And this week's Diane Lane Netflix Pick of the Week:

Vital Signs (1990)

Synopsis:
A group of medical students experience life's ups and downs while struggling to complete their residencies in this drama. Guided by head surgeon Dr. David Redding (Jimmy Smits), the group includes married student Kenny (Jack Gwaltney) and doctor's son Michael (Adrian Pasdar), both of whom compete for the attention of their beautiful colleague Gena (Diane Lane). Meanwhile, students Bobby and Suzanne become more than merely study buddies.

Gary's take: A bunch of surgical interns having sex when they should be focusing on learning medicine. Sheesh. Before there was "Grey's Anatomy", there was this flick. It took me half the movie to figure out why this one was rated "R" - a stand-up against-the-wall sex scene featuring...guess who? And the only movie I can recall where Diane Lane had such light blonde hair.

Posted by: Gary at 06:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Palance has died. Doogie Howser is gay. Add that to the Democrat takeover of Congress and you have the three remaining signs of the Apocalypse.

We are now officially f'ed.

Posted by: Gary at 11:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Maybe Doogie Howser can take over as the head of the Evangelical church. Unlike Ken Haggard, he's honest and he's probably not doing meth.

Posted by: PoliticalCritic at November 11, 2006 06:08 PM (n97ko)

2 LOL That about says it all!!

Posted by: Little Miss Chatterbox at November 12, 2006 01:56 AM (ZfLHN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

And I need Melissa...

Posted by: Gary at 03:35 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Germany has brought a lawsuit against outgoing SecDef Donald Rumsfeld for "war crimes" at Abu Ghraib. That's a good one.

Memo to Howard Dean: You need to understand that a trial against Rumsfeld is a trial against the United States. You want to weaken the United States in the tradition of Jimmah Carter? Go ahead and offer the human sacrifice. But keep in mind that this is your big chance to ensure that you keep your majority. Tell this ungrateful "ally" in no uncertain terms to suck your balls. That is, if you can find them.

The country is watching.

Posted by: Gary at 03:20 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Now is the time for Shadenfreude for the Democrats.

They fought hard, they won. They've earned it. In fact, it really doesn't bother me at all. Because I fully expect it to last for a while. The only segment of gloating that will annoy me is Hollywood, because they will do everything they can to take credit for Tuesday. It's what they do. Because in the little bubbles that they live in, it's all about them.

But after the champagne bottles are empty and the confetti is swept up, Democrats need to face some reality. Charles Krauthammer explains:

This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election, the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.

The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax — and now a Democratic congressman.

The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republican. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.

This isn't a point of view held only by Conservatives. MSNBC concurs:

The exit polling data indicates that much of their election edge came from independents and swing voters who could very well swing back again if theyÂ’re disappointed by Democratic policies.

This is not a majority made from cookie-cutter liberals. These are men and women winning in districts that were drawn for Republicans. Some are pro-life, some pro-gun, some sound so Republican they might be in the other party if it werenÂ’t for President Bush and the Iraq war. It will take all of PelosiÂ’s skills as a manager and disciplinarian to forge a coalition out of these philosophical disparities.

A few examples of the more tasteful and mature ones (seriously):

Bush should be dragged out of the White House by the ear and horsewhipped on the South Lawn. We could see if heÂ’s take a little Texas justice. Of course, the voters did that, figuratively, on Tuesday.

And:

This might work, if Georgie wasn't a big pussy. Just like you, Limbaugh and Hannity. All giant pussies who would run away from a real fight in a second but love to spew the tough talk. Grow up all ready and be a real man. You and Georgie need to quit talking tough and playing dress-up.

Or:

Alright Rambo. That was some funny stuff. You're a real man. If you need someone to show you how to shoot that gun....What a maroon.....

Or:

You have hit on something very important, crucial in fact to the current political climate, but well beyond the understanding of the MSM: President Bush is the definition of an "uninitiated male."

What you say is absolutely correct: He needed to kill that bear and throw the pelt not at Helen Thomas but at the feet of his own father. He needed to do it at age 12 or 13.

If you want to see this in action go to any schoolyard and find the bully. He will be the one who mistakes the infliction of pain with the possession of power.

Instead (like millions of other guys) President Bush attempted to initiate himself into manhood by coasting through college drunk and f*****g off. His one shot to have manhood initiated upon him was undone when he went AWOL. With no real sense of masculinity other than one created by pop culture and exploited by his advisors, President Bush became a fake cowboy, even taking the charade all the way to Texas. (The fake cowboy thing is a favorite of uninitiated men; George Allen has the same problem, and for the same reasons: bigshot daddy who didnt help junior kill the bear and insist he eat the heart).

Surounded by people who reinforced this hollow simulation of manhood for their own purposes, President Bush has been permitted to act out of an equally hollow sense of himself. Hence the eternal smirk, the condescension, the dramatic pronouncements that ring so empty ("the evil-doers," "I'm the decider," etc.) True men — not macho cliches — who by force of will or by sheer accident have managed to kill some kind of bear or another, rarely if ever have to speak in such bombastic terms. Young men who are never initiated into Manhood always struggle with an unbalanced relationship to society and to themselves. Too often the result is hobbled careers, toxic relationships, and unfulfilled expectations. And if an uninitiated man is really unlucky, he gets US stuck in Iraq.

Have a nice day.

Democrats have said that problems need to be fixed. Fair enough. But their first order of business is fix their problem - a schism between two factions. One of these factions thinks the quotes listed above are standard for political discourse and the other recognizes how this bile turns off the segment of the electorate who holds the cards - the independents. I suppose you could describe this current conflict as...oh, I don't know...perhaps quagmire is a pretty appropriate term.

I've watched this internal battle with disappointment for some time. And frankly, I find it hard to believe that the former will not dominate the latter. My expectation was that the Democrats of today would ultimately implode and from its ashes a new party would rise - one that would put the national interest over partisan politics. While the Democrats were not in control, this struggle could take place without endangering the safety of our citizens. Now that they are in control, I'm in the strange position of hoping - for the country's sake - that this implosion doesn't happen.

Believe me if Democrats could show some moderation and exercise some real leadership I'd be the first one to give them the credit and congratulate them.

It's easy to be on the outside, lobbing criticism. It's easy to find fault. It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback.

What's difficult is governing. What's difficult is supporting and defending policies that may not be popular.

Now Democrats have the difficult tasks.

And Republicans have the easy ones, as do I.

It's a role reversal.

This blog has never had any mission statement (go ahead and search the archives). But one of my goals has been to emphasize that while Republicans aren't perfect, the Democrats are not the solution. The electorate, however, was willing to give the Democrats their shot. As a patriotic American, I'd love for them to prove me wrong.

I'm not holding my breath.

Now that the landscape has changed, I assume my new role with relish.

UPDATE:
It would seem that the bloodletting has already begun.

Posted by: Gary at 02:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1337 words, total size 9 kb.

A quickie post-mortem. Scalpel, please.

1) The voters have spoken. Republicans in Congress lost something in the last couple of years - leadership. They've shown very little of it and they became more concerned with trying to protect their own butts than accomplishing the kinds of things that would give voters a reason to keep them around. So...

2) A lot of people - independents in particular - decided they were sick of hearing Democrats say that they could do a better job and gave them the opportunity to prove it. They weren't motivated by a sudden enthusiasm for a Liberal (or Progressive or whatever euphemism you want to use) agenda. They elected moderate Democrats to replace moderate Republicans - plain and simple. If the desires of the electorate were truly aligned with the Angry Left, then Ned Lamont, Lincoln Chafee and several others would be serving in the 110th Congress.

3) This is essentially a test for the Democrats. With control of the House and the Senate, they have no excuses. The time for rhetoric is over. Many of those seats could go right back to the Republicans in two years if they're not careful. They didn't put Democrats in power so they would appease the moonbats by extracting payback or making the President's last two year in office a living hell. Of course, if the Dems really believe otherwise, I encourage them to follow that strategy. The American voter is fed up with partisan bickering. And they don't care who "started it". They don't care about Karl Rove, Al Gore's litigation-fest in 2000 or the bile between the parties that led to the Clinton impeachment. They're beyond that stuff. And, frankly, they have little patience for it.

4) The Republicans have some soul-searching to do. They need to agree on what they are willing to fight for and how to be unified again. But the Democrats have their own challenge. The war between the moderates and the Left that has been held back by a tentative truce in an effort to win will come to the surface as they fight over how they intend to keep the power that they've won.

Conclusion: The responsibility for the next two years rests on the Democrats' shoulders, especially considering that the President is wrapping up the final two years of his second term. Now that the Virginia Senate race is called this can be truly called the "Democrat Congress". They can either get credit or blame. It's their choice.

One side note: Since George Allen showed he was unable to run a decent Senate re-election campaign, it's safe to say that very few Republicans will be taking any Presidential campaign he may attempt seriously. A while back I picked him as my early favorite for the nomination in 2008. At the time, it made sense. Now it makes none. So I'll be paying closer attention to that race starting immediately.

UPDATE:
I received this comment on an earlier thread from "Joe Liarman":

"No, there is a vulnerable Chris Shays in 2008
Ned will be back.
Ned standing up to Joe and Bush opened the floodgates for a national Dem victory.
To that, we thank him"

So Ned Lamont was the catalyst for this control change? By that logic, had Ned Lamont not entered politics and had Joe Lieberman been re-elected as a Democrat, the results of Tuesday wouldn't have happened and the Dems would still be in the minority. Sorry, Joe but you're not taking into consideration normal political cycles. Though that you would rationalize Lamont's loss as some sort of moral victory makes sense. It's what you guys are used to doing after an election.

The reference to Chris Shays is amusing, however. I'm wondering when it's finally going to sink in with these people that they're not the "party of change" anymore. Their whole campaign was "we have to get the Republicans out of power". OK, so that's done. Now what? They can't run on that two years from now.

In 2008, their task will be to defend the status quo. In order to do that, they'll have to actually accomplish something, promote it and use it as a rationale for not allowing the Republicans back in.

I know the concept is a little foreign to these folks but the campaign's over. Now they have to actually do something. Otherwise it's the GOP that'll be campaigning on change in 2008. Hello?

Posted by: Gary at 07:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 748 words, total size 4 kb.

I know you're very busy trying to focus on bipartisan consensus with the new Congress. Nice speech, BTW. However, I wanted to remind you of something very important that you may have heard of at the time you first came to Washington but have clearly since forgotten about. The prior occupant of the Oval Office left it in one of your desk drawers. It was left to him by your father, who had received it from President Reagan, passed along to him by his predecessor and so on and so on...

It might be time to search around for it, dust it off and keep it handy for the remainder of your term. You will need it... more...

Posted by: Gary at 08:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Until all outstanding races are confirmed, I don't see a reason to weigh in. I'll leave that to the punditry. That's their job. I'm off today with other priorities to deal with. Though all in all I can sum it up in a word...sucky.

However, I'm happy to say my number one priority - the re-election of Joe Lieberman and the subsequent rejection of the Kos-backed empty suit known as "the Freshmaker" by 50% of Connecticut's voters - has been accomplished. Congrats Joe.

Sorry, Ned. Hey there's always Dodd in 2010.

UPDATE:
The Moose rubs it in on Lamont, but makes an important point:

A powerful message has been sent to the '08 wannabees who sent Negative Ned their money and support - you can pander to the nutroots to win primaries, but you must reach out to the vital center to win a general election (even in a deep blue state). More persuasion and less comment threads, please.

UPDATE II:
Interesting development, Rumsfeld is set to resign.

I suspect that if Bush appointed Lieberman as his replacement (in the spirit of bipartisanship, of course) then Gov. Rell would appoint Nancy Johnson to fill his term - giving her a job and keeping the Senate in GOP hands.

That would make me laugh out loud.

UPDATE III:
Nevermind

Posted by: Gary at 09:36 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Are yours?

At no point in this election season did I ever - EVER - consider not voting. It's almost like I've been in line to vote for the last year. And I finally did so at around 8:15 this morning. Turnout at my polling place was a lot higher than I expected.

But brace yourself for Republican-turnout dampening doom and gloom. Yes, the networks say they're not "officially" releasing exit polls but as soon as they become available to the MSM, they'll leak faster than a Depends adult diaper on "Nickel Beer Thursday" at a college bar.

No matter what you hear, don't believe them. You remember how F'd up the exit polls were two years ago don't you? And exit polls aren't quickie "who did you vote for" polls, they're extended interviews with lots of demographic and issues questions. I don't have time for that. I'm not a college student with nothing better to do or a union member who has the day off. I have to cast my vote and get my butt to work. If the exit pollers asked me to talk to them this morning I would have had to respectfully decline because I was already running late. Also, it's important to note that in most races there is a higher than normal rate of absentee balloting and early voting among Republicans, which means they will be fewer than normal at the actual polling places today.

I'm not making predictions because I have nothing on which to base them other than what my gut tells me. Any pollster that picks the results accurately by the end of the day will be the luckiest sumbitch in the political world. Because he doesn't know either. I've always believed that, when all is said and done, the GOP holds both chambers of Congress. I still believe that.

Here's what I do know. These races are a lot closer than the "Blue wave" hype would have had you expect. Races that are dead even or where Republicans are trailing a few points give the GOP a distinct advantage because of their excellent GOTV operation. I think we're in for a few surprises today. It looks like the NY Times is even hedging its bets.

The only prediction I will make is that there will likely be at least a handful of House races that are so close that the lawyers will be out in full force Wednesday morning. It's quite possible (maybe probable) that we won't have solid results by the end of the evening, or even tomorrow.

Regardless of what happens I won't be posting for at least another twenty-four hours. So let the shit fall where it may.

If you're looking for insider scuttlebutt, more power to you. Go visit and bookmark "the indispensible" Jim Geraghty, NRO's The Corner and Sixers. And check in with Hugh Hewitt every now and again.

Posted by: Gary at 11:00 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Voted!! Crossed party lines and voted Republican! I even have photos to prove it

Posted by: Skye at November 07, 2006 08:05 PM (2NAoV)

2 Well, the Republican GOTV wasn't enough. The problem with depending on that is you assume the Dems haven't been learning from their opponents and improving their own operation. Even if it's not at the same level as Rove's, I think the gap is getting smaller.

Posted by: Mark Borok at November 08, 2006 09:14 AM (L69x5)

3 Congrats to you guys...once again special interest money wins. But at least we will able to hang onto Social Security...and we forced Joe out of the closet and had him show his true republican colors.

Posted by: Ned Prozac at November 08, 2006 09:37 AM (WKMno)

4 Mark, I haven't seen the breakdown of apparently was a huge turnout overall. But based on which Democrats were elected (in the House in particular), I'm guessing that unaffiliated turnout was what made the difference and they were willing to allow the Dems an audition. It will be interesting to see what they do now.

Posted by: Gary at November 08, 2006 12:40 PM (FX2Z/)

5 Gary, Now that you mention it, I did read about the independents as a force. I don't think that invalidates my point, nor the larger point that no party should count on its advantages remaining advantages when the other party can learn from and copy them.

Posted by: Mark Borok at November 08, 2006 04:21 PM (L69x5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We've all had the experience of sitting in a movie theater or in our living rooms watching a movie where events were unfolding toward an unmitigated disaster. You see characters doing things they shouldn't (or not doing things that they should) but you only know this because you have more information than they do. You're helpless to change anything and all you can do is watch and cringe.

Well, you have all the information you need about this election. And you're powerless to affect the outcome on grand scale. But you do have control of one thing: your vote.

If you choose not to cast your ballot or if you decide to vote for someone you wouldn't otherwise vote for simply to "send a message" to people you're unhappy with you may look back on this time with the realization of what a mistake that was.

You might look back from a recession because Democrats raised taxes and threw the brakes on this strong economy.

You might look back from a ridiculous Constitution-gutting Supreme Court ruling based on a 5-4 decision because Stevens or Ginsburg retired and the President couldn't get a decent nomination out of the Judiciary Committee.

Or you might look back from a devastating terrorist attack because Democrats took away important tools from our military and intelligence services that would have stopped it.

Will you look back from any of these scenarios and realize that you did nothing to stop this? Maybe Republicans will lose control of one or even both Houses of Congress anyway. But do you want to look back with the regret that you helped that happen?

I don't. And I won't.

This election will be fought in every State and every district and it will come down to turnout. And that turnout starts with you and me.

What do you say, Bluto?

Hat Tip to The Colossus for the clip.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

If it wasn't bad enough that John Zogby has screwed the pooch on his predictions three election cycles in a row, now he just got busted for cooking his results.

What a load.

h/t: JPod at The Corner

Generics are all moving toward the GOP. Gallup's will be released tonight.

UPDATE:
Gallup's generic closes from 13 points to 7 - same trend.

Posted by: Gary at 05:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll give ya optimism...

Dean Barnett is absolutely "bursting" in anticipation of Tuesday (to use his word). He's looking at the polls and here's his take:

What is even more of a mystery is why they all erred in the same direction, dramatically favoring the Democrat. IÂ’ve offered theories in the past why this is so, and IÂ’ll briefly summarize them for those with better things to do this fine Saturday than thumb through my archives: Liberals are bigmouths who canÂ’t wait to share their opinions with strangers. Conservatives have lives.

To take a more serious look at the matter, what the polls measure right now are people passionate or bored enough to spend a half hour talking to a stranger or, worse still, punching buttons on their telephone when prompted to by a recording. Democrats are more likely to tolerate this exercise, just as they were more likely to tolerate the inquisition of an eager grad student as they left the polls on Election Day Â’04.

The pollsters have also yet to devise a way of predicting who’s actually going to show up on Election Day. One poll I read talked to some 1200 registered voters and deemed 1000 of them “likely voters.” Since even a presidential year generates only 60% turnout max, the pollster’s conclusion that over 80% of the people he spoke with are “likely voters” is the professional equivalent of him throwing his hands in the air and saying, “How the hell should I know who’s actually going to vote?”

Of course, the pollsters canÂ’t say that because if they confess weaknesses in their methods, theyÂ’re less likely to have customers queued up to purchase their services. So instead they must perform a charade in which they profess omniscience.

SO WHAT ARE THE POLLSTERS MISSING? Well, first theyÂ’re missing the fact that a disproportionate amount of Republicans are likely to tell them to take a hike. Next, theyÂ’re overestimating the enthusiasm on the left. For all the cacophonous din that emanates from the left, itÂ’s critical to note that even their greatest hero, Ned Lamont, underperformed the polls on primary day. By several points.

Lastly, and most importantly, theyÂ’re missing a historic Republican Get Out The Vote (GOTV) effort. Republicans are going to turn out like itÂ’s a presidential year. Independents and Democrats will turn out like itÂ’s an important midterm. The Republican turnout will be worth between a few and several points in every race where thereÂ’s an effective Republican machine. And that includes every battleground state.

Lest you think IÂ’m whistling Dixie, weÂ’re already seeing the results of the Republican efforts. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that early voting and absentee ballot results suggest Republicans are indeed voting in greater numbers than in 2004. (Sorry, no link, but you can trust me, right?)

None of the foregoing means the polls are worthless. It just means that to get an accurate gauge on things, you have to add a significant layer of Republican support to the reported numbers.

So what’s it all mean? In the tied races, the Republican will win. In the close races, the Republican will win. It adds up to Republicans running the table in the Senate. That’s right – running the table. Montana, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, New Jersey, Rhode Island (whoopee), and Maryland will all send or re-send Republicans to the Senate. But wait, there’s more! Michigan will send Sheriff Michael Bouchard to the Senate. And in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum is in striking distance.

In the House, the same holds true. Republican Joe Negron will take FoleyÂ’s seat. New MexicoÂ’s Heather Wilson will return to Congress. So, too, will ConnecticutÂ’s Chris Shays. WeÂ’ll lose a handful of seats for the individual failures of certain Congressmen (hello, Curt Weldon), but we will retain control of the House.

Okay, IÂ’m officially out on the limb. But IÂ’m comfortable here. The paradigm has shifted. People like Stu Rothenberg are like old generals re-fighting the last war; theyÂ’re re-analyzing the last election without realizing that certain key facts on the ground have changed.

And you know those "generic ballot" polls? Jim Geraghty points this out:

Yes, on November 6, 1994, among registered voters, ABC News/Washington Post had the Democrats ahead on the generic ballot, 47 percent to 42. So we know just how valuable an indicator it is.

Even MSNBC is conceding the Senate to the GOP. If their willing to admit that, are they laying the ground work for a major backtrack from this "Democrat wave" prediction? Hmmmm.

Posted by: Gary at 03:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 814 words, total size 5 kb.

...By hanging for crimes against humanity.

"In the streets of Dujail, a Tigris River city of 84,000, people celebrated and burned pictures of their former tormentor as the verdict was read."

Personally, I would have preferred drawing and quartering.

Game over.

Posted by: Gary at 08:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

...well, the French Troops, anyway.

She even looks good in camouflage!

Posted by: Gary at 03:23 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

1 France has troops?

Posted by: Jeff D. at November 05, 2006 09:16 AM (8CL2y)

2 All gals look good in camo.

Posted by: bird dog at November 05, 2006 12:57 PM (YadGF)

3 Yes France has troops, but uses them more wisely than the americans (Whose army is stuck in Irak? it's been for so long, I don't quite remember...) It's sad that americains know so little about the world. What did Geroges Bush do to you guys? French troops help the UN bring peace back to Lebanon. Anyway, with chicks like that to motivate the troops, it should be done in no time.

Posted by: PYL at November 18, 2006 04:25 PM (+ATxW)

4 "It's sad that americains know so little about the world. What did Geroges Bush do to you guys?" he was joking. everyone is aware of france's troops and their abysmal performance since... hrm... napoleanic times. they are the perfect complement to the useless UNIFIL forces that have been watching hezbollah violate various UN agreements in lebanon for years. i'm sure they'll enjoy their cheese and wine while acomplishing nothing towards the disarmament of hezbo for the duration of their stay.

Posted by: snikvit at November 20, 2006 12:32 AM (J6JVy)

5 quote: "France has troops?" Well said! Especially when Iraqis are taking good care of US army with slingshots and adding yet another "victory" to the glorious record of US troops. Priceless! I wonder if there is an army in the world anymore, which couldn't defeat US troops...

Posted by: Mikis at January 03, 2007 05:46 AM (n/iVx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A/K/A: What's in my mailbox.

OK, I've been Robo-called to death over the last couple of weeks, from both sides and from just about every special interest group out there. The wife is officially unaffiliated (though her votes mirror mine) so her name probably attracts the Dem-supporting groups. I got a message the other day on my answering machine from old Jack "Okinawa" Murtha.

Anyways, yesterday I went out to the mailbox and what did I see?

From "The Committee To Elect Chris Murphy" (D): a flyer with photos featuring Bush, Cheney, Mark Foley and Tom DeLay "change the people we send [to Washington]". Theme: vote for change

From "Republicans Who Care Individual Fund": "Thanks Congresswoman Johnson!" highlighting her vote for expanded stem cell research. Theme: "A brighter future for CT families". OK, personally, I'm against Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research but this is CT, after all. So I have to give her a pass on this one.

From "Americans For Job Security": Basically, if elected, Chris Murphy will vote to tax the living shit out of you. Vote for Nancy Johnson. Features photo of Murphy standing beside San Fran Nan. Incidentally, I got two copies of this flyer though they were probably stuck together in the mailing process.

From "Friends Of Joe Lieberman" (I): Basically positive Pro-Joe flyer - "Always Standing Up For What's Right". With a big smack-you-the-face graphic pointing out that Lieberman is on the bottom line of the ballot. I swear to God I've gotten so many of these notices that if there's a single voter in the state of CT who doesn't know where to find Joe when they go into that voting booth they must be brain dead (or from Palm Beach County, FL)

There you have it. And I haven't even checked my mailbox this afternoon yet. I'll be so glad when this is over. I'm getting more mailers than catalogs these days.

UPDATE:
Today's mail:

(Actually this one was for yesterday but I just found it stuck in a catalog)
From "Connecticut Republican State Central Committee": "Do yo uwant the world to be a safer place?" - Basically, Dems are against everything that keeps us safe from terrorist attacks. Which is a fact. Theme: Vote Republican, your life depend on it.

From "Connecticut Republican State Central Committee": "For a stronger Connecticut" - showcases the slate of Republicans on the ballot: Gov. Rell, Nancy Johnson...and oh by the way there's this guy named Schlesinger who's...ahem...running for U.S. Senate (snicker).

From "Jodi Rell 06" (R): "I'd be honored to have your support". Very generic. Rell honestly doesn't even need to send mailers (although this is the first one I've gotten). She's so ahead in the polls her election is a foregone conclusion. But she's obviously not taking any chances.

Oh, and I also got three more Robo-calls today. One was from John McCain for Nancy Johnson (my second in the last three days).

Posted by: Gary at 02:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

And this week's Diane Lane Netflix Pick of the Week:

Unfaithful (2002)

Synopsis:
In Adrian Lyne's erotic thriller, Diane Lane is Connie, a wife and mother who lives in a beautiful house with her handsome husband, Edward (Richard Gere). But their marriage has lost its sexual spark, and when Connie literally runs into handsome book collector Paul (Olivier Martinez), he sweeps her into an all-consuming affair. But Edward soon becomes suspicious...

Gary's take: I'm not sure what 20th Century Fox Studios was thinking when they scheduled this film's release date - one week before "Spider-man" and two weeks before Star Wars, Episode II (another movie distributed by Fox) - but this one didn't do nearly as well at the box office as I feel it could have had it not had that kind of competition. Face it, guys. This one is a guilty pleasure. And yes I own a copy on DVD. I always thought Diane was sexy. But in this one she was a different kind of sexy, the down and dirty kind.

Posted by: Gary at 09:37 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

"Torn"
9pm on Sci-Fi

Posted by: Gary at 03:55 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That reminds me...I set up a blogroll at Blogrolling.com called "BSG Bloggers." I have a paid account so it won't go away and should load from the faster servers... If you could spread the word? Anyone who wants to join, just send an email to stark23x+bsg at gmail dot com with your blog URL and I'll add you and send you the code to add the blogroll to your own blog...

Posted by: JimK at November 03, 2006 04:55 PM (/O5Iq)

2 Okay, this has to be said... Lee and Kara, even pissed off at one another, have volcanic chemistry. RDM...Please more Lee and Kara, oh an airlock DEE!!

Posted by: Skye at November 03, 2006 09:23 PM (2NAoV)

3 Hey, Dee is fine. No airlocking fine BSG babes unless it's already known that they will resurrect in just-as-fine new Cylon bodies.

Posted by: JimK at November 04, 2006 02:04 PM (/O5Iq)

4 So....who will be "The Final Five???" Like my new haircut, btw? I was so sick of being called Goldilocks.

Posted by: Starbuck at November 04, 2006 10:48 PM (t/eS0)

5 Just a little nit-pick with the series. Where the frak are all the hunky cylons? Hmmmm? The girls might be babes, but the guys are complete dorks. Not that I'm complaining too much....Lee has definitely brought sexy back - thank the gods!! My picks for the 'Final Five' are: Dee Gaeta Racetrack Ellen Tigh Tom Zarek alt: Gaius Baltar

Posted by: Skyebuck at November 05, 2006 06:39 PM (2NAoV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Lt. Governor Michael Steele may very well be one of the biggest stories on Wednesday. He's had quite a week, picking up important endorsements and smacking down his opponent, Ben Cardin, on "Meet The Press".

Now Steele, who has come from behind in the polls, is tied with Cardin and picking up steam.

African-American voters in Maryland seem to be getting fed up with Democrats taking them for granted and are giving Steele a closer look. As enthusiasm for his candidacy builds, this Blue-as-can-be State may just have a Republican Senator after next week.

Check out Michelle Malkin's interview with Michael Steele here. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Gary at 02:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Because I'm getting tired of posting about politics.

Posted by: Gary at 10:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Look, I know exactly where the New York Times thinks they're going with this. The article goes way out of it's way to spin this as some kind of blunder on Bush's part (and how hilarious is it the the Times, which has been wantonly and recklessly leaking sensitive classified material all this time, now thinks it's a big deal that sensitive classified material is available via the government?).

But I don't think they fully appreciate what they've just done. They're revealing that Saddam Hussein was actively working on a nuclear weapon program, had pretty-much all the know-how and only lacked certain elements to put it all together.

So what happens to the the "Iraq had no WMDs" mantra of the Left? It's dead. Buried. Finished.

And doesn't this sentence send a chill up your spine?

"Experts say that at the time, Mr. HusseinÂ’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

So Iraq had all the know-how, all the plans, all the designs, "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building." Unless they were keeping these documents around as future material for paper airplanes, all this stuff constituted a plan of action for some point in the future; but to complete creating these weapons, they would have needed stuff. I don't know an exact list of what they would have needed, but articles like this one give a good idea. Sounds like you need a firing mechanism (the right kind of firearm would suffice), some fairly common industrial equipment like a lathe, material for the bomb casing, some fairly common conventional explosives, all of which would have been easy to get in Iraq. Oh, and, of course, the nuclear material itself.

They would have needed something like... um... you know... what's that stuff called? Oh, that's right.

Yellowcake.

But we know Iraq would never make an effort to get yellowcake. Joe Wilson had tea with officials in Niger who said so.

Posted by: Gary at 09:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 3 kb.