Mets, Gore, and Bush v. Tic Tacs

Thought: I was considering the value of respect today. It is a useful quality to have, even if the other party disagrees with you, or believes you don't quite have what it takes. I don't respect those who lead the country ... certain moral failings aside, I did respect Clinton (and Bush 41, his political maneuvering aside). In particular, take the terrorist alerts -- they are a joke, though I do believe there are ongoing threats.

Still, how the threat alerts are handled makes people overly cynical. Ditto certain anti-terrorism moves like the Patriot Act or checks at airports. A bit of restraint, compromise, and good public relations (the equivalent of "you morons, stop being namby pansy losers, 9/11 happened!" isn't quite what I have in mind, John) might do wonders. Oh, and deep down, I do feel like this too, just w/o the experience to get to say it so well. We honor those lost, not quite everything that led to them to be lost. If we do, we are misguided fools.

Around a week ago, my local paper had at least three articles on how the Mets were on the rise (they got to .500 and showed life against some great pitchers), that they were showing some life, and giving fans hope. I guess sportswriters have to write something and complaints from Mets fans about the paper being so pro-Yankee had to be answered somehow. It wasn't really, honestly, realistic. I was going to whine, but the drop-off was consistent -- the team is consistent in its inconsistency. They won today too. Live for the moment, yes?

Over? What are you talking about? What kind of talk is that? It's un-American. Did George W. Bush quit even after losing the popular vote? No! Did he quit after losing millions of dollars of his father's money in failed oil companies? No! Did he quit after knocking that girl up? No! Did he quit after he got that DUI? No! Did he quit after he got busted for drunk and disorderly conduct at a football game? No! Did he quit...

- Peter Griffin (Family Guy -- back in production!)

Al Gore has been suggested as a possible Kerry running mate. As suggested here, I do not see it. I think some might be putting too much emphasis on some excellent speeches he has given, speeches that honestly appeal to only a certain demographic that Kerry really doesn't need to especially seek out. The core reason that Gore isn't a great choice, besides the fact I doubt he wants it, was suggested by a Bush supporter. Gore reeks of the past. Do we really want to focus again on Clinton, Election 2000, and all the rest?

Surely, these are themes that enliven certain important parts of the electorate, but they also turn off others, especially if it is overemphasized. There are also some who would be willing to vote Kerry, but who have a visceral dislike of Clinton. The net result doesn't appear to be much of a positive. So, sure, have Gore speak out -- we need a united effort with tons of voices with the eye on the prize -- but I don't see him as v.p.

By chance, I found out that if you input "Bush is incompetent" into the Google Search Engine, my blog pops up eleventh or so. The quirk occurs because one of my entries has that in the url. Likewise, there is a comparison of Bush and tic tacs out there. Guess who (or what) wins, even though white tic tacs weren't used?