Please enjoy this amusing video of a CFL quarterback spiking the ball into his junk and getting smacked in the head at the same time. (Wait for the replay!)
As much as I love to hate McCain, I am reluctantly cheered by his choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate. For one thing it is being received enthusiastically by many conservatives, and I mean actual conservatives, not just people like William Kristol, and I suppose that in itself is a good sign. I am also endeared to her due to her high-profile battles with corrupt establishment (typical) GOP scumbags. She gets lots of crunchy-con love from Rod Dreher (who has been energetically palinblogging, see this and this and this and this.) And hey–she’s a (former) Buchananite! And she homeschools! Ross Douthat goes so far as to suggest tongue-in-cheekily that McCain-Palin could be “neocon-paleocon fusion ticket,” which would make good sense because our own Karl is a neocon-paleocon fusion blogger.
I must nevertheless quibble some of my esteemed colleague’s characterizations of McCain–non-ideological? That’s true in a sense with respect to domestic politics, where he never passes up a chance to knife conservatives in the back while sucking up to the New York Times and loudly congratulating himself for it (his ideology could be called “pro-McCain”); but in foreign policy, he is unfortunately as bellicose, dangerous, and yes, ideological, as our esteemed president.
The main problem with excessive enthusiasm regarding this VP pick is that even had McCain selected (insert your dream pick here), the ticket would still be headed by McCain. Mickey Kaus has a theory that electing Obama is ultimately more in the interests of immigration restrictionists for the following reason: McCain and Obama both want the same thing–amnesty. McCain will succeed because not enough of the weakened GOP will be willing to buck their own president to stop it–he will inevitably pass his comprehensive “reform” package. Obama, however, would fail because he will be the perfect GOP foil, and the re-energized party will coalesce in opposition to legalization, and meanwhile gain House seats in 2010.
The same basic logic can apply for many unconservative aims that will be achieved by McCain winning over the Right and then inevitably forcing some monstrous, leftist policy down their throats. It sounds kind of familiar; isn’t it exactly what George W. Bush did, repeatedly?
Stephen F. Hayes wrote an interesting piece for The Weekly Standard about how McCain came to choose Palin as his running mate. It would seem we narrowly dodged a bullet. 
The McCain campaign appears to have been seriously considering tapping Joe Lieberman and many of his advisers were pushing that option. Had McCain chosen him, it is virtually certain that he would have succeeded in turning Lieberman into the answer to a trivia question: “Who is the only person to lose on both the Democratic and Republican presidential tickets?” After receiving feedback from conservatives that the base would revolt if Lieberman were the pick, McCain sought out other alternatives, resolving to pick a running mate who did not represent business as usual.
In that respect, both Pawlenty and Romney (who appears to have never really been in contention), left the Senator cold. Such a selection would have correctly been regarded as more of the same. In an earlier interview with The Weekly Standard, he had praised Palin, calling her a “remarkable woman” whom he planned to speak to as he reconsidered his position on drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.
That one sentence in Hayes’ article highlights a trait of McCain which simultaneously should give conservatives hope, and also dread about a McCain administration. As many Democrats have pointed out over the years, John McCain is a man you can work with. The reason for this is simple: he is not an ideologue. A strong, well-reasoned argument can change McCain’s thinking on an issue. If we are to believe the campaign rhetoric, (and if John McCain is known for anything, it is his integrity - witness his steadfast opposition to earmarks), he has already reconsidered his former position on amnesty for illegal immigrants, now pledging to secure the border first. It would appear he is also reconsidering his position on drilling in ANWR. Of course, on the negative side, since he is not an ideologue, he could as easily abandon conservative positions if someone were to present him with case which he regarded as compelling (i.e. McCain-Feingold; McCain-Kennedy, etc.).
I was speaking to some conservative friends as we enjoyed the warm Indiana summer night on my front porch last night and someone mentioned that, when you think of it, Bill Clinton was not as big a disaster as he could have been. I posited that that was mainly because, unlike his wife, he was not driven by ideology. His administration was almost entirely poll-driven. In that sense, if conservatives could capture a poll during his administration, it was a virtual certainty that Clinton would move closer to the conservative position, if not adopt it altogether. In the end, Clinton managed to pull off a centrist administration for the most part.
John McCain is, in one respect, similar to Clinton in that he is not tied to an ideology. Indeed, it is this very fact which infuriates the party base. Of course, comparing McCain to Clinton is fairly rude so let me distinguish the two. Unlike Clinton, McCain has honor and principles which he will not compromise - not every decision will be left to polling results. McCain will almost certainly hold the line on spending having devoted his entire career in Washington to fighting against earmarks. Unlike Clinton, McCain will not conduct foreign policy according to the polls and will always put America’s interest first. In the end, McCain’s administration would likely be a fairly moderate one that generally skews to the right.
However, on the important issues, he seems to have committed himself solidly to core, unchangable values. He will hold the line on government spending. His choice of Governor Palin indicates that he is committed to Life. He will engage in a muscular foreign policy which places the interests of the American people first. It could be worse.
With his selection of Governor Sarah Palin, McCain is proving to be an especially adept campaigner. So much so that Cindy could probably go ahead and place a call to Laura to arrange a visit so she can start measuring for drapes at 1600 Pennsylvania.
The timing. The choice. The management of the media. The McCain campaign exhibited pure brilliance in stealing the limelight from Barack before his lackluster convention could even assess the bounce he might enjoy. Friday, the entire news day was subsumed with Sarah Palin’s ascendancy. Forgotten was Obama’s acceptance speech. It will be interesting to see what the newsies are talking about on the Sunday morning shows. I suspect they will be talking about Palin. And then, all eyes will turn to Minneapolis and McCain for an entire week. If Barack ever manufactured a bounce, no one will ever know.
In the wake of the historic announcement, the Obama camp immediately released a statement alerting voters that “[t]oday, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.” In fact, all day long Democrats have been attacking Palin’s youth and experience and reasoning that the McCain camp had taken Obama’s lack of experience off the table by tapping her. By attacking Palin’s supposed lack of experience (she’s the only one of the four with any executive experience), they are tacitly admitting that Obama lacks experience. Second, they have actually been comparing their presidential candidate to the Republican’s vice-presidential candidate.
There is a huge difference between a president and a vice-president.
Their comparisons of Biden and his years of experience (of being mostly wrong on the issues) to Palin also serve to highlight Obama’s inexperience, especially when compared to his own lieutenant. Pundits all week long have been noting that the vice-presidential pick really only matters two times - first, when the candidate unveils his choice; and second, when the vice-presidential candidates square off in their own debate. The selection of Governor Palin, in this respect, may have been a stroke of genius. Biden is known to be a vicious attack dog. But by nominating a woman, it is very likely that if Biden attacks her, he will come across as a mean-spirited bully. In that sense, the McCain campaign may have taken one of Obama’s tools out of the chest. On the other hand, it seems that politicians have routinely underestimated Governor Palin, who is said to possess a competitive fire, which it is good to remember unseated an incumbent Republican governor.
On the issues, it appears that Palin is a strong social conservative, staunchly defending the sanctity of unborn life. She is a life-long member of the National Rifle Association, a hunter and fisherman. 
At least we can rest easier knowing that when she goes out hunting, she will be much more likely to hit her intended target than previous vice presidents. She has sought to reduce waste in government, making that a cornerstone of her gubinatorial experience. She has served as the Ethics Commissioner for the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and took on the “Good Old Boys’ Network” in rooting out corruption regardless of party affiliation.
Most strikingly, in the few moments that she spoke on Friday morning, she talked about her accomplishments and McCain’s accomplishments. After a Democratic convention, which focused not on accomplishments (mainly because those are thin), but rather on promises, it was refreshing to hear candidates who could talk about their records and things they had done.
In her speech on Friday, Palin served notice that she can handle herself at the podium hitting a homerun when she spoke about her historic opportunity:
I can’t begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign.
It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.
Disaffected Hillary supporters are sure to have taken notice. Some of them of course will balk at Palin’s pro-life stance, but many of them will find in Palin the opportunity to advance the cause for women. With McCain’s choice of running mate, it appears that whether one casts their ballot in November for a Republican or a Democrat, his vote will be historic.
One wonders what’s left for Bob Barr. Perhaps he can select Dennis Kucinich for veep and court the extra-terrestrial vote.
ON A SIDE NOTE: I’d just like to point out this (check out the last sentence of the first update). But, then again, I also had this. You can’t win ‘em all, I suppose.
This video demonstrates the the Germans do have a sense of humor. Enjoy.
Absolutely Hilarious Bathroom Mirror Prank - Watch more free videos
Palin. Anyone impressed?
Of course, by now, almost everybody is aware of Stanley Kurtz’s latest story. A few weeks ago, Kurtz wrote a story for National Review outlining Obama’s prior connection with terrorist Bill Ayers’ project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He reported that it was known that Ayres had founded an organization that sought to reform education in Chicagoland schools. It was further known that Barack Obama became the chairman of the Annenberg board shortly thereafter. Of course, when Obama kicked off his first political campaign from the home of Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, another terrorist associated with the notorious Weather Underground, it was reasonable to believe that Obama’s relationship with Ayers and Dohrn was quite close.
Kurtz reasoned that the records for the CAC might reveal how closely Obama and Ayers were associated. He contacted the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Chicago and was told that he would be given access to the copious records which they housed. Shortly thereafter, as Kurtz was preparing to leave for Chicago, he received a phone call from the library telling him that he would not be given access after all. Since that time, Kurtz has been attempting to gain access to the records. On Tuesday the library reversed itself and opened the records.
Yesterday, Kurtz appeared on a Chicago radio station to talk about the Ayers-Obama connection. The Obama campaign reacted strongly, writing an email to supporters urging them to deluge WGN radio with phone calls and emails:
August 28, 2008
In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He’s currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.
Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.
Call into the “Extension 720″ show with Milt Rosenberg at (312) 591-7200
(Show airs from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. tonight)
Then report back on your call at http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards
Kurtz has been using his absurd TV appearances in an awkward and dishonest attempt to play the terrorism card. His current ploy is to embellish the relationship between Barack and Ayers.
Just last night on Fox News, Kurtz drastically exaggerated Barack’s connection with Ayers by claiming Ayers had recruited Barack to the board of the Annenberg Challenge. That is completely false and has been disproved in numerous press accounts.
It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.
Kurtz is scheduled to appear from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. in the Chicago market.
Calling will only take a minute, and it will make a huge difference if we nip this smear in the bud. Confront Kurtz tonight before this goes any further:
http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards
Please forward this email to everyone you know who can make a call tonight.
Keep fighting the good fight,
Obama Action Wire
Interestingly, the Obama campaign reserves words like “slimy,” “fear-mongering,” and “divisive, destructive ranting” for Stanley Kurtz, while referring to Bill Ayers as a “guy from the neighborhood.” It seems, with panicked rhetoric like this emanating from the Obama camp, that Kurtz might have hit a nerve. And, sadly, the Obama campaign, instead of dealing with the accusation, seeks to silence the media. So much for the First Amendment.
The message has been effective. Obama’s minions, those people who always seem to be calling for open-mindedness and tolerance, have responded by flooding the show with phone calls and emails in an effort to punish the station for airing views which are divergent from theirs.
It is speculated that former governor, now Attorney General, Jerry Brown will once again run for California’s highest office. Great, just what we need, another Brown in office. Take it Jello….
Rest assured, I will cover this in more depth when (if?) he makes his official announcement.
The Texas GOP has released an attack ad on Barack Obama concerning his half-brother in Africa. The question is, is this a fair ad? Should George be off limits? Is Obama morally obligated to his half-brother? What do you think?
As of today, the Cubs have the best record in Major League Baseball, posting a record of 78 wins against only 49 losses. The conventional wisdom in baseball is that every team will win 50 and lose 50, it’s what you do with the other 62 games that determine who is a champ and who is a chump. As things stand, if the Cubs continue to win at teh same rate they have all year, they will finish the season at 99 victories (maybe 100, depending on how you round the numbers).
For the Cubs’ closest competitor, the Milwaukee Brewers, to equal them at the rate that the Cubs are amassing W’s, the Crew would have to win 26 of their last 34 – in other words, they would have to compile a win percentage of .765 for the rest of the season – to tie (.794 to finish a game up on the Cubs). That, my friends, is highly unlikely. Not impossible, mind you, remember the Astros’ second half run a few years back – just unlikely.
It has been a long time since the saddest of possible words to the rest of the league were “Tinker to Evers to Chance.” That refrain is a century gone, replaced by Theriot, DeRosa and Lee. A century ago the Cubs led the National League in arguably the greatest pennant chase in the history of baseball – a three-way affair involving the Cubs, John McGraw’s New York Giants, and the Pittsburgh Pirates led by the great Honus Wagner. Helped by a boneheaded play by New York’s Fred Merkle, who failed to run from first to second on Al Bridwell’s sure game-winning single at the Polo Grounds, the defending champion Cubs escaped the hostile Polo Grounds with a tie. A few weeks later, the season ended with the Cubs and Giants tied for first place and the Cubs were forced to travel back to New York to replay the game. They won 4-2 behind Mordecai “Three-Finger” Brown who defeated Christy Mathewson to seize the pennant. The Cubs went on to defeat Ty Cobb’s Detroit Tigers in 5 games in the World Series.
Chicago fans all over the world are hoping for a slightly less exciting finish to the regular season. A ten-game lead at the finish line would not break our hearts. But, make no mistake, this team has rekindled the hope in the hearts of their admirers and the expectations are high.
Even when they have not been running on all cylinders – Soriano, Wood, Big Z, and Ramirez have all spent time on the shelf this season. Derrek Lee is leading the league in rally-killing hits into double plays. Our Japanese phenom has lost his luster with the lumber of late. And yet, behind the arms of our four aces, the Cubs are poised to take a place next to the Peerless Leader’s boys.
Cubs fans talk about curses: Billy goats and black cats. Let us not be sidetracked by fairy tales and bogeymen. This year it is about hitting and pitching, running and fielding. Do those things well and none of the other can derail this team.
This is the year.
Sit down Bartman and enjoy the game (perhaps from the third or fourth row, if you don’t mind). The 2008 Cubs will redeem your name and make us forget all about our past heartbreaks and disappointments. Because this is the year and there are no such things as curses.
I was watching some Olympic coverage last night when I saw a “sport” I thought must be a joke: Race-Walking. What a crock! enjoy this high excitement clip of the Olympic trials….
There is an episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Hal picks up this “sport.” Comedy is where this ought to stay.
Please ignore the Communism.
Mr. WAC
“No, honey, it wasn’t me. I swear it was the bush.”
According to researchers in Tibet, it might have been the gladiola who dealt it. It turns out that according to the estimates of one researcher, plants may contribute up to 236 million tonnes of methane gas to the atmosphere. Considering that methane has been implicated as a greenhouse gas which contributes to the looming global warming catastrophe, I wonder if we will next be directed to Round-up our yards and assiduously guard against weeds.
Maybe we should consider dissolving some Beano into water when we water our flower beds.
The formerly Dutch city of New Amsterdam (more commonly known as New York City) is considering placing windmills on bridges and skyscrapers. Just saying…
As Bill has pointed out, I have been reticent to take a position on the recent hostilities in South Ossetia. The reason for this is quite simple: I don’t really know much about that region and its history. However, in the past week or so, I have been reading about it and, the more I read, the less I am convinced that the Russians are in the wrong. (They are most certainly in the wrong in Poland, but that is another matter…maybe).
Often, when I think about other regions of the world, I will attempt to analogize to an event or situation in American history (with which I am more familiar) which might provide parallels. In this case, although imperfect as all analogies are, there is a fair similarity between the situation as it exists in South Ossetia and that of Texas around 1845.
South Ossetia
As I understand the timeline, South Ossetia declared its independence from the Republic of Georgia in the early 1990s after the breakup of the Soviet Union. After its announced independence the Western nations refused to recognize the new government and regarded South Ossetia as part of Georgia. South Ossetia again declared independence in 2006. Again, the rest of the world failed to recognize the declaration. From about 1992 onward, Russian peacekeepers were located within South Ossetia to prevent large-scale conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia. However, a couple weeks ago, Georgia invaded South Ossetia in an attempt to “reunify” Georgia.
The people of South Ossetia appear to be largely Ossetian with Russian citizenship and are ethnically distinct from the people of Georgia.
Texas
Texas was originally the Northernmost border of Mexico, and after Mexico declared its independence from Spain, it suffered near financial collapse as a result of the war that accompanied that declaration. In the wake of their war for independence, the government opened the northern border to Americans willing to establish order in the Texas region. Unfortunately for Mexico, they were unable to control their borders (that sounds familiar) and Americans flooded into Mexico in unanticipated numbers. Fairly quickly, Americans became the most populous citizens of the Texas region, comprising a sizable majority of Texans. Like the South Ossetians, the Texans were of a different ethnicity from their government and identified more closely with the United States than with Mexico.
In 1835, Texas declared its independence from Mexico and Santa Anna invaded. After a disastrous clash at the Alamo, the Texan forces rallied and decimated Santa Anna’s forces at the Battle of San Jacinto effectively establishing Texas as an independent sovereign nation. In 1845, Texas petitioned for Statehood and joined the United States. However, Mexico never accepted Texas’ secession and accession into the United States and many Mexican politicians advocated an invasion of Texas. President Polk sent a expedition under General Zachary Taylor to secure the Texas border at the Rio Grande River. In April 1846, Mexico attacked a U.S. patrol and the war was begun.
Applying the Analog
In many ways, the conflict in South Ossetia is similar to the situation in Texas. An ethnic group, distinct from its putative government, declared its independence. Of course, in both cases, the government refused to recognize the independence of the breakaway territory, but the government with which the citizens of the breakaway region most closely identified sent troops to keep the peace. The big difference is the presence of the United States in the middle of the current conflict. There is no analog to that in the Mexican-American War. The equivalent would have been if Spain were to take sides with Santa Anna and Mexico against the United States. I daresay we would not have looked kindly on that sort of intervention on Spain’s part. In fact, it might have led to war against Spain as well – accelerating our eventual conflict with that country by about 50 years.
Some may argue that our annexation of Texas was unjust. And, Ulysses S. Grant said precisely that:
Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.
In that sense, it would seem that Grant might side with the Georgians, finding the intervention of the Russians to be nothing more than an unjust land-grab by a strong nation at the expense of a weak one. Nonetheless, the question one needs to confront is, even granting Russia’s questionable moral position, if a third party had interfered in our annexation of Texas, how would we have reacted to them? Does it matter?
In a purely pragmatic sense, America needs to ask the question of where our interest lies. By backing Georgia, we are expending political capital in international affairs. In the long run, we have to believe that we will benefit from that expenditure. Might we not be better off attempting to improve our relationship with Russia? Dare we trust that any overture to Russia will result in a relationship in which we can repose our trust? It seems that our interest would be stronger in establishing a closer relationship with Russia, but the prospect of that happening due to the high level of mistrust between the nations makes that more aspirational than achievable. Nonetheless, do we gain anything by antagonizing Russia and what do we gain by developing the friendship of Georgia – a nation that, after pledging not to employ military force against Russia, nonetheless invaded South Ossetia and fired upon Russian peacekeepers? Can we trust Georgia?
I am reminded of the classic film, WarGames. This is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play. Perhaps we should consider a nice game of chess, preferably in our own hemisphere. The Russians are awfully good at chess.
This sounds like some of the commenters around here.
According to Rich Lowry at NRO, it appears that McCain is fishing the idea of a pro-abortion vice president. I’m already holding my nose and supporting McCain. Now he wants to make that harder. It’s a good thing for the GOP that the Dems are nominating Obama. This sounds like Tom Ridge to me.
UPDATE: On the other hand, there is this from Kathryn Jean Lopez. Her read: the Tom Ridge thing is a “headfake” to make us conservatives grateful when McCain picks someone mediocre, but pro-life. On another note, there seems to be a bit of a groundswell of support for Sarah Palin, the Alaska governor. She might be a saavy pick and strongly pro-life…
UPDATING THE UPDATE: It appears that Lowry might have been talking about Joe Lieberman. And, as York points out, the only thing we can say for sure is we don’t know. McCain has said he will announce his veep on August 29, so I suppose we should just all stay tuned to this Bat Channel.
UPDATING THE UPDATE OF THE UPDATE: It looks as though Tom Ridge is definitely not being considered. Neither is any other pro-abortion choice, including Joe Lieberman. And, according to Cameron, Lowry thinks it will be Pawlenty. Although, as we’ve seen from the posts Lowry has posted today, his Pawlenty position might be a tad bit wobbly.
Meanwhile, Obama is going to choose Biden. At least that is settled.
THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS: James Pethokoukis has chimed in with speculation that Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay may be chosen as McCain’s running mate. This seems to be based mainly on the fact that he mentioned her name during the questioning at his Saddleback session.
RATCHETING UP THE RIDICULOUSNESS: Now it appears Bayh will be number two to The One.
False information in registering or voting; penalties
Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both: Provided, however, That this provision shall be applicable only to general, special, or primary elections held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
I only mention the above quoted federal statute in passing as I note the following story on the Philadelphia Daily News’ website. Apparently the Obama campaign has announced that it will accede to the traditional quadrennial shakedown of Democratic candidates to “get the vote out” in Philadelphia. The practice of “street money” is evidently somewhat common in urban areas where a candidate gives large sums of money ($400,000 - $500,000 for the Democratic vote in Philadelphia) to motivate local ward chairmen, election workers, clergy, drug dealers and other shakedown artists to secure real live voters who will dutifully cast their votes for whomever the person doling out the cash tells him to.
According to the story, Obama did not pay up during the primary and I suspect, those were really the Pennsylvanians he had in mind when he talked about people who were bitter and clinging to their guns. He said at the time that his campaign would not participate in these sorts of tactics. However, with a tight race in the Keystone State, his campaign has reversed itself and will knuckle under to the professional extortionists in the Philly Democratic Machine.
The very idea of street money is antithetical to the democratic notion (perhaps that explains the statute). While I am person who values tradition, I think this is one that we can easily do without. The payment of money to voters to cast their votes for a particular candidate calls into question an election’s fundamental fairness and integrity. In essence, these are tax cuts (the common Republican carrot) for people who a) don’t pay taxes and/or b) don’t think that far ahead. Unfortunately, the practice endures in places like Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, Los Angeles, and even apparently Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven. Let us HOPE Barack repudiates his campaign’s intentions and “stays” pure, clean, and messianic.
Let’s all take a break from deploring Russia and take a look at the Cake Wrecks blog.
Who knew that cake-decorating mishaps could be so darn amusing?
UPDATE (by Karl): At the risk of posting more of Mr. WAC’s former confections, I tender the following:
After nearly destroying team harmony with derisive comments last year, Jeff Kent has once again proved he is both an idiot and an asshole. Kent explained that he believes His Royal Highness of Baseball, Vin Scully, “talks too much.” This, along with other ridiculous statements made by the Dodger’s second baseman, demonstrate why fans of the Blue Crew want the old man out of town.
Only a few more months and Kent will be replaced by someone who loves the game, respects the club and admires legends and heros of the game like Vin Scully. In the meantime, just keep your trap shut Jeff and pay respect where it is due. Then, get you retired butt back to Texas.
RSS
