[TRAUT]

Subject: Deanna Favre will start at quarterback for the Packers this Sunday!


Deanna Favre will start at quarterback for the Packers this Sunday!



In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. She claimed she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. Because of this she understands how to pick up a corner blitz and knows the terminology of the Packers offense. A poll of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.

Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Yet Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed.

 

[Skorzeny]

Maybe Deanna is better qualified to be Center.

 

[TRAUT]

Maybe Deanna is better qualified to be Center.

Good observation! Tup: You can bet Hillary won't ever assume that position.

 

[sir john]

Getting reports over here that Hillary will only finish in third place in the first poll. They also say she is slipping badly and may have to drop out of the race if she does not do very well in the next month.

 

[Grandpa]

Knowing the Clinton's track record we better keep a lookout for Obama to mysteriously commit suicide and Edwards to die in an equally mysterious plane crash.

 

[eddie]

I would be very surprised if the choice we have in November is Obama and Huckabee. Remember, this is only Iowa, hardly the political barometer of the US. Two things surprised me however:

1. How big a margin Obama had. Hillary does need to watch out.
2. How badly Rudy did. I realize that he did not campaign in Iowa but for the supposed front runner nationally, he did very badly.

In an aside, I listened to Sean Hannity for a while today (I know, I am a sick man! ) and he was trumpeting the stop Hillary express. Also trying to take credit for her 3rd place finish in Iowa - oh well, if you don't inflate your own ego, who else will? But, I digress. Since Hannity takes his marching orders directly from the GOP (or so it seems), does this mean that the GOP are most frightened of a Hillary candidacy? I may have to take a harder look at her.....

 

[reelinanrockin]

Eddie, Please vote for Hitliary if you go to your caucus, ( sp) The republicans want her to win.

 

[eddie]

RR - I would have thought the GOP wants Hillary, but am not so certain after hearing Hannity. I do not do the caucus thing, I am not nearly that plugged in to either party, nor do I like the way that both parties have been so recalcitrant on the whole Primary thing. I am a real believer that the party system is the source of many of the problems that we have today.

 

[Skorzeny]

eddie, you said. "I am a real believer that the party system is the source of many of the problems that we have today."
Now my curiosity is piqued. What might some of the alternatives be to our system? I mean alternatives that the American voter could live with and not jump into a civil war.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I just am curious about workable alternatives. I don't believe total voter anarchy is a cure all.

 

[eddie]

Skorz - Great question. I have lived under a parliamentary system and it is much better for fostering cooperation and limiting ideological posing. However, we do have this thing called a Constitution which will not allow for that system here.

I would love to see a VIABLE 3rd party - hopefully a centrist party that would provide a damper on the ideological extremes for the 2 major parties. Whether that can realistically happen is another story entirely. Most 3rd party attempts have started at the top with a Presidential candidate and it has not worked effectively. To start a 3rd party from the bottom up is a real long term proposition.

Your comment about voter anarchy is interesting. You could make a real arguement that is what the founders intended with the one man/one vote concept.

 

[CommanderX]

I believe the problem with the two parties is the behind the scenes control of congressmen by the party bosses. When a new congressman is elected they have to forget all their campaign dreams and promises and play along and vote the party line. Congress was intended to be a voice of the common citizen, not career politicians who are only thinking about getting reelected. Citizens were intended to participate for two years and then go back to their careers. Now any congressman who may have a new idea that may be good for the country, but not for the party, is stifled and intimidated by the party bosses.
Term limits and pay decreases are the only way to eliminate congress as being a career. People should run for congress because they want to serve their country and districts, not because they want to move to DC and become powerful.

 

[RiverFishin]

I just hope she starts next week

 

[TRAUT]

I just hope she starts next week

Yeah, we're gonna need all the help we can get!

 

[sir john]

CX if only. Good posting. They ought to make that rule on both sides of the Atlantic. Tup: