Making Nixon blush ...

Before I get to the subject title I feel compelled to address "sports." In particular, football. "Princess Jasmine comforter?" THAT was friggin hilarious. Good slams aside, it should be noted that I realize that what Howie Long has said is now an American truism, "Baseball may be America's past time, but football is her passion." Fantasy leagues, win/loss charts, point spreads, they blanket our dealer break room this time of year, and Limbaugh can't stop talking about it (apparently he's an ardent Steelers fan). And ironically enough my father is an Illini and Chicago anything (especially "da Bears" and Bulls) super fan. In my teens I was a die hard Micheal Jordan fan - posters, clothes, I played basketball nearly everyday, and any televised Bulls game was can't miss TV. However, after he retired (the second and final time) my interest in sports (outside of the effect Superbowl Sunday has on toke rates) faded away. I remember coming back from break once at the Grand, tapping in on stick and Cramey (sitting box) asking me, "what's the score?" Apparently because of my interest in weight lifting it was assumed I would know such things. I answered, "Well, now I'm really going to disappoint you because I don't even know who's playing." He smiled, tilted his head and knowing my penchant for all things political/historical replied, "Well, I guess there's only so many hours in the day." We both chuckled. Now, that's not to say that people whom have a high opinion of their intellect (like us) simply can't enjoy football or watching sports in general. Obviously the brothers Foster demonstrates this quite well. I remember Jambo trying to explain to me why watching Mike and Mike in the morning was a fantastic and mentally healthy way to start your day, to which I responded, "Yes, because I can't function until I find out what team threw what ball through what apparatus for what score." It's just that being born in Iowa, partially raised in Illinois, then majority raised (and lived as an adult) in MS who has no professional team of any kind, I simply have no vested interest in any given team. And that regional connection, in my opinion, is what embeds that "passion" you football junkies so publicly display. Ironically enough the closest I can get to "pulling" for any one team happens to be the Packers only because Farve IS from my home town (the area at least), and he attended the same university as I, USM. Although if you repeat that in front of my father (remember, a Bears fan) I'll call you a liar to your face. All that aside I simply find it boring - packers win, they don't, whatever. I know that's blasphemy for many, and it's not that football fans are morons, or incapable of more, I'm not an elitist - I realize it's a healthy, cathartic recreational outlet. And organized sports is particularly beneficial to children. But in the words of Austin Powers, "It's not my bag baby." I don't find watching it on TV entertaining in the least. Going to the professional games, as my Dad took me to many a baseball game in Chicago, is a fun experience and one I will share with my kids at some point, but on TV? No thank you. And call me gay or a bed wetter all you want - I still bench press more than the two of you could put together .... he, he.

Now, to the IMPORTANT stuff .....

****

A caucus is:
"a private meeting of members of a political party to plan action or to select delegates for a nominating convention. It is not a secret ballot, you make your checked off selection in the open, and speeches and discussions are allowed and encouraged.

"Whereas, a primary is:
"[an] election held to nominate a candidate for a particular party at a forthcoming election for public office. It is a secret ballot"

Both are technically "primaries", but the latter is a direct primary. You vote, and the candidates get the same percentage of that states delegates as votes they garnered in that election, i.e. McCain won 39% of the votes in New Hampshire so he gets 39% of their delegates at the national convention. The caucus is MUCH more complicated. It's basically (stripped to nuts and bolts) a meeting of party members, and only registered party members, and they vote for the candidate of their choice, however, legally that vote is merely a "suggestion" to the sate party leaders who then decide who to give the delegates to at the national convention. But while the caucus goers selection is not binding, obviously 99.9999% of the time the sate party leaders take that "suggestion" literally and give the candidate the same percentage of delegates as votes they received. I've only heard of one case where the state party leader issued them to a non caucus vote winning candidate and I can assure you their career in political activism ended that very day. Also, at the caucus, theoretically, you can give speeches, hold discussions and your vote is done in view of everyone. In theory it's the local party members weeding through the candidates via discussion, argument and ultimately an open vote until they find one with majority support. In practice it's just a primary with more red tape.

Now, I make this distinction because there is a controversy brewing here in Nevada (our caucus is this Saturday), more specifically in Las Vegas, and even more specific then that, on that famous strip, where I happen work. Several months ago 5 DNC officials approved the NV Caucus rules. Who, where, when, etc was decided. In those rules was a provision for what they called "at-large precincts." Normally where you caucus at (the proper term as opposed to "voting" - in a primary) is determined by where you live. And you can only caucus at that specific location that services the district your home address puts you in. However, the "at-large precincts" are 9 locations on the strip designed to franchise shift workers. The rules (the RNC has virtually identical plans drawn up in this respect) say that if you work within 2 1/2 miles of any of these 9 locations, then you can caucus there as opposed to the one dictated by the location of your residence. So far so good. However, last week Barak Obama received the most lucrative Nevada union endorsement in terms of money and foot soldiers when he was endorsed by the Culinary Workers Union. They are 60,000 strong and their rank and file are at the heart and soul of whom the Democrat machine courts every election cycle - lower wage minorities. In fact, 40% are Hispanics. Hillary had been vying for that endorsement, that was publicly known. Well, on the day Obama came to the strip and accepted the endorsement from the Local 226, lawyers on behalf of the state's Teachers Union filed a law suit attempting to prevent those "at-large precincts" from being used this Saturday. The complaint focuses on what they describe as a disenfranchisement of educators in Las Vegas. They note that teachers can not vote at the school in which they work at. That they must still use the one based on their home address and as such this gives strip casino Democrats an unfair advantage. First off I don't know of any school that is open on Saturday, causing the "unfairness" that they claim is occurring. But much more importantly three of the lawyers filing this suit were on that committee of 5 that originally approved the very rules they now claim are unfair to non-strip Las Vegans. What has suddenly caused this? Well, many of the lawyers who brought this issue to the attention of the teachers union (who are being obviously being used as a rouse here) are senior staff members to top elected officials in NV such as Harry Reid. And nearly everyone of those officials, by the way, have endorsed Hillary. This is a brazen move by her campaign to prevent the Democrat employees on the strip from caucusing for the man they have now endorsed - Obama. And when asked by the Las Vegas Sun who brought this to the attention of the lawyers (who subsequently brought it to the Teacher's Union), those lawyers (remember, 3 of whom are senior staff to politicians endorsing Hillary) declined to comment.

I know Clinton Inc didn't invent political "dirty tricks", but does any one seriously want 4 to 8 more years of this nonsense? I mean really, wasn't the first 8 enough? Even putting Monica and his perjury aside, there's Travel gate, memo-gate, Chinese $50,000 coffees. These people are perhaps the MOST dishonest and crooked bunch since the days of Boss Tweed and that anyone would think that her tears of the other day were about America "falling backward" and not about her reaction to the prospect of losing, is naive to the point of having no ability to reason whatsoever. She's a socialist fascist in the truest sense of the words from wealth redistribution to imposing her "morals" on the rest of us (be it smoking bans, removing candy vending machines from Jr Highs or making trans-fats illegal like the secret ingredient the Colonel was using is cocaine - all of which she supports among a litany of other fascistic demands) - an imposition of "morals" ironically that leftists claim Bush is guilty of just because he's a Christian and backs the Patriot Act. At least with Obama I could argue with the guy and get a beer with after. She'd cut my brake lines before I left for debate and if I still managed to make it, slip a mickey in my Coors Light.

This woman would be an absolute, unequivocal disaster. But that's just my opinion ... and that of ANY sane person who hasn't eliminated the majority of their brain cells through drink as they wear a cheese wedge on their head and mindlessly cheer on millionaires in matching out fits.