Terry McMahon's Awesome Blog

More exciting things in a week ago in politics, and in life:

• As recently as earlier this year, Washington insiders thought that Virginia Senator George Allen was the most likely Republican nominee in 2008. All of a sudden, though, his prospects don't look so good: John McCain seems to have taken the inside track, thanks to his aggressive courting of conservatives, and George Allen might actually have a serious challenge for reelection to the Senate in 2006. Former Virgina Gov. Mark Warner's choice for the Democratic nomination seems to be a guy named Harris Miller, but personally I'm most intrigued by Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, Jim Webb, who's running as a Democrat on the same rural strategy that got Warner himself elected in 2001.

  So Allen's getting a more spirited challenge than everyone expected. His situation actually directly contradicts that of Hillary Clinton: Clinton has no serious challenger, but always talks in terms of winning her 2006 reelection, avoiding any discussion of her potential 2008 presidential candidacy. Allen, who admittedly has to build up his national profile if he wants to have a serious presidential shot, has two potentially serious challengers, rarely talks of his 2006 reelection and aggressively works the 2008 Invisible Primary scene (another blog post in itself). This means we get New York Times stories like this:
  

  George Allen makes little secret that he is bored with life in the Senate.

  "I made more decisions in half a day as governor than you can make in a whole week in the Senate," Senator Allen said earlier this month.

  
  Smooth. I mean, if/when Allen loses his presidential run, Virginia would be stuck with him as senator until 2013, unless we beat him now. Fortunately the DSCC has a good idea to resolve Allen's intellectual ennu:
  

  Since we presume Allen will be taking his name off the ballot so that he can look a job that will hold his interest, DSCC Executive Director J.B. Poersch is sending a letter to the NFL today recommending Bored George to succeed outgoing NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

  
  See, George Allen's dad is a Hall of Fame NFL coach too, and George Allen fils uses too many football puns when talking about politics. It's a perfect fit.

• Next, what matters is not that I'm going to graduate law school, go work at the firm, and make a ton of money. No, what matters is that I'm going to make a shit-ton of money:
  

  The biggest New York firms in February leapfrogged the others and bumped first-year pay to $145,000. Since then, the walls have crashed in, with firms headquartered in London, Washington, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Chicago, Houston and elsewhere all adjusting upward.

  
  That doesn't include the $35,000 bonus at the end of the year if I sufficiently never leave the office. All told, my first job out of law school could very well pay me exactly ten times as much as my first job out of college. Yes, I'm rubbing it in. No, I don't care. Let's also not forget the $200,000 of debt.

• Speaking of not caring, Maddox just launched his book website. If you don't know who Maddox is, he's the only person on the internet who runs The Best Page In The Universe and might actually be right. I may find myself intentionally buying a book called "The Alphabet Of Manliness."

• We all know at this point that Bob Novak is a disingenuous, partisan hack, but I like pointing it out anyway, so, here's a good example of how Bob Novak sounds objective when he's really not:
  

  Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has taken the unusual step of targeting his Republican counterpart, Rep. Tom Reynolds, for defeat in his upstate New York district. There is no record of a House campaign committee chairman ever being defeated for re-election by the opposition party.

  
  Wow! Why do we tolerate letting Democratic leaders campaign against their Republican counterparts? Don't we want bipartisanship in Washington? Well, I'll tell you this: if you're the first person to find me an example of Bob Novak disparaging Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for going to South Dakota in 2004 to campaign against then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, I owe you a Coke. Asshole.

More fun to follow!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 12:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You may have heard about the recent imbroglio whereupon the Washington Post website hired a conservative blogger named Ben Domenech to write a "Red America" blog. Guess who was hired to write "Blue America"? That's right: no one! Bitter liberal bloggers decided to take a closer examination of the record, and they found about ten articles by this Domenech kid (he's younger than I am) lifting entire paragraphs whole cloth. Now, adding a slanted blog to your theoretically objective website with no counterpoint isn't particularly damning for a fine institution like washingtonpost.com, apparently, but journalistic plagiarism, by necessity, involves stealing another reporter's work. What if that reporter didn't feel like doing work that day, but spent a couple hours coming up with something anyway?

So Domenech resigned Friday, I guess after realizing he wanted to spend more time with his nonexistent wife and kids. Fortunately he framed the real issues going on here:

To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America.

Ha! Sorry, douchebag: we can do both. You're a moron AND I hate freedom. Happy shitcanning!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Noted espn.com columnist Bill Simmons, author of the Red Sox book I got for Christmas, has been solidifying his status as one of the major voices of his generation (and you think I'm kidding) by doing a series of interviews with seriously fascinating people, like NBA Commissioner David Stern, Red Sox superhero Curt Schilling, and the guy who made "The OC." Most recently, he talked with New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell, better known as the author of "Blink" and "The Tipping Point." In Part 2 of the wide-ranging, fascinating interview, Gladwell talks about his potential as an NBA general manager:

Gladwell: Here's the real question. If I was GM of the Knicks, would I be doing a better job of managing the team than Thomas? I believe, somewhat immodestly, that the answer is yes. And I say this even though it is abundantly clear that Thomas knows several thousand times more about basketball than I do. I've never picked up a basketball. I couldn't diagram a play to save my life. I would put my level of basketball knowledge, among hard core fans, in the 25th percentile.

So why do I think I would be better? There's a famous experiment done by a wonderful psychologist at Columbia University named Dan Goldstein. He goes to a class of American college students and asks them which city they think is bigger -- San Antonio or San Diego. The students are divided. Then he goes to an equivalent class of German college students and asks the same question. This time the class votes overwhelmingly for San Diego. The right answer? San Diego. So the Germans are smarter, at least on this question, than the American kids. But that's not because they know more about American geography. It's because they know less. They've never heard of San Antonio. But they've heard of San Diego and using only that rule of thumb, they figure San Diego must be bigger. The American students know way more. They know all about San Antonio. They know it's in Texas and that Texas is booming. They know it has a pro basketball team, so it must be a pretty big market. Some of them may have been in San Antonio and taken forever to drive from one side of town to another -- and that, and a thousand other stray facts about Texas and San Antonio, have the effect of muddling their judgment and preventing them from getting the right answer.

I'd be the equivalent of the German student. I know nothing about basketball, so I'd make only the safest, most obvious decisions. I'd read John Hollinger and Chad Ford and I'd print out your mid-season NBA roundup and post it on my blackboard. I'd look at the box scores every morning, and watch Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith on TNT. Would I have made the disastrous Marbury trade? Of course not. I'd wonder why Jerry Colangelo -- who I know is a lot smarter than I am -- was so willing to part with him.

I don't even have any insight. But how is that not fascinating? One other Simmons thing I want to point out: look at this quote from a more recent column:

Eventually, they push to play somewhere else, and only because they want to be paid like a franchise player without the responsibility of carrying a franchise. That's why McGrady left Orlando. That's why Carter left Toronto. That's why Davis left New Orleans. That's why KG will push to leave Minnesota this summer.

I love that last part about Kevin Garnett. When I was in politics, I really enjoyed developing my skills in predicting the future. Most people are too paralyzed to do so, since even within the realm of foreseeability, there are always a fair number of different outcomes. So why pick one, right? But it's a skill like anything else, and if you give it a try, you'd be surprised how often it works. Bill Simmons is the only writer I know who's willing to take this approach and say, "you know what, I'm pretty sure this is going to happen." Will it happen with KG? As always, I don't know anything about basketball. But it's neat to try.

P.S. You can try this at home without having to know the intricacies of the NBA or the TX-22 congressional race. When you get a call on your cell phone, stop and think about who it might be before you look. You'd be surprised how much of what happens can be predicted if you think it through.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

For some reason I don't quite feel like discerning, iTunes has a hard time playing audio when I've got video files open on Firefox ... sometimes. So since I want to listen to "The Bad Touch" before I head off to Florida tomorrow, here are the videos I currently have open:

• First off, someone (I hear the BBC) did a live version of the intro to the Simpsons. It is terrifically well done, but it would still be worth seeing otherwise: the alternate version of the same intro you've seen for years is striking.
  
• So Saturday Night Live doesn't exactly seem up for letting people post their sketches online, but they do seem to put stuff up on their own site. Thank goodness, since they just did a new Lazy Sunday-style rap video, in which Natalie Portman shows us what she's really all about. I know it's crazy, but I still think Andy Samberg (the guy who wrote this, and appears at the end in a viking costume) is going to change the face of rap. Also check out the audio-only TheHeist mp3.
  
• I've never been into comic books at any point in my life - I don't even think I've read one the whole way through - but for some reason a good superhero movie totally drives me insane with awesomeness. Combine that with how great movie trailers have gotten these days, and I shouldn't have been surprised that the trailer for X-Men 3 has me so excited. I hear this is the last movie with all the X-Men together, and a lot of them don't make it out. Nonetheless, this looks great. Check it out.

  Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I recently ran a search on solving a minor problem that comes up whenever I start up the old version of AIM (the new version, Triton, is buggier than a New England summer night) and, happily, wound up on the Microsoft website. I got this hilariously useful error message:

SYMPTOMS

When you attempt to start your computer, an error message similar to the following may appear:

Xmlparse.dll cannot be found.

CAUSE

This error can occur when you have America Online Instant Messenger (AIM) in the Startup group.

RESOLUTION

To resolve this problem, disable AIM or remove AIM from the Startup group.

What, you can't just delete Windows?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 11:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I knew once I made a post with not enough hot links on them that I would suddenly discover a new series of hot links. So here we go!

• First off, I received requests to write on the UAE ports deal, and the only problems were that I was unsure of my position and uninformed of the details. What could go wrong? Thankfully, Robert Reich (whose book I read!) wrote an essay on one of my favorite sites, politicalwire.com, which explained why it's not a big deal. First, he points out that it's a money issue, not a nationality issue:

  About 80 percent of American ports are already run by foreign companies. These companies usually hire Americans to do the day-to-day management. After all, global companies want the best talent they can get. Dubai Port World’s chief operating officer is Edward Bilkey, who's an American. Its former American executive, David Sanborn, was just nominated to be U.S. Maritime Administrator.

  And if this deal goes through, Dubai Ports World will probably keep most of the American executives who have been working for the British company that now runs the six ports in question because they’ve made the company lots of money, which is why Dubai Ports wants to buy it.

  Whatever the arrangement, the day-to-day operations at the ports will still be done by American longshoremen, clerks, and technicians. And control over port security will remain with the U.S. government, the Coast Guard, Customs, harbor police, and port authorities, who make and enforce the rules.

  
  Then he points out the real port security issue:
  

  I don’t mean to minimize the real danger that a terrorist might sneak into an American port or plant a nuclear bomb in a container heading toward an American port, or a container mounted on a truck that crosses an American border headed for Kansas City.

  But if that happens it won't be because of the nationality of the company that has a contract to run a port, or of its managers, or even its workers on the ground.

  It will be because this nation didn't want to pay for the gamma-ray monitors and radiation scanners and inspectors necessary to oversee more than a tiny percent of containers heading into America. ...

  You see, the real issue here isn’t about nationality. It’s about what we’re prepared to pay for our security, and whether we pay mostly for a war in Iraq or we finally get serious about security here at home.

  
  Again, I still don't really know what's going on, but Robert Reich is liberal and an economist, so he couldn't be wrong, right?

• You want to know what's a good-looking headline? Try The Hill's recent "House Republicans could see 10 to 15 more retirements." Open seats are always much easier to win, and they can turn a safe Republican seat into a toss-up in the blink of an eye. Once again I have to confess ignorance: I was under the impression that House incumbents have all decided by now whether or not to say (it's certainly true in the Senate), but that seems contradicted by sentences like these:
  

  Referring to the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, the aide said: “Tom Reynolds is literally begging people not to retire. Everything we hear coming out of their side is every caucus [meeting] is a lecture from Tom Reynolds begging people not to retire, saying, ‘Please stay, please stay, please stay.’”

  
  I still have no idea if we can take back Congress this fall, but as days go by I see fewer reasons to think there's no chance it could happen. A Wall Street Journal piece a few weeks ago pointed to 30-40 Republican-held seats that are theoretically in play, and if we have the wind at our backs Democrats could conceivably only lose 1-2 seats. Can we pick up 15 to make a majority? On the micro level, just a couple of days ago the New Hampshire House Democratic Leader announced that he was challenging the two-term Republican incumbent. On the macro level, it turns out President Bush was specifically warned of the danger faced specifically by New Orleans specifically as a result of Hurricane Katrina? Yikes. If the news keeps sounding like that, I think we can do it.

• Continuing with more substantive matters, the WWE stopped by DC the other day, and the good folks in our modern-day traveling circus decided to get involved politically. Here's a photo of three-time WWF Champion and two-time #1 New York Times bestselling author Mick Foley with a bunch of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee folks. (The narrow site here crops out a guy on the right, Jon Vogel, was one of our consultants for the Kentucky campaign in 2004.)

  

  We also get this gem from the Hotline On-Call story (from where I also ripped off the photo):
  

  RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, ever alert to targeting opportunities, loves the WWE's outreach and particularly its demographic appeal.

  
  So true! I think WWE should be a great opportunity for both parties to reach voters, but then again, I'm biased because I still remember the days when their storylines made sense. Sort of like the Democratic Party!

• Downside of National Journal stories is that they cost a bundle to look at (assuming you're not on a law school ethernet like some of us) and they have no static links. So, if this doesn't work, I found an amusing political anecdote:
  

  Here's what we do know: Whenever a candidate or political party starts trying to claim that congressional elections are going to be decided on local issues, it really means they know the current climate stinks for them. More importantly, the word "local" is also code for "we're going to turn an election so negative as to drive turnout down and make the alternative unelectable."

  
  I'm always hesitant to publish my position on what political strategies "really mean," mostly because there's never just one reason for a politician to do anything. Here they may be so unpopular as to be forced into a negative campaign, but, presumably, all the negative stuff they're saying about the opponent will be true, and hopefully important. So it's hard to say. Nonetheless, that's still pretty funny.

• I also don't want to say that political analyst Stu Rothenberg is kind of a moron, because he's not, but he and I certainly have differing views of what makes a good candidate. Rothenberg seems to think it's "institutional support," which is fine, since his sources are all institutional and he probably doesn't want to be seen as too supportive of outsider candidacies. Nonetheless, his commentary on a Matt Brown dustup (about which I have no knowledge or opinion) is pretty ridiculous. How about this: since Stu Rothenberg is such an independent and unbiased journalist, if I threaten to boldface all the loaded words he uses, I wouldn't be able to boldface anything. Right?
  

  Rhode Island Secretary of State Matt Brown (D) has been desperate for media attention.
  [Saying "desperate" for anything implies the campaign is about to collapse. This is not true.]

  Brown is in the center of a huge controversy ...
  [A huge controversy gets you mocked on the Daily Show. Rothenberg decides that the issue of how this incident is any different from any other product of op research is not worth discussing. I would disagree.]

  ... with political opponents and journalists questioning whether he used Democratic state parties in Massachusetts, Maine, and Hawaii to launder funds that he otherwise would not have been able to accept.
  [Again, I have no idea how this incident plays on the merits. But "people are talking" is the weakest argument I can imagine this side of John Cornyn's "there are those who would say." In politics, "questioning" usually means "attempting to make political gains from." I mean, Matt Brown's political opponents are going after him? Really? They're not just hoping he self-destructs?]

  His outsider/reformer message is at least compromised...
  [See, if this were really true, Rothenberg could just say "His outsider/reformer message is compromised," without the sinister implications of "at least" that Rothenberg has no way of backing up. Then it would just be bad writing. Also, if anyone can tell me how his outsider message is compromised by a campaign finance issue, I would love to hear it. Wouldn't screwing up his campaign finances make him seem less like a guy who knows how to handle the DC institutions?]

  That’s not a message that an alleged “reformer” wants to deliver.
  [OK, this is my favorite. We already know Matt Brown is a reformer, since he reformed Rhode Island's Secretary of State office and state lobbying enforcement. Those are facts. But alleged "writer" Stu Rothenberg is a smart guy: he knows that if you put "alleged" before a word, and then put that word in quotation marks, it sounds like a joke to assume the guy's serious, even though those are just stylistic tricks that provide no evidence.]

  
  Now, I understand, since I support Matt Brown my independence is "at least compromised." But Rothenberg was a dick to Tony Miller, too, and I'm starting to get sick of his attempts to ruin good candidates with bias and rhetorical flourish. Seriously though, I bet he's great to have around.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 7:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yep, time for another exciting affaire des linques.

First off, if you showed up here from my shout-out on the DailyKos home page, expecting to find content updated more than once every two weeks, well, your mistake. But I'm back, with another set of the latest websites I haven't been closing until I post them on the blog.

First off, I've heard great things about the beta of Internet Explorer 7, but for my money, nothing's better than Firefox, not least because of the user-created add-ons. You can find them here, and they're remarkably easy to install. My favorite is SessionSaver, which reopens your tabs when you close and reopen Firefox. For a guy like me who keeps 27 tabs open at all times, this is flippin' unbelievable. There's plenty of cooler stuff around there too. (Like the Bugmenot extension.)

While not the first to make the "Cheney's Got A Gun" pun, this Flash video that's been going around is both a) pretty funny and b) a dead-on impersonation of Aerosmith. (Mom: they did a song in 1990 called "Janie's Got A Gun.") I love it when parody lyrics sound unforced, and this one is pretty good.

Next, my cousin Jamie is a simply outstanding lacrosse player. Check out this summary of the seven (!) goals he scored against Providence College last week: look at the photo of him, then look at the photo next to all the pages for "Dartmouth College Lacrosse." He's literally the face of the organization!

On the topic of online video clips, this story from the CBS Evening News shows the tape of a game where the coach let the autistic team manager suit up for the last game of the season. Not to spoil what happens, but let's say it's great that they got it on tape. I wish I could say I was touched, but really it's just awesome. The fact that the crowd loves this kid so much really makes it special.

You know I can't post a series of links without talking about campaign politics. This one is more personally compelling than most: Ned Lamont, the guy from whom my uncle rents his office is running for Senate and challenging Joe Lieberman in the primary. Lamont is going to run largely (though by no means entirely) on the issue of Iraq, though the blogger types oppose Lieberman on broader grounds: there are plenty of conservative Democrats in Congress, but Lieberman is the only one who constantly disparages the Democratic Party. Amazingly, Republican Congressman Chris Shays just endorsed Lieberman and said the state Republican Party may follow suit. Even if that's not true, it's terrible for Lieberman's reputation as a Republican in Democrat clothing. In any event, I think Ned Lamont may be able to make this a serious race; he's got a lot of money, he sounds well versed on the issues, and blog folks love him enough to make me think he'll have buzz right through the August primary. This story in the Yale Daily News is pretty slick.

Finally, it's been some time since I pasted in an old SNL transcript. Thanks to snltranscripts.jt.org, you can find the 1992 presidential debate sketch in "extended entry" under the fold.

Debate '92

Jane Pauley.....Julia Sweeney
Bernard Shaw.....Tim Meadows
Sam Donaldson.....Kevin Nealon
Bill Clinton.....Phil Hartman
President George Bush.....Dana Carvey
Ross Perot.....Dana Carvey (on tape)

Announcer: NBC's "Saturday Night Live" will not be seen tonight, so that we may bring you this NBC News Special: "Debate '92: The Challenge to Avoid Saying Something Stupid". And now, here is your moderator, Jane Pauley.

Jane Pauley: Good evening. I'm Jane Pauley, and welcome to St. Louis for the first in our series of three presidential debates. Tonight's debate among President George Bush, Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, and diminutive Texas billionaire Ross Perot will begin in just a moment. But first, let me introduce my fellow panelists, CNN anchor Bernard Shaw and ABC News political correspondent Sam Donaldson. Now, let's meet the candidates. Gentlemen. [ the three candidates enter the arena and stand behind their respective podiums ] The first question will be asked by Sam Donaldson.

Sam Donaldson: Governor Clinton, let's be frank. You're running for president, yet your only experience has been as the governor of a small, backward state with a population of drunken hillbillies riding around in pickup trucks. The main streets of your capital city, Little Rock, are something out of L'il Abner, with buxom underage girls in their cutoff denims prancing around in front of Jethro and Billy Bob, while corncob-pipe-smoking, shotgun-toting grannies fire indiscriminantly at runaway hogs.

Bill Clinton: I'm sorry, Sam, do you have a question?

Sam Donaldson: My question is: How can you stand it? Don't you lose your mind living down there?

Bill Clinton: Sam, you must have watched too many of my opponent's TV spots. I'm tired of the Bush campaign trying to portray my home state as some sort of primitive Third World country. The fact is, Arkansas did have a long way to go, but we've made progress. When I started as governor, we were fiftieth in adult literacy, and last year, I'm proud to say, we shot ahead of Mississippi. We're #49, and we're closing fast on Alabama. Watch out, Alabama - we got your number!

George Bush: Can I say something here? Two years ago, I went on a fishing trip in Arkansas with Baker, Fitzwater, Quayle, myself. We were chased and assaulted by a couple of inbred mountain people. I was sworn to secrecy as to those events, but suffice it to say, they felt that Dan Quayle - and I quote - "sure had a purty mouth." Now, if that's the kind of progress Bill Clinton brought to Arkansas.. I don't think we need it in the White House!

Bill Clinton: That's not fair. Just this year we passed Mississippi to become 41st in the prevention of rickets.

Ross Perot: Can I jump in here? Why are we talking about Arkansas? Hell, everybody knows that all they got down there is a bunch of ignorant inbred crackerheads! Peckerwoods, catch me? now, can we talk about the deficit? While we've been jabbering, our deficit has increased by half a million dollars. That's enough to buy a still and a new outhouse for every family in Little Rock!

Bill Clinton: Will you shut up!

Ross Perot: Hold it there, cracker boy, I'm not finished!

George Bush: See that right there? Kind of makes you wonder whether these men have the temperament to be president. Would you tell Prime Minister Major to shut up? Would you call Boris Yeltsin a "Crackerhead"? Who wouldn't you tell to shut up? Because you see, this election is about who can take the heat, who you want there when that secured phone in the White House rings at 3 AM. Do you want someone who will answer the phone politely: "Hello, this is the President. Speak slowly and clearly and tell me what the problem is." Or do you want someone who's cranky, who says, "This better be important," or "Do you realize what time it is?" or simply says, "Shut up!" hangs up the phone and sleeps like a baby while the world burns!

Jane Pauley: Thank you, gentlemen. Now, Bernard Shaw has a question for Governor Clinton.

Bernard Shaw: Yes, Governor Clinton. If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor the death penalty for her assailant?

Jane Pauley: Mr. Shaw, really. You don't have to answer that, Governor Clinton.

Bill Clinton: No, no, I'm happy to answer that. Obviously, none of us want to see Kitty Dukakis raped and murdered, but if she had to be murdered I would hope it would be in Arkansas - because no state is tougher on crime. Last year we passed Florida to become #2 in executions by lethal injection, and first in crushed by heavy stones.

Jane Pauley: Mr. Perot? Rebuttal.

Ross Perot: I was hoping we'd get into the issues, but if this is the way the game is played - fine. So, if somebody were to lay a finger on Kitty Dukakis, I wouldn't kill him right away. That'd be too easy. I'd wait for a hot Texas day, see? Tie him to a stake, get an ant trail going. You know, Texas red ants, inch long! Just love to bite into human flesh, catch what I'm saying here? See, they're eating him alive, nice and slow like. And I'd sit with him in the shade under an umbrella, maybe with a lemonade, sit back and say to the fella, "How do you like them apples?" And he'll be screaming, "When am I gonna die?" and I'd say, "I don't know exactly, and frankly, I resent your question." Catch my drift?

Jane Pauley: THank you. Now, let's turn to the deficit. President Bush, during your term, the deficit has grown by over a trillion dollars.

George Bush: I know.

Jane Pauley: Honestly now, don't you feel some kind of tax hike will be needed to reduce the deficit?

George Bush: Jane, the answer is no! I will never raise taxes again! Never, ever, ever, ever.. never, ever again! And I mean never, ever, ever, ever, never ever..!!

Jane Pauley: Thank you, Mr. Presi..

George Bush: Never, ever, ever!

Jane Pauley: Mr. President, please..

George Bush: Ever, ever again!

Jane Pauley: Sam Donaldson, with a question for Governor Clinton.

Sam Donaldson: Governor Clinton, this week the big story has been your 1969 trip to Moscow, and your involvement in antiwar activities. Some have ven suggested that while in Moscow, you had meetings with KGB agents. Isn't it fair to say that you haven't really told the American people the full story?

Bill Clinton: Sam, this kind of attack shows how desperate the Bush campaign has become. Yes, I did go to Moscow by train in 1969. And while on the train, I struck up a conversation with a man in the seat next to me. He gave me a package to take to Moscow and instructed me to leave it folded in a newspaper in a kiosk across from Lenin's tomb. I've explained this many times. Yes, the KGB did subsequently pay my way through law school, but that was the last contact I had with the KGB until years later when Hillary and I were having problems, and it was a KGB agent, Nikolai Kuznetsov, who let me stay at his place for a while until we patched things up.

Sam Donaldson: But isn't it true that during one of the peace demonstrations you burned an American flag in Red Square?

Bill Clinton: I tried to burn an American flag once. I didn't like it. It gave off toxic fumes, so I didn't inhale.

Ross Perot: Can I say something here?

Jane Pauley: Mr. Perot.

Ross Perot: I think that's just sad.

Jane Pauley: President Bush?

George Bush: Once again, it all comes down to trust. Who's been there? I've been with Mitterand, I've met with Major, I know the White House. I know the door outto the Rose Garden doesn't lock unless you pull it. I know the toilet in the Lincoln Bedroom will run all night unless you jiggle that handle. It's not enough to flush it, you've got to jiggle it! I know Air Force One. I know that seat 8G does not fuly recline. If we are flying the Prime Minister of Canada to a trade conference, I alone can say, "Mr. Mulroney, seat 8G does not fully recline, I suggest you use another!"

Jane Pauley: All right, Mr. Bush, our time is up. Each candidate will be allowed a brief closing statement. Governor Clinton?

Bill Clinton: Thank you, Jane. We've talked about many issues tonight. But this election is really about one thing - change. Over the last twelve years, more and more Americans have found themselves working longer and harder for less and less. [ President Bush glances at Clinton and sees the vision of a hippy standing behind the podium ] We need to invest in our people again. Because together, all of us, pulling as a team, we can do it! Thank you.

Jane Pauley: President Bush?

George Bush: My fellow Americans, this election is about leadership and trust. Now, our opponents have tried to portray us as the party of the rich and privileged, ignoring the fact that our economic program has created more opportunity for more Americans than in any twelve-year period in history. [ Clinton glances at President Bush and sees the vision of an old lady standing behind the podium ] Well, let me tell you something: I'm not worth $3.3 billion, and I wasn't educated at Oxford. But I know how to lead this country to victory in the Persian Gulf, and I can do it again here at home!

Jane Pauley: Mr. Perot?

Ross Perot: This whole thing fascinates me, really. See, you don't have to be a Ph.D. at Harvard to know that our kids are going to inherit a $4 trillion deficit, and that's just a crime. [ Clinton and President Bush glance at Perot and see the vision of a munchkin from "The Wizard of Oz" ] Now, if I'm president, we start cleaning up this mess on Day One. It's gonna take some sacrifice, no doubt about it. But I know the American people are ready to sacrifice as long as it's fair. This is your country, let's take it back.

Jane Pauley: Thank you, Mr. Perot, don't you have one last thing to say?

Ross Perot: No, I can't. I'm on tape. [ looks at Bush ] Why don't
you do it, live-boy?

George Bush: "Live, from New York, it's Saturday Night!"

Posted by Terry McMahon at 1:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)