Chet Lemon

Dead Al Qaeda Leaders now a Bad Thing?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 10:03 PM) Except very few people have even heard of him. I thought I followed presidential politics pretty closely and that name has never once been on the radar screen nationally. I'm operating under the premise that people will not vote for the guy on the top of the ticket because of who he chooses to be VP, but will vote against the top of the ticket based on an egregiously poor VP choice. Sandoval, while unknown nationally, has a resume worthy of the selection, and the fact that he is qualified doesn't look like a play solely to win hispanic voters.

I think his "best" option would be Brian Sandoval. Unlike some other options being mentioned to appeal to hispanic voters, Sandoval would actually be qualified to take over the Presidency if needed. He's a Governor, former federal judge, held statewide offices, etc.

Speaking of Newt, here is an interesting exchange he had w/ Romney at a recent debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buuIILk31lI...feature=related

With the latest managerial change, it got me wondering, why was Gene Lamont fired so quickly in '95? The '94 team likely would have won 95-100 games had the strike not occurred, and '93 was the first time the Sox had won the division in a decade. Granted, they got off to a bad start in '95, but couldn't they have at least given Lamont to the All-Star break? http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers...ger_stats::none

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 13, 2011 -> 12:06 PM) All in all, Hawk is a piece of human garbage. I can't wait until he's gone, one way or another. Indeed. If only he could be replaced in the booth with John Rooney. A Rooney/Stone combination would be superb.

Fire both at the end of the season if no post-season.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 09:28 PM) Mike Huckabee wants all Americans forced to watch televised Christian preaching at gunpoint Channeling a bit of

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/149791-...-on-afghanistan

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Mar 5, 2011 -> 10:46 AM) no it was 100% serious. I'm saying that across the board, they are looking at the smaller issues/items first, and leaving the heavy hitters for later. You mean Planned Parenthood and PBS aren't heavy hitters? Along with ObamaCare, they are the troika of our country's debt monster.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 6, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) The second in line to the Presidency has no public appointments listed in his schedule today. Isn't he actually first in line to the Presidency?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 05:19 PM) Our next Press Secretary is a Carney! (/rimshot) I thought Geoff Morrell would have been the best replacement, but it's entirely possible he did not want the job.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 04:27 PM) I hope she wins the Republican nomination. Would put Texas into a "swing state" category. Public Policy Polling (D) 1/14-16/11; 892 likely voters, 3.3% margin of error Mode: Automated phone PPP release Texas 2012 President 48% Gingrich, 43% Obama 55% Huckabee, 39% Obama 47% Palin, 46% Obama 49% Romney, 42% Obama 45% Obama, 45% Perry That is hilarious because I thought 46% of Texas thought the President was a Muslim interloper.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) Cutting Education by 83% doesn't bother you? And eliminating Housing and Urban Development completely? My view dissents from the two main opposing sides of the educational debate. For the sake of brevity, I will bring up the issue of teacher effectiveness. Generically, most Democrats in the U.S. Congress believe the good teachers should be paid more, which sounds great, but how does the Fed know that a state or district has good teachers? Most and those in the administration would answer: student assessment. How does the Fed assess students? Test scores and other standardized testing measures. Many Republicans in Congress applaud this too, and the administration leans towards linking teacher pay with test scores ostensibly to weed out bad teachers/reward good teachers and because they don't want to look like they are owned by teacher unions. The other view held by many self-described "conservatives" in the U.S. Congress and some urban lawmakers is that when a school is failing (e.g. test scores are falling, high absenteeism, etc.), families should be given government vouchers so that they can pull their kids out of the failing schools and place them into others of their choosing, where teachers are presumably more effective. Neither side will admit that "bad" schools' clientele are as much a part of the problem as administrators, state-level bureaucrats and teachers. It's good PR to blame the latter two and cite the latest test scores to prove how bad or good teachers are doing. Measuring by test scores is comparable to measuring baseball players solely by batting averages. It would be like saying some guy is a terrible baseball player because you only can see his career .123 line, never mind that he is Roy Halladay.

At first glance, nothing offends me terribly in Rand Paul's budget except gutting TSA. You may dislike them now, but once another airport-related attack occurs, they will come back bigger, more expensive, and likely more "annoying" than ever. I would also oppose his defunding of all international organizations. While UN is often disappointing, the fact that there is an organized world forum in our backyard is a small price especially in relation to the budget. Despite NATO's disappointments in Afghanistan, I believe that is an alliance worth keeping, as more democracies in Eastern Europe wish to enter in. All told, their expenses would still be a fraction of even a gutted federal budget.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) She has a chance to win the GOP nom, but she has zero chance in the general, so I tend to think the GOP establishment will work hard to keep her away from that nomination. No doubt the establishment will throw roadblocks wherever possible. You already see it from established GOP pundits and some of the leadership in their comments about the '12 race. However, the recent primary defeats of GOP establishment-backed candidates in Alabama, Delaware, Alaska, Utah and Nevada show just how powerless thwarting her nomination may be.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) By liberals, because they want to continue this pipe dream that no real candidate will challenge Obama. If she does run, though I'm thinking that is less likely as each week passes, she can likely win the nomination. Her grassroots following will carry in the Iowa Caucus, she losses New Hampshire, her popularity in South Carolina will carry her to victory there. Nevada probably goes to Romney, but whichever GOP candidate has won the SC Primary has won the nomination since 1980. No guarantees in '12, but a clear path exists.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/...l#ixzz1BhSjuEfU

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028447-503544.html

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 09:45 PM) Are you really defending ads with gun targets? Even the people who created the ad pulled it yesterday.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 08:31 PM) 1) that's certainly not SADDER than the fact that it occurred in the first place 2) this isn't for political GAIN, it's saying that the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that's spewed on FOX news, MSNBC and wherever the f*** else is dangerous because stupid people will take it seriously and act on it. It just so happens that the Right is much more guilty of this than the left. (regarding violent rhetoric. also the right doesn't favor gun control thus.........) Absolutely putting this shooting spree aside, statements like this President "is hell-bent on weakening America" or "we need to take our country back"--as if the country has been hijacked by some nefarious cabal--should bring greater debate about whether these statements are taken seriously by anybody or if they are relegated to mere partisan rhetoric to achieve electoral success.