View Full Version : KBW--Keep Bloggingheads Working

01-22-2008, 10:15 AM

01-22-2008, 10:18 AM
In arguing that Democrats could do a better job of winning some of the 'family values' vote, I misspoke, referring (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8289?in=01:10:30) to the '06 election when I meant to refer to the '04 election. Under "Links mentioned" you can find the Slate piece I wrote right after that election making this argument. --Bob Wright

01-22-2008, 10:52 AM
Kaus does a great Tom Cruise, hilarious!

uncle ebeneezer
01-22-2008, 11:41 AM
Looks like Obama is taking Bob and Mickey's advice here:


I thought the jab he took at "who he's running against" was priceless. Glad to see BHO is finally standing up to (and pointing out) the conventional political games that the Clinton's are trying to play.

01-22-2008, 11:45 AM
Sang? Who is this Sang?

Stealthy way to start some buzz, Bob. (That's a compliment.)

01-22-2008, 11:48 AM
Notice what the FIRST Google result is for KBW (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=kbw&btnG=Search)?

Just sayin'.

01-22-2008, 11:50 AM
Just because Mickey doesn't know, don't think the rest of us didn't catch that gaffe.

Except Bob, I mean. Which kind of surprised me, given how much he used to obsess over the female commenters.

Maybe you should start saying things like "fourth declension" more often.

01-22-2008, 12:03 PM
Sonoran officials slam sanctions law in Tucson visit (http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/border/74193.php)

Tucson Citizen
Published: 01.16.2008

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora - Arizona's southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money.

The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension or loss of a business license.

Its intent is to eliminate or curtail the top draw for immigrants to this country - jobs.


"How can they pass a law like this?" asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales.

"There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona," she said in Spanish.

"Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems" it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs, she said.


So, illegal Mexican workers by the millions can come to the US "without jobs or money," but it's an outrage for, no doubt, a fraction of them to return home in the same circumstances. (And if that's the case, then what was it before they even left, I wonder??) The arrogance infused in the reasoning associated with that argument, and the utter brazenness of even making it, is what infuriates the anti-immigration crowd, which is, of course, the majority of citizens in this country.

which hunt?
01-22-2008, 12:15 PM
Kinda cute the way pop culture references go right over Bob's head.

01-22-2008, 12:16 PM
I have to say, I watched (part of) that Cruise video, and I had no idea what Mickey was doing, either.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
01-22-2008, 12:51 PM

You're supposed to say anti-"illegal" immigration. The fact that the crowd is anti-immigration in general is supposed to be a secret. Don't feel too bad, though, I think most of us knew the truth already.

[QUOTE=cousincozen The arrogance infused in the reasoning associated with that argument, and the utter brazenness of even making it, is what infuriates the anti-immigration crowd, which is, of course, the majority of citizens in this country.[/QUOTE]

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
01-22-2008, 12:54 PM
I hadn't watched the video and seeing Mr. Kaus act that way without any idea why was hilarious. Especially the bizarre sound effects. Of course, all credit goes to Mr. Wright as the straight man being slowly overcome with laughter, which always helps the joke.

which hunt?
01-22-2008, 01:00 PM
Right on Bob!

The Iraq war sucks so many resources out of the economy. I've thought that it has been the elephant in the room on the sagging dollar, and I can't believe it hasn't gotten more play in the MSM.

01-22-2008, 01:03 PM
Corrections: Mickey -- Mitt was never re-elected in Massachusetts.

and Terry Sanford of NC is dead. and a Democrat. You mean Mark Sanford... of the other Carolina.

which hunt?
01-22-2008, 01:16 PM
If Mickey Kaus turned up dead who killed him? A little game: you be the detective. I'll get the ball rolling.

The Scientologists.
Trade Unions. Jackie Presser's hired goons.
Shadowy Edwards campaign operatives.

Your turn.

01-22-2008, 01:24 PM
Maybe Anne Coulter, after she's worked so hard to turn him into a Republican. Mickey was amazingly pro-Democratic in this diavlog.

01-22-2008, 01:56 PM
Another Cruise video here (http://gawker.com/5002371/craig-ferguson-as-tom-cruise).

Well, sorta.

01-22-2008, 02:31 PM
The hordes of Mexicans reclaiming the west? (In remembrance of the Alamo, perhaps)

01-22-2008, 02:40 PM
Robert and Mickey are getting better and better together - and do the best diavlogs: great chemistry, funny, insightful, full of excellent analysis. This one was a pleasure to watch all the way through.

Looks like Robert is sticking to his resolution of not letting Mickey push his buttons. The interplay was the smoothest I've seen yet.

Thought the Obama analysis was particularly good ...

On a more personal note ... Bj's commenting gets several well-deserved very favorable mentions from Bob and nice that Abu Noor Al-Irlandee's imminent blog is brought up. Uncle ebeneezer and others mentioned too!

01-22-2008, 02:46 PM
It wasn't me, I swear. It was Sullivan.

01-22-2008, 02:52 PM
'Nativist', and not 'econimic'? The typical liberal rant that anyone for secure borders is a racist.

Bob, pull your head out, Mexico is importing 1/10th of it's poverty class, driving down wages, driving up governmental costs for everything from crime to uninsured drivers to anchor babies flooding the schools.......

That's not economic?

Once again, immigration, yes, illegal immigration, no. Quit rewarding those who thumb their noses at the law and cut in line in front of those following the rules.

Anyone who changes the conservative position to nativism, xenophobia and racism is either ignorant or disingenuous.

uncle ebeneezer
01-22-2008, 03:40 PM
Hey David_PA, what about me? I got my first shout out in months. Where's the love?

Bob, my statement was meant to be more declarative than it came across. I AM an outlier. We are all outliers here. And you are our lord.

Wow- just watched the Tom Cruise vid. I used to think that his performance in Magnolia was brilliant but now I see that he was just kinda being himself. For a bit I thought the background music sounded very similiar to the train scene (you know the one) from Risky Business. But then at the end it turned into a Mission Impossible knock-off. I wonder if Lelo Shifflin has a lawsuit ready on that one.

I agree with Bob, that actually Cruise doesn't sound much different than many Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Landmark Forum/AMWay members etc. My biggest question is that: if I was their target audience, what the hell was I supposed to get out of that video? It really didn't make much of an appeal (even hypothetically) to start writing checks to LRon. I did love the whole emphasis on wanting to "share the knowledge with others". Such a typical cult talking point. Love it.

The video was pretty well editted though, can't wait to see the sequel.

I just realized this thing is like the Bizarro-world version of Meaningoflife.tv. Come on Bob, if you can get Cruise on for an interview, you would TRULY be our lord.

01-22-2008, 03:47 PM
Hey David_PA, what about me? I got my first shout out in months. Where's the love?

Love's there now ;-) ...

01-22-2008, 03:58 PM
The fashion police.

01-22-2008, 03:58 PM
Thanks BJ, but you know me. I don't mind as long as he doesn't refer to my breasts as tits.

01-22-2008, 04:01 PM
If I've learned anything on Bloggingheads it is that liberals are nothing if not typical and say nothing except in rant form.

01-22-2008, 04:07 PM
If I've learned anything on Bloggingheads it is that liberals are nothing if not typical and say nothing except in rant form.

Not true. See, for example, this post.

C'mon, you can come up with something better than that.

01-22-2008, 04:49 PM
Now, this is awkward. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8289?in=01:15:38)

01-22-2008, 04:50 PM
"I think most of us knew the truth already." Well, according to Bob Wright, this IS a sharp crew.

"You're supposed to say anti-'illegal' immigration." I think the prospect of half-a-billion people in the US (or more!) by mid-century renders it a distinction without a difference. But it's like the term "illegals." Everyone knows both what you're talking about and referring to.

01-22-2008, 05:32 PM
Mickey suggests that Obama venture further into nativist anti-immigration territory to win primaries in states like California.

One problem with that strategy is that Obama is genuinely not the xenophobe that Mickey is. He is more principled than to sellout his progressive values in order to attract racist independent voters.

Another problem is that no Dem. who has been out on the street campaigning is going to mess with the level of expectation and pain in immigrant communities today. Latino working families are under siege by the Bush administration. I cannot emphasize enough the degree to which English-language media (with a couple of exceptions) is missing what is going on in Latino neighborhoods, where people are living in rising fear of raids and deportation. Pushing the buttons of this segment of the electorate* is not wise.

Obama and Clinton both showed their hands in Nevada. Obama went with a kumbaya rendition of Sí se puede, the Chicano civil rights mantra of the César Chávez era. But it's not about picking grapes with Bobby Kennedy this time around. It's about legalización ahora. Clinton, in a smarter move, declared "No woman [in the USA] is illegal."

*The undocumented do not vote, of course, but their children, cousins, friends, neighbors, clergy and employers do.

01-22-2008, 06:24 PM
"The Iraq war sucks so many resources out of the economy. "

G.I. wages? Military hardware and services, mostly from domestic producers?

I thought the big gripe was it's deficit financed, whereby the govt doesn't take enough resources out of the economy?

So, how is it sucking resources "out of the economy"?

which hunt?
01-22-2008, 07:04 PM
Doesn't the deficit financing suck government capital weakening the dollar? I don't know, but it seems like a plausible storyline. We are using buying power to finance the war, and it seems like even pouring money into defense contractors and creating jobs wouldn't make up for the shortfall. Plus we are pumping money into Iraqi infrastructure. Maybe that could be invested elsewhere with a greater yield. Anybody on here an economist? Want to weigh in?

01-22-2008, 07:15 PM
I think it's a lot simpler than all the theoretical speculation set forth by Bob and Mickey: It's the perception, stupid (or sentiment, as the economists say).

If voters believe the economy sucks, that's what they'll take to the voting booth. They'll blame Bush and take it out on Republican candidates.

Whatever the cause -- jobs going overseas, immigration, tax cuts for the rich, war in Iraq, mortgage lenders' greed, poor Fed policy , global warming, impending Armageddon, cabal of Jewish bankers, Martian hedge fund operators -- the bottom line will be bad news for the Republican candidate.

01-22-2008, 08:42 PM
"there were all these mortgages given irresponsibly" - Bob Wright

What a great revelation into the mind of the founder of bhtv. In the parlance of old Californian I believe that statement of Mr. Wright's would be called "stinkin' thinkin' "

There is no doubt that the execution of the fiduciary responsibilities of various parts of the financial industry ought to be investigated. Nevertheless, the truth remains that the primary responsibility for one's actions can only be assigned to the individual who decided to borrow the money.

01-22-2008, 09:00 PM
I distinctly remember my intro econ professor claiming that economists are generally opposed to war, on the grounds that it wastes a lot of resources. One way to look at the strength of an economy is to ignore the money, and focus only on what the resources are doing. In the case of war, physical materials and human intellect, labor and lives are being spent creating and using bullets, tanks and bombs, rather than being used/invested in more productive endeavors. Some wars can be rationalized on the grounds that there's a return on these expenditures; with Iraq, it's a pretty hard case to make.

Having said all that, this type of waste is a long-term issue, as the value of the goods that would have been created by the resources wouldn't be realized for quite some time. Furthermore, Iraq expenses represent a small fraction of total GDP, and only some fraction of Iraq expenses are actually wasted (equipment can be reused, soldiers develop skills that can be used in other fields, etc.) So while it's fair to say that the Iraq war has had a negative impact on the US economy, it's a pretty minor factor in explaining the current situation.

01-22-2008, 10:24 PM
"there were all these mortgages given irresponsibly" - Bob Wright

What a great revelation into the mind of the founder of bhtv. In the parlance of old Californian I believe that statement of Mr. Wright's would be called "stinkin' thinkin' "

There is no doubt that the execution of the fiduciary responsibilities of various parts of the financial industry ought to be investigated. Nevertheless, the truth remains that the primary responsibility for one's actions can only be assigned to the individual who decided to borrow the money.

Yes - the individual is responsible for fulfilling the terms of the loan. If they can't follow through on that responsibility they lose their house.

On the other hand, the many banks who lent too much money to too many high-risk people or the financial houses that purchased aggregates of these loans in repackaged form, put at risk the financial health of their entire institution. By insufficiently collatoralizing the loans, or protecting them via higher rates, the banks have only themselves to blame for using unsound lending practices.

So ... who are the more irresponsible parties, the borrowers who lose their homes or the officers of the banks or financial institutions that become insolvent, and who as a group have turned the world economy sour?

01-22-2008, 11:29 PM
Yes - the individual is responsible for fulfilling the terms of the loan. If they can't follow through on that responsibility they lose their house.

George Bush borrowed my money to finance a criminal enterprise in Iraq and to set up a torture and illegal imprisonment facility in Guantánamo, Cuba. How do I get a refund?

Bob M
01-22-2008, 11:59 PM
Mickey says that aid to local governments may not be effective because the aid may not go to public works. That is besides the point.

I believe Krugman's point is that the requirement of most state and local governments to maintain balanced budgets is counter-cyclical. That is, just when an economy contracts and tax revenues decline, state and local governments are forced to cut expenses and raise taxes to balance their budgets.

Typically, states and localities cut spending on goods and services, impose hiring freezes, and when times are really tough they raise taxes and lay off workers.

Earlier today in New York, Governor Spitzer proposed cuts in the planned level of spending on health and education and proposed the elimination of some property tax rebates. Later this week in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg will announce his budget, which, according to the NY Times, will contain a varierty of spending cuts. I am sure these sorts of measures are occuring across the country.

Of course, it is possible that the cuts that states and localities make during recessions are good in the long run. One could make a creative destruction argument that recessions provide local governments with an opportunity reallocate resources and make their workforces more productive. One might also argue that a worker that the government does not hire could be better used by the private sector anyway. On the other hand, it is also possible that worthwhile government programs are diminished, suspended or never initiated, and that education, public safety, and sanitation will suffer if fewer bright young teachers are hired and if fewer cops and sanitation workers are on the street.

Regardless of the long run consequences, the short term economic consequences of the necessary spending cuts or tax increases are almost certainly bad. By definition, a recession is when the economy is operating below its capacity - i.e. when we collectively have the capacity to produce more goods and services than we are actually consuming. This means that there are idle resources -- there are people who want to work but can't find work and there are factories or other forms of capital that are not being fully utilized. So during a recession, when a local government does not hire people who it otherwise would have hired, there are even more idle workers and the situation is worsened. Likewise, when the local government raises taxes or fees to close a budget gap, people spend less money and the situation worsens.

Therefore, temporary federal aid to local governments during a recession is almost always a good means of economic stimulus.

01-23-2008, 12:12 AM
On the economy, I think we can do worse than Martin Wolf's article today.

( http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18083bfa-c8f8-11dc-b14b-0000779fd2ac.html )

He presents the 3 basic hypothesis and outlines how they complement one another. Minsky meets loose monetary policy meets macro disorder meets Minsky meets...

( An excelent extra would be this article by Robert Hunter Wade from LSE

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the_end_of_neo_liberalism )

In this sense, the budget deficit is not a big part of the story; the global imbalances are. Also lack of regulation, high oil prices, maybe even the absence of policies making people make real money, instead of depending on asset bubbles to maintain their standard of living, and a few other things. So politics and policy are, in the end, a big part of the story.

On immigration, Kaus is wrong. I would just refer to Professor Massey's conversation with Will Wilkinson for evidence of this. Again, above all, wrong policies.

Yet, Kaus was brilliant in the beginning, and he would have been brilliant, with those fast hands, even if he hadn't been spoofing Tom Cruise.

01-23-2008, 04:55 AM
I think this racism/sexism meme is a creature of the networks MSM, if this WSJ article has any validity. Senator Obama's way of campaigning is radical (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120105705756408791.html?mod=googlenews_wsj):

In early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, campaigns use rallies and personal appearances to get votes. Now, the nominating races have moved to bigger states, including much of the South. Candidates here rely on endorsements from powerful politicians and preachers. It is a tradition that has evolved since the 1960s to garner support among poor blacks who look to their preachers for both spiritual and political guidance. And it is the way Mrs. Clinton, like countless Democratic politicians before her, is running her campaign in South Carolina.

Mr. Obama, in contrast, is trying something many observers say has never been done here: He is circumventing entrenched local leadership and building a political machine from scratch. His staff consists largely of community organizers -- many from out of state or with no political experience -- who are assembling an army of volunteers. It is a strategy often used by labor organizations and in neighborhood and town politics.

This reminds me of how much I liked Obama's campaign financing tactics early last year. I like this nuts-and-bolts strategies; I don't like parts of his domestic and foreign policy. On the other hand, Clinton annoys me for many reasons, too, but I'm comfortable with her moderate conservative leaning. The missing link, and the part the MSM is pissing all over, is a mod-left social agenda. As long as a Dem wins, and enough of the right foreign policy wonks get in, like Richard Holbrooke, I'll sleep well at night.

01-23-2008, 05:03 AM
Finally, Mr. Wright talks about Florida! Thanks!

From the Florida Democratic party (http://www.fladems.com/content/w/democratic_primary_does_matter)!

Florida still critical for Democrats (http://www.fladems.com/content/w/florida_still_critical_for_democrats)

Not many concrete answers here!

01-23-2008, 05:18 AM
Alright, that NYT article dropped HRC into an abyss in my estimation of her economic policy. The parts of the WJC administration legacy I adored are precisely the parts HRC, according to Leonhardt, opposed, like welfare reform and freer trade. Clearly, HRC is triangulating to get the left vote from Obama and further silence her Iraq War votes. She can also pick up the populists on both wings who just hate foreigners.

Will she be singing another song in September?

01-23-2008, 05:28 AM
I'm surprised it took so long!

But, I like his arguments on sovereign wealth funds, especially comparing them to Japan-bashing in the 80s.

It doesn't matter if foreign governments and corps invest in America, as long as it spurs growth and employment in America, and doesn't just go back to foreign capitals. If SWF's soften the recession, and Americans get back to work, then the joke's on the SWF's. These guys are using their taxpayers' money for global gambling, instead of investing in their own economies. Here in Korea, youth employment is high, and most grads are despondent. Officially, the SWF is for unification to soften the shock of paying for North Korea. But, in reality, South Koreans don't have pensions and the healthcare system is great, but not transparent. The rest of the money goes to the corporations. Saudi Arabia is a demographic timebomb.

So, please, spend on US! But, problems are amassing back home, too!

01-23-2008, 09:56 AM
Thanks to Bob Wright, who usually does not receive such praise from me (I am sure that he cares), for a savvy Bloggingheads.tv with Mickey.

Clinton, Inc., has done a smart and subtle thing. While everyone is running around saying that a mistake has been made (the injection of poisonous "race" into the campaign), the Clintons have managed to turn Obama from a candidate "who happens to be black" (a transforming candidate, the "David Palmer" of the age) into a just another "black candidate," who may attract the electoral leavings of Jesse Jackson -- black votes and little else.

We have gone from a narrative of "Is Obama 'black enough" to a narrative of "selecting Obama would be a risky choice" (Yes, it can be couched on his "inexperience," although he is really more "experienced" than Hillary in actual governing, but the secret code that it is "risky" becaiuse he is a "black candidate").

They have also managed to play the Muslim card. As Mickey has said elsewhere, by the time this campaign is over, people will think that "Hussein" is Obama's middle name. Who paid for the robocalls in South Carolina? It cannot be proved (a Clinton speciality), but in 30 seconds, they manage to say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" FOUR times.

Look at some point for someone, well-paid in some non-traceable way, to come forward and say that Obama used to be his "drug dealer" back in the Seventies. The truth may be that Obama shared his drugs with someone during his admitted period of drug experimentation, but he can hardly use THAT as a defense.

They have also put Bill front and center, thus reminding everyone that this can be thought of as a THIRD Clinton Term, while spreading the rumor that "Bill if off-message" to make it appear that making himself prominent against her wishes. Yes, it diminishes her seeming indepence, but she needs his political skills and, besides, she knows that she will have the title if elected. We don't know what the exact arrangement in the White House will be. It is unlikely either that Bill will be "secret President" or that he will be merely vestigial as "First Laddie." Hillary will be the President, but the Hillary-Bill team will be in charge.

Hillary will win the nomination to face, probably, McCain. Look for her to run in a marathon or be photograped playing tennis or something to make the contrast plain: Hillary, fit and vigorous, ready to ne President from the first day; McCain, old and hurt by torture, sufferer of melanoma, unlikely to live out his first term (who is his vice-presidential candidate?).

The Right resents the Clintons, but does not give them credit for how smart and cunning they can be. Plus, they have a credulous Media that is unlikely to interfere and explain away whatever they try, and they always make sure to have a "cutout," someone they can denounce and distance themselves from, the "I do not think my New Hampshire campaign official (over-zealous") should have brought up the subject of OBAMA'S COCAINE USE." or "While iit is true that Barack HUSSEIN Obame ATTENDED A MADRASSA, that was a good thing" person.

Bill managed to get himself photographed sleeping behind a black preacher on MLK Day. This had to be calculated. Again, it is "deniable," but all he had to do -- when, if he felt himself sleepy and feared that he might go to sleep, was to leave "to make an important phone call, with apologies" -- but instead he took a chance on going to sleep right behind the preacher (not even in the crowd facing the other way where it might not be photographed). This sent the subtle message that "We know all this MLK studd is bunk, even though we have to play along with it and pretend to be sincere -- oh, by the way, did I mention that the Obama guy is BLACK? It doesn't bother me, but you know . . ..).

I wonder how Ann Althouse would decode what the Clintons have done in recent weeks. Of course, I can't prove any of it, and it is all arguable (after all, Bill was just tired). That is precisely the point. I do not think any Republican (let alone McCain, with his Victorian ideas about "negative campaigning") can contend with this level of duplicity and stagecraft.

petty boozswha
01-23-2008, 10:56 AM
Been away awhile and enjoyed seeing the two titans of BHtv together again. I'd like to add a couple of ideas:

When Mickey was discussing the most efficient way of injecting "stimulus" '[i.e. free money into the] economy with a board of poohbahs lowering payroll taxes, I thought of a better way -- why not pay a bonus to all people who have served on jury duty for the last few months. They are almost all lower or moderate income, they didn't weasel out of their civic obligations, and it might encourage better juries in the future so we don't get so many OJ/Reginald Denny/Robert Blake/Spector/etc. decisions in the future.

Also on the political front, maybe you guys could address this topic in your next vlog: suppose, after a hard-fought Mondale/Hart campaign, Hillary and the machine deny Obama the nomination. Don't you think black voters might be so dejected they might be willing to sit out the election in November? especially if McCain puts Condi Rice on the ticket as VP?

01-23-2008, 12:28 PM
The Tom Cruise interview of seemingly "normal," yet somehow deeply creepy. Is he just that strange because he is "Tom Cruise" or because he is a big shot in Scientoloty? Maybe he was always strange, but the Scientology seems to motivate him. The production values seem to come directly from Tony Robbins self-help videos.

01-23-2008, 12:49 PM

... if McCain puts Condi Rice on the ticket as VP ...

An intriguing thought. Were Bush's ratings not in the toilet, that would be a really interesting choice.

01-23-2008, 01:07 PM
It would be possible for Obama to support our laws rather than supporting subverting them. However, first he'd have to renounce being a useful idiot for the Mexican government (http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches).

If you don't see a problem with what he did, see the description of the Youtube video and get him to sign the statement in the description.

Happy Hominid
01-23-2008, 05:04 PM
And here is their first attempt: http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8289?in=01:01:53&out=01:02:23

01-23-2008, 05:37 PM
At 9:04 / 14.13 on McCain vs. Romney vs. Huckabee, etc.: Let the least weird win (14:13) Mickey says that the people of Massachusetts re-elected Willard Mitt Romney as governor.

WRONG Mickey!

Willard Mitt Romney was elected to one term in 2002. More signficantly, his lieutenant governor Kerry Healey ran to succeed him in 2006 and lost to Deval Patrick. The vote count (according to the New York Times from 23 November 2006) was 1,220,065 for Patrick versus 779,807 for Healey.

Indeed, it is one of the great ironies of the ongong presidential election that no one has called Mr. Romney on the fact that his record was clearly a major issue with the voters of Massachusetts when they issued such a strong repudiation of his hand picked successor. Nor should it be forgotten that that repudiation ended 16 years of Republican gubernatorial rule here in the deep blue north.

Any chance Mickey will 'fess up to his error?

01-23-2008, 05:37 PM
God bless Bob and Mickey.

01-24-2008, 01:22 PM

But he was in New Jersey. Good for him.

01-24-2008, 01:57 PM

01-24-2008, 10:55 PM

So we ended up using petri dishes full of everclear set alight to cook our squirrels.

In my day, we wouldn't have wasted good grain alcohol in that way. No, we'd drink it, and then eat the squirrels raw.

01-25-2008, 01:58 AM
Sorry, but a lot of aimless nattering in this diavlog. Yawn!

01-25-2008, 02:04 AM
Sorry, but a lot of aimless nattering in this diavlog. Yawn!

That's the special charm of the Bob and Mickey Show. You're just becoming aware of it now?

01-25-2008, 10:18 AM