gdp's Comments

Big Hollywood : USA's Quirky 'Psych' Returns Tonight to Bolster Cable TV's Case Against Broadcast Fare

Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:40:07 +0000

Sage Brocklebank, who plays "Buzz McNab", is a friend of mine--nice to see he's still getting a steady paycheck..

Big Government : Michigan Labeled ‘To Close to Call’

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:59:30 +0000

Let's start changing the vocabulary here--"brokered" suggests some "deal" being reached by party insiders, and presented as a fait accompli to the delegates in Tampa. We must start to refer to a "deadlocked" convention. This slight change suggests that the delegates cannot give any one candidate 51% of the vote on the first ballot. Hence, the DELEGATES need to consider alternatives--not "party bosses". After all, the bosses and insiders are the guys who tried to foist Romney on us in the first place. Who wants them taking a second bite of the apple?

Big Government : A History of Failed Brokered Conventions in 1924 and 1940

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:45:29 +0000

Fun fact: The disputed election of 1876 gave this country another one hundred years of tumult and suffering. The popular vote totals in several states manifested in extraordinarily close margins between the two major candidates. A special commission was appointed to sort it all out--50% of whom were Republican appointees, 50% Dems. Naturally, they deadlocked. This whole disaster finally was resolved by "The Compromise of 1877", in which the Dems agreed to acquiesce to the Hayes victory--but only on the condition that Federal troops be withdrawn from the southern states--which effectively ended Reconstruction, and allowed the South to deny the freed slaves their full civil rights for another century. For which President Rutherford B. Hayes deserves to rot in hell.

Big Government : Mitt Romney for Vice President: The Irony, and Necessity, of a Brokered Republican Convention

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:30:28 +0000

I wish we could get away from the term, "brokered convention". That conjures up all the hackneyed imagery--the "smoke-filled rooms", the "power-brokers", etc. Could we not just instead think about a "deadlocked" convention? If I'm not mistaken, most delegates are legally required to vote for their pledged candidate on the first ballot. If no candidate has a majority after that first vote, it becomes a free-for-all, with delegates for one candidate trying to woo those originally pledged to another. If no candidate is able to pull in enough support to get over the top, let the call for a new candidate come from the floor, rather than the Mitch McConnell elite RINOs. Can you see it now? True democracy in action. "We want Sarah! We want Sarah!'". "Christie is the one!" "Jindal/Daniels! There's the ticket!", etc, etc... In order for this to happen though, delegate counts would have to be pretty well fragmented. If Romney comes into the convention with 40% (or fewer) of the pledged delegates, a scenario like this has a chance to play out. If he instead comes in with something like 48%, you can be sure that there will be tremendous pressure on Newt and Rick to release their delegates from their commitment. The same sort of thing happened with the Dems in '76--Carter had not quite 50% going into that convention, but Scoop Jackson, Mo Udall, and the rest of that bunch released their delegates, so that Jimmy could be coronated easily.

Big Hollywood : Carolla, Prager Team for Night of Comedy and Politics

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:01:03 +0000

I'm a big Prager fan also. For whatever reason, he doesn't have nearly as large of a "footprint" here in the East as he does elsewhere in the country. I first discovered him back in the 90s, when he briefly had a two-hour daily slot on WABC-AM. At around the same time, he briefly had a gig with a syndicated TV show, which never caught on. It seemed like it was trying to be the Right's answer to the then-popular Phil Donahue. I do still try to catch Prager when he does a guest appearance on Hannity, or read his columns or books on occasion. I'm even less familiar with Adam Carolla, but I do like what I've seen and heard. This seems to be something of a trend: Take two talk radio/talk TV guys with somewhat differing points of view, and stick 'em out on the road together, a la Beck/O'Reilly.

Big Hollywood : The Truth HBO's 'Game Change' Hides: Palin Carried McCain Until He Changed the Game

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:50:44 +0000

Totally with ya on the main premise, Joel. One minor point on which I disagree: I know that McCain's decision to "suspend his campaign" to go running back to Washington to vote in favor of TARP struck everybody as somewhat nutty. I agree that it was nutty; but only because he did nothing to stand in the way of the fore-ordained bailout. I keep saying this and will maintain that I am right: Whether or not McCain believed in the need for TARP (or even understood the arguments for or against it--which I doubt, as economics was not "his strong suit" as he often admitted), he could easily have "suspended his campaign", gone to DC, made some noise about "bailouts for the wealthy, but not for Joe the Plumber", etc, and voted against it. The damn thing was going to pass with or without him, so this would have been a shrewd tactical political maneuver. He and Sarah could have pulled a Harry Truman, going on a populist-oriented campaign against the "Beltway insiders and their backroom deals". The original message that was sent by bringing Palin in as VP would have been amplified and fleshed-out. In a stunning bit of political jiu jitsu, he would have sent the message that he and his running mate were the true outsiders (24 years in the Senate notwithstanding), and paint BHO as the same old same old, in one master stroke. A tragically lost opportunity. McCain was a flawed candidate, sure. But there is no way that America would be seen as the laughingstock of the world, seemingly everywhere in retreat, as is the case today. I'd love a deadlocked convention that turns to Sarah after failing to choose between Mitt and Rick. It would be invigorating, refreshing...and it would make the MSM's heads explode. All good things.

Big Hollywood : Daily Call Sheet: Rabbit Ears Return, Depp Is No Kolchak, Spectacular Links!

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:29:38 +0000

All this "cut the cable" stuff sounds great--in theory. But what am I supposed to do when I want to watch Red Eye? That's an FNC show, and there's only one way to get FNC programming, and that's cable (or satellite). I share your desire to not support MSNBC, but as a professional investor, its sister network, CNBC is sort of a must-have, also. Believe me, the day a la carte pricing becomes available to me, I'll sign up...

Big Government : Daniel Hannan MEP Reviews the State of Conservatism and Debt in Europe

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:15:42 +0000

As with so many others, I too wish we could somehow get Mr. Hannan over here and run him for POTUS--sadly, that's never going to happen... The one thing I don't understand is why he appears not to be an MP in the British House of Commons. He made that famous speech criticizing Gordon Brown in the EU parliament. When it became an Internet sensation, many opined that he would one day be Prime Minister of England; unfortunately, party structure and seniority are much more important in the British system than ours. In order to be Prime Minister, you have to put in your time in the House of Commons as a back-bencher and work your way up--Barack Obama-types simply can't happen there. I think it would be wonderful for the UK and for the world if Daniel Hannan were ever to become PM--but he's not going to get there from Brussels (face it--if he could, he would vote tomorrow to dissolve the EU and/or to withdraw the UK from the EU--either of which would put him out of a job on the spot). If you're not going to go for PM, Daniel, how 'bout moving to the States and putting in the time to become Governor of Pennsylvania or something? Christie, Walker, et al, need all the help they can get.....

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:54:16 +0000

An excellent new topic for occasional discussion here, Andrew. I hope in posts to come, we can get into the nitty-gritty of comparing the relatively conservative original series with the NextGen/Picard version and the later spinoffs. I cringed when Capt. Picard first encountered the new "villains" of the new 24th century--the Ferengi. "Heh, heh, what can we trade for, Picard Captain?", as they greedily rubbed their palms while sniveling in their short bodies with the large ~~noses~~ ears. How much more unsubtly anti-Semitic could they have been? Remember the episode of TNG where they found the three cryogenically preserved humans from the 20th century, and all one of them wanted was a copy of the Wall Street Journal, so he could see how his stock market investments had performed? Picard: "This is the 24th century. We don't need money". So evolved they were in their 24th century socialist utopia, weren't they? Somehow money re-asserted itself in a vengeance on Deep Space Nine (a much better show than NextGen), with the previously comic relief/evil Ferengi and their "gold-pressed latinum" economy becoming quite important. Amazingly, the writers had realized that socialist utopias sound great--until you have to imagine how such a society could possibly operate in real life, with we flawed humanoids at the helm.....

Big Hollywood : The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:20:49 +0000

Uh-huh. But don't foret the timely references from the 21st century: "The Bible. The Code of Hammurabi. And Justinian. The Magna Carta. The Bill of Rights. The Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies!". They always threw one or two of those in there. :)

Big Government : UPDATED: Santorum's Big Night: Wins Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado

Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:23:55 +0000

It's not a coincidence: The kerfuffle between the Catholic Church and BHO surely was a large factor in Rick's hat trick performance tonight. Not that this is a bad thing, or in any way diminishes this evening's events. We all know that Santorum is the truest social conservative. Today on The Five, Beckel correctly pointed out that the upper-Midwest/rust-belt states are the primary battleground for November. The more that BHO asserts his arrogant "POTUS knows best" schtick, the more attractive Santorum becomes as the best candidate to oppose him. Nice job, Rick. You're keeping it interesting. Chances of Santorum winning the nomination--30%. Chances of Romney winning the nomination--50%. Gingrich--zero. Chances of nobody having enough delegates to win on the first ballot at the close of the primary season--20%.

Big Government : Trump Endorsement: Did I Say Newt? I Meant Romney

Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:24:56 +0000

And why would Newt let himself be used by Trump in this manner? Let's face it--this endorsement was all about Trump, it had almost nothing to do with Mitt vs. Newt. H'mm, lessee, whom should I endorse? The guy who is the odds-on favorite, or the guy who has less than a 10% chance at the nomination? Like the true profile in courage he is, Trump goes with the guy who is about to clinch the nomination, and then he can say, "See? I knew it all along." Back before the first caucus, when this whole thing was a total scrum, and Newt was a potential game-changer (the first time), where was Trump? Milking the process, making noises about running himself (why does NOBODY remember that in at least two prior Presidential cycles, he also made noises about running, but on those occasions it was as a Dem?), having each candidate come to kiss his ring in the Donald Trump primary, etc, and in general, getting himself all sorts of free attention. Meh, I've wasted too much space on this already. If Newt wants to win, he has to stop sniffing for endorsements from worthless turds like DJT. He needs to work on counter-punching against the multi-million RoboCandidate from Massachusetts/New Hampshire/Michigan/Salt Lake City.

Big Government : Trump Endorsement: Did I Say Newt? I Meant Romney

Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:41:07 +0000

Who ever thought Trump would endorse anyone but Romney? Think about it: Adelsohn is giving money to Newt. Why would Trump, another casino guy, give money to the same candidate? He would obviously look for his own guy, so as to get preferential treatment for his own casino interests, rather than have to "share" Newt with Adelsohn.

Big Hollywood : Trailer Talk: HBO's 'Game Change' Pummels Palin with Liberal Talking Points

Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:17:03 +0000

Funny thing about this movie being done by the same guys who did "Recount"... I found the entire 2000 Florida fiasco to be one of the most exciting, interesting, and compelling news stories in my lifetime (as I'm sure many of us did). Even knowing the political biases of the creative team behind the movie, there was no way I wasn't going to watch it. While the biases of Strong and Roach came through for sure, I found the movie to be less biased than I had expected. Tom Wilkinson's James Baker and Bob Balaban's Ben Ginsberg were two very strong performances. Heck, several Bush 43 alumni actually made themselves available as consultants for the film, and I believe there was a premiere screening in Texas, prior to its airing on HBO. Originally, I had held out some hope for this movie as well. Unfortunately... Everything I'm seeing in the trailer is focused entirely on the Palin component of the 2008 campaign. "Game Change" (the book) was about the entire campaign--the entire phenomenon which was the BHO candidacy, and how Hillary was outmaneuvered, the riches to rags to riches story of the McCain campaign, the ins and outs of both parties' VP choices, and more generally, about the changing nature of Presidential campaigns as we proceed through the 21st century. Instead, it appears that we'll be getting a "serious movie" which will be nothing other than a ripoff of the SNL Tina Fey schtick, extended to a ghastly two hours. I'm very disappointed. "Recount" was a very good film despite the flaws and biases. Strong and Roach could have turned out another equally good effort. Rather than that, we're going to be presented with a pretty awful waste of time.

Big Government : Ohio Republican Party's Outrageous New Tactic to Keep the Tea Party Out

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:24:10 +0000

Meh..... Internal organization of a political party should be left to the party; don't like the rules, start your own party. How is this more manifestly "wrong" than (for example) the "open primary" system in New Hampshire? Part of the reason for Romney's big score there was that a voter of either party could walk into a polling place and decide to take a Republican ballot. A large chunk of his vote total came from Dems who will not be there for him in the general election. Personally, I think this system is nutso, but that's how the people of NH want it, apparently. I'm just glad that I live in a state that requires a voter to be enrolled in a party since before the prior year's general, in order to vote in the current primary. So Ohio is another state with crappy rules for registration and party organization. These sorts of things happen in many states, but I find it difficult to get fired up over this one...

Big Government : GOP Debate Reactions: Romney on Points

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:45:01 +0000

I'd doubt it--but I beg God every night for a brokered convention, before I hit the sack...

Big Government : Gingrich Wins SC Primary, Upsets Romney

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:15:57 +0000

I've never cared much for Romney, he's always seemed to me to be like Hillary Clinton, but without the sincerity. I've never believed in the "he's the most electable candidate" argument--in order to be electable, one has to know one's own principles, not tacking with each change of the winds. I loved Newt when he first became Speaker. He seemed to be quite a shaker-upper in the 90s. In the years since, I've often questioned how much he has "gone native" as he became an inside the Beltway guy. I still contend that 2008 could easily have been his year--he would have wiped the floor with BHO in the debates, and would have been far more willing to let the nominally independent PACs attack him for Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, et al, than McCain was. Santorum seems like a nice guy and all, but I just don't know if he has the right stuff to go the distance with BHO. I wish I could understand why Glenn Beck likes him so much--I was totally with him on his first choice of Michele Bachmann, but Santorum has much of the same baggage of a generic Senator/Congressman: Big earmarker when he was in office, flip-floppy on subsidies to certain preferred lobbies such as Big Agriculture, etc. Where am I at? I still don't know. Fortunately, my state's primary isn't until April so I have time to decide. One thing is certain. Contrary to the pundits' general contention, I think a long primary contest is a positive thing. The more these guys are debating and campaigning, the less free coverage BHO gets from the mainstream media. They have to focus on the GOP and our ideas for how to fix the damage done by the current occupant of the White House.

Big Government : Huntsman Out, Will Endorse Romney

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:14:06 +0000

And once again: Why do we seem to have so few good choices this year? Where is there a true Tea Party candidate in this mess? Why didn't Sarah run? Will I really have to close my eyes and check the Newt or Santorum box and hope for the best come November (and beyond)? Brokered convention, anyone?

Big Government : Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh Agree: Mitt Romney Is Obama's Candidate of Choice

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:34:24 +0000

Like the old saying goes: "Give people a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, and they'll vote for the Democrat every time." With Michele out and Sarah never having gotten in, I guess I've become a Santorum guy. Hope he can stay in this long enough for him to become the clear not-Romney candidate.

Big Government : Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to Deliver Keynote Speech at CPAC 2012

Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:38:08 +0000

This is all well and good, but: why couldn't she have accepted the much-rumored keynote invites back in '09, '10 or '11? Then obviously use that platform to launch a REAL Presidential campaign? The big issues in this campaign cycle all seem to revolve around the answer to the question of What is the proper size and scope of Federal Government?, the people being sick and tired of crony capitalism, and Israel and the Mideast specifically, and overall foreign policy more generally, including energy policy as well. These are her *precise* issues. She wouldn't have to be like Romney the robo-candidate, who doesn't know what he thinks about any issue, until his handlers upload his talking points each morning. She actually believes what she says, she wouldn't have to fake it, and she could have had the base of the GOP to herself, and then plowed right on ahead making her case to squooshy "independents" and "moderates". I just don't get it. This election cycle is, or at least was, hers for the taking. In '16 or '20, she'll be a footnote to history, with many new faces coming up like Rubio, Cuccinelli, etc. I thought she wanted it, still can't believe she doesn't.... Brokered convention, anyone?