in 2010, not 2009. My inner cynic has been howling over this since February. Is 2010 an election year, perchance? Can you say Sugar Rush?
I go to "11" on the dial when Democrats call all this "investment." Very little of Stimulus spending will create anything resembling an asset, let alone an asset with a measurable payback period. In the 1930s, we at least got some great infrastructure built at knock-down prices -- I use some of these assets almost every day.
Rahm Emanuel said it best: You can't waste a good crisis.
$787 billion is a lot of money. The average small business takes less than a million to start. Thus, we could have started a million small businesses with what we mostly pissed away on Stimulus. Reread that last sentence slowly.
For the record Vicky, I'm a huge critic of Bush on the prescription drug benefit.
So Vicky, defend Obama & Co on this. Methinks you're Chris Chambers in whiteface drag, even though I've defended you here. Prove me wrong. The floor is yours.
Developing ....
p.s. John McCain is one of the few in the Senate who was a warrior on the right side of both Stimulus and Prescription Drug Benefit.
p.p.s It's ironic that this discussion touched on Rockefeller Center, one of the most successful real estate developments ever. Whatever you think of John D, it took balls and capital to go it alone on this post 1929 -- and to expand the original project! -- when you're original partners bailed. It's shows what happens when people leading projects have "skin in the game." They even hire Commie artists -- but are sure that they're good Commie artists. Columbia University owned the land, and did quite well on it over the years.
Link, over
By , at
Fri Sep 04, 04:44:00 PM:
Link:
@Sep 03, 04:30:00 PM:
Here's a test for Vicky -- is she real or just another Chris Chambers in whiteface drag? Please defend the Energy bill. I pick this because it's not as complicated as Healthcare…..
@Sep 03, 07:50:00 PM:
Was Energy for $500 too hard, Vicki? Let's try Stimulus for $100….
Link, as she has since posted on other threads and not replied to your questions, you have your answer: TROLL, a.k.a. “another Chris Chambers in whiteface drag.” Her not replying to your request for her opinion on substantive issues, when combined with the substance of her postings stating that Republicans and/or conservatives are hateful, impolite, racist, vomit-inducing, etc., point to TROLL VICKI.
Here are two examples of her racist insinuations.
First example.
Tress: at Sun Jul 26, 11:57:00 AM
I can't help but wonder how many conservatives would rush to the defense of a black cop who threw handcuffs on a white homeowner because he talked back to the black cop?
vicki pasadena ca, at Sun Jul 26, 12:10:00 PM:
Right on, Tress... The answer, no one would.
Second example.
Only people who want to require id's to vote are republicans in the deep south who don't want minorities to vote.
(At the same time, she agreed that documentation checks were proper for Townhall meetings with Congressmen.)
She does not always troll. Her comments on the Instapundit and Rangel threads are not trolling. Nonetheless, most of what she posts here are of the snarky, trolling, not adding substantive comments variety. I also note that when I have requested that she provide documentation for her charges, she has not provided any. Which is evidence of troll-like behavior.
From his blog, at least we know that CC is capable of more than trolling.
Your point about JD Rockefeller having cojones to got through w Rockefeller Center in the middle of the Depression is well taken.
By JPMcT, at
Sat Sep 05, 11:52:00 AM:
I dont think Vicki is a troll. A substantial percentage of the country thinks like she does (God help them)and it's kind of interesting to study the thought process. She does not document her statements, because, by and large, there IS NO documentation for many liberal tenets...just a funny-inside-feeling that you are correct and morally superior.
From a political perspective, many of the patently disastrous policies that have endangered and bankrupted our pocketbooks and our social mores come from just that kind of thinking: The "War" on Poverty, Abortion as a whim and a right, anti-militarism, mediocrity in education, racial identity politics, sexual pleomorphism as a "right"....et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
From a clinical perspective this kind of pathological thinking fascinates me (when it doesn't scare me).
We should try to learn more...perhaps there's a cure!
By , at
Sat Sep 05, 05:45:00 PM:
JpMcT: one point of agreement. I get the impression that she doesn't bother with documenting stuff because her "thought" processes are of the "Because I feel it" variety. Ditto when asked her opinion and she doesn't reply: she hasn't bothered to conjure up a feeling on that particular matter, so nothing is forthcoming.Or the implicit default feeling re Link's questions: that the evil Republicans and conservatives are trying to block progress on energy and health care etc. etc.
In any event, there will never be a meeting of the minds, because to a large extent, per Gertrude Stein, there's no there there.
We devote a lot more thought to her postings than she ever does to her own postings. In that sense we are letting her play us for fools.
