Friday, August 28, 2015
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Interesting TV Comment Regarding Republican Politics
I saw a guy on TV the other day (I do not recall his name, sorry) who was a big GOP operative and he stated that for the GOP to grow the party that they have to NOT try to reach out to women and minorities, but, rather, they need to be less about the rich and more about the working man.
The theory went as follows -- when there is something that will help the American working man, be for it, whether it is increased minimum wage or unionization or supporting Obama Care. If you truly want the middle class to be Republicans, then your platform should be that you will help the middle class.
As I have said before, it USED to be that a thinking man who was making $35,000 a year in a union job could look 5-10-20 years down the road and say, "Well, some day I will be making $100,000 a year. I ought to vote Republican because they won't tax me as much." And when we had labor unions and basically lifetime employment, we had a lot of happy people who just wanted to live in a law and order society where they could safely raise their kids (key American values which have always been a big pitch of the GOP -- anticrime, protect the kids from strange liberal thinkers).
"Reagan Democrats" were a lot of union folks; blue collar workers who felt that Reagan would be a strong leader who would let them live their lives while Carter was a weak-need leader who insisted that everyone turn down the heat to 65 degrees and drive 55.
The problem with being a Republican nowadays is that they stand for 3 things: 1) tax cuts for the wealthy; 2) going to war with everyone; and 3) hating minorities. If you are some guy getting out of high school and you have a couple gay friends, know a bunch of Hispanic guys and really don't want to go to war with everyone, the Republican Party offers you nothing. It used to be that a guy in Dundee, New York who graduated in 1955 could leave high school, get a union job, work for 40 years, retire at 58 and live on a pension. He never had to worry about money and he never will. How do I know this? Because my father attended his 40 year HS reunion and learned this, "These guys were not even good high school students - they all have very good lives.". That same graduating student in 2015 won't make $75,000 a year some day. He won't have a pension. He won't ever make enough that he ever pays federal income tax. When he retires, he needs Social Security and Medicare. He will probably be a Democrat.
Interestingly, this same guy will probably be very happy if illegal immigration slows. He will have fewer competitors for his job. His employer might actually have to pay him more to work.
Just a thought.
The theory went as follows -- when there is something that will help the American working man, be for it, whether it is increased minimum wage or unionization or supporting Obama Care. If you truly want the middle class to be Republicans, then your platform should be that you will help the middle class.
As I have said before, it USED to be that a thinking man who was making $35,000 a year in a union job could look 5-10-20 years down the road and say, "Well, some day I will be making $100,000 a year. I ought to vote Republican because they won't tax me as much." And when we had labor unions and basically lifetime employment, we had a lot of happy people who just wanted to live in a law and order society where they could safely raise their kids (key American values which have always been a big pitch of the GOP -- anticrime, protect the kids from strange liberal thinkers).
"Reagan Democrats" were a lot of union folks; blue collar workers who felt that Reagan would be a strong leader who would let them live their lives while Carter was a weak-need leader who insisted that everyone turn down the heat to 65 degrees and drive 55.
The problem with being a Republican nowadays is that they stand for 3 things: 1) tax cuts for the wealthy; 2) going to war with everyone; and 3) hating minorities. If you are some guy getting out of high school and you have a couple gay friends, know a bunch of Hispanic guys and really don't want to go to war with everyone, the Republican Party offers you nothing. It used to be that a guy in Dundee, New York who graduated in 1955 could leave high school, get a union job, work for 40 years, retire at 58 and live on a pension. He never had to worry about money and he never will. How do I know this? Because my father attended his 40 year HS reunion and learned this, "These guys were not even good high school students - they all have very good lives.". That same graduating student in 2015 won't make $75,000 a year some day. He won't have a pension. He won't ever make enough that he ever pays federal income tax. When he retires, he needs Social Security and Medicare. He will probably be a Democrat.
Interestingly, this same guy will probably be very happy if illegal immigration slows. He will have fewer competitors for his job. His employer might actually have to pay him more to work.
Just a thought.
Monday, August 24, 2015
Trump Comes Out In Favor of Taxing Rich Hedge Fund Managers
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-tax-code-letting-hedge-funds-away-155930927--sector.html#
Trump, of course, is right. People who make $300,000 a year should NOT get taxed at 39.6% while hedge fund managers make $300,000,000 and get taxed at 23.8%.
That said, Trump better HOPE to God that one of three things happens: 1) he starts to decline in the polls; 2) he "evolves" on this position; or 3) he decides that he was misunderstood. Because if none of these three things happens, I honestly fear for Donald Trump's life. There is nothing more that Republican power brokers hate than a guy who will raise taxes on the wealthy. If Trump is on his way to getting the GOP nomination and he is serious about increasing taxes on the wealthy.....desperate times call for desperate measures.... GOP power brokers do not give a fuck about social issues - they use the issues for votes. Their daughters get abortions. Their gay kids and relatives get married and they attend. They love the cheap labor created by illegal immigrants. But you start asking them to pay taxes? Oh boy.
I am, in no way, advocating violence toward Mr. Trump -- as I have said, I agree with him. But Jack Kennedy took on the mob and tried to cut off their sources of untaxed income. Didn't end well for him.
Trump, of course, is right. People who make $300,000 a year should NOT get taxed at 39.6% while hedge fund managers make $300,000,000 and get taxed at 23.8%.
That said, Trump better HOPE to God that one of three things happens: 1) he starts to decline in the polls; 2) he "evolves" on this position; or 3) he decides that he was misunderstood. Because if none of these three things happens, I honestly fear for Donald Trump's life. There is nothing more that Republican power brokers hate than a guy who will raise taxes on the wealthy. If Trump is on his way to getting the GOP nomination and he is serious about increasing taxes on the wealthy.....desperate times call for desperate measures.... GOP power brokers do not give a fuck about social issues - they use the issues for votes. Their daughters get abortions. Their gay kids and relatives get married and they attend. They love the cheap labor created by illegal immigrants. But you start asking them to pay taxes? Oh boy.
I am, in no way, advocating violence toward Mr. Trump -- as I have said, I agree with him. But Jack Kennedy took on the mob and tried to cut off their sources of untaxed income. Didn't end well for him.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
NFL's Tom Brady Brief
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/14/tom-brady-legal-team-goes-after-roger-goodell-nfl/BBeEwwq8fINaU4oIvNrKPI/story.html
Go toward the bottom.
Summary -- 1) arbitrator is entitled to great deference; 2) court cannot reevaluate the findings of fact; 3) there is no such thing as "law of the shop"; 4) Brady did it, or at least there was enough evidence for Goodell to find that Brady did it.
The most interesting thing about the brief:
-- Brady's destruction of his cell phone was not known to the Wells Report folks, but instead the Union presented that piece of information in pursuing the appeal. (Ooops).
-- Brady was asked for all texts or emails about the deflation of footballs at any time to anyone. That is why he didn't want to produce the phone -- he was texting someone ELSE about football deflation.
-- Brady could not produce his phone since it was his standard practice to destroy his phones -- except he still had the phone from BEFORE the destroyed one. Again, oops. "Well, it is my standard practice.....this one time."
The union has argued "evident partiality" by Goodell. Yeah, sure.
Go toward the bottom.
Summary -- 1) arbitrator is entitled to great deference; 2) court cannot reevaluate the findings of fact; 3) there is no such thing as "law of the shop"; 4) Brady did it, or at least there was enough evidence for Goodell to find that Brady did it.
The most interesting thing about the brief:
-- Brady's destruction of his cell phone was not known to the Wells Report folks, but instead the Union presented that piece of information in pursuing the appeal. (Ooops).
-- Brady was asked for all texts or emails about the deflation of footballs at any time to anyone. That is why he didn't want to produce the phone -- he was texting someone ELSE about football deflation.
-- Brady could not produce his phone since it was his standard practice to destroy his phones -- except he still had the phone from BEFORE the destroyed one. Again, oops. "Well, it is my standard practice.....this one time."
The union has argued "evident partiality" by Goodell. Yeah, sure.
Jared Fogle -- My Lord
http://news.yahoo.com/tv-report-ex-subway-pitchman-admit-child-porn-054612244--finance.html#
For those of you so outraged with Adrian Peterson's whipping of his child -- those of you who wanted him basically banned from ever working again and thrown in prison -- how do you feel about the fact that Fogle will only see 5-14 1/2 years in prison?
Isn't this the sort of behavior (systematic child porn, violations of privacy for personal and pecuniary benefit actually soliciting and engaging in sex with minors) that should result in life in prison? Just because Fogle has $1.4M to give victims, does this mean he shouldn't be put away forever?
Disgusting. Al S. - I know you have thoughts.
For those of you so outraged with Adrian Peterson's whipping of his child -- those of you who wanted him basically banned from ever working again and thrown in prison -- how do you feel about the fact that Fogle will only see 5-14 1/2 years in prison?
Isn't this the sort of behavior (systematic child porn, violations of privacy for personal and pecuniary benefit actually soliciting and engaging in sex with minors) that should result in life in prison? Just because Fogle has $1.4M to give victims, does this mean he shouldn't be put away forever?
Disgusting. Al S. - I know you have thoughts.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Good article on the latest Fox News Poll
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/17/9164547/fox-poll-trump-carson
I would summarize it as this -- 56% of the GOP electorate is not currently following directions. They are supposed to vote for Bush and let Walker and Rubio do well enough that they can be a good VP candidate.
Instead, 56% say they will be voting for clearly unelectable options (Trump, Carson, Cruz, Huackbee, Paul). Bush is plummeting, Walker has lost 1/3 of his support. Rubio could not have done much better in the debate.....he dropped a point. Rubio's debate performance was like when Corey BRewer scored 51 points in a game -- a reporter that night asked LeBron, "So, your thoughts on CBrew scoring 51 points tonight." LeBron, "well, good for him......wait, WHAT!?!?!?!?" Rubio is never going to be that good ever again - yet, rather than reward him for his effort (and his willingness to move even FURTHER right on abortion than FoxNews thought he was), the voters actually ran away from him.
Anyway -- go Trump! And have you ever seen a guy who is around 65 years old who looks anywhere near as good as Ben Carson? Whatever secret medical knowledge he has should be ferreted out and provided at no charge to short, portly 51 year old bloggers.
I would summarize it as this -- 56% of the GOP electorate is not currently following directions. They are supposed to vote for Bush and let Walker and Rubio do well enough that they can be a good VP candidate.
Instead, 56% say they will be voting for clearly unelectable options (Trump, Carson, Cruz, Huackbee, Paul). Bush is plummeting, Walker has lost 1/3 of his support. Rubio could not have done much better in the debate.....he dropped a point. Rubio's debate performance was like when Corey BRewer scored 51 points in a game -- a reporter that night asked LeBron, "So, your thoughts on CBrew scoring 51 points tonight." LeBron, "well, good for him......wait, WHAT!?!?!?!?" Rubio is never going to be that good ever again - yet, rather than reward him for his effort (and his willingness to move even FURTHER right on abortion than FoxNews thought he was), the voters actually ran away from him.
Anyway -- go Trump! And have you ever seen a guy who is around 65 years old who looks anywhere near as good as Ben Carson? Whatever secret medical knowledge he has should be ferreted out and provided at no charge to short, portly 51 year old bloggers.
Jordan Spieth Goes 1-1-2-4 in Majors.
With Spieth winning 2 majors and adding a second and a 4th, if you add that up, he had a total score of 8 (1+1+2+4) and two wins.
The two greatest golfers of all-time are 2) Tiger Woods and 1) Jack Nicklaus. Tiger is the only guy since WWII to have a better year in majors than Spieth:
Tiger in 2000 -- 3 firsts and a 5th (8 total points, beats Spieth on wins)
Tiger in 2005 also posted an 8 with 1-1-2-4,
Jack's best ever single year was 1975 where he went 1-1-3-7.
Why is Jack the greatest ever? Look at the period 1971-1977.
Jack's total scores for those years:
1971 -- 10 (1 win)
1972 -- 16 (2 wins)
1973 -- 12 (1 win)
1974 -- 19 (0 wins)
1975 -- 12 (2 wins)
1976 -- 20 (0 wins)
1977 -- 17 (0 wins)
Did Tiger ever have a stretch of 7 years like that? No. Here is his stretch 2000-07
8, 67, 32, 78, 72, 8, (was cut at US Open, so his score would be above 80), 17.
Tiger in his best 8 years (2000-07) did have 12 major wins to Jack's 8 major wins in his best 8 year stretch (1970-77). But Jack had a stretch 1962-67 in which he also had 7 majors. Tiger will be 40 this year. By age 39, Jack had 15 majors. Tiger has 14. At ages 37-38-39 Jack had 6 top-4 finishes in majors, including one win. Tiger at ages 37-39 has had 1 top-4 finish (2013 Masters where he tied for 4th with Marc Leishman, losing to Adam Scott by 4 strokes) one top 6, and a ton of injuries and awful results.
Jack won 2 majors at age 40 and 1 at age 46. So we shall see whether Tiger can step up and get it done, or whether it is time for him to fade away and allow Spieth, Day, McIlroy, etc. to take over.
The two greatest golfers of all-time are 2) Tiger Woods and 1) Jack Nicklaus. Tiger is the only guy since WWII to have a better year in majors than Spieth:
Tiger in 2000 -- 3 firsts and a 5th (8 total points, beats Spieth on wins)
Tiger in 2005 also posted an 8 with 1-1-2-4,
Jack's best ever single year was 1975 where he went 1-1-3-7.
Why is Jack the greatest ever? Look at the period 1971-1977.
Jack's total scores for those years:
1971 -- 10 (1 win)
1972 -- 16 (2 wins)
1973 -- 12 (1 win)
1974 -- 19 (0 wins)
1975 -- 12 (2 wins)
1976 -- 20 (0 wins)
1977 -- 17 (0 wins)
Did Tiger ever have a stretch of 7 years like that? No. Here is his stretch 2000-07
8, 67, 32, 78, 72, 8, (was cut at US Open, so his score would be above 80), 17.
Tiger in his best 8 years (2000-07) did have 12 major wins to Jack's 8 major wins in his best 8 year stretch (1970-77). But Jack had a stretch 1962-67 in which he also had 7 majors. Tiger will be 40 this year. By age 39, Jack had 15 majors. Tiger has 14. At ages 37-38-39 Jack had 6 top-4 finishes in majors, including one win. Tiger at ages 37-39 has had 1 top-4 finish (2013 Masters where he tied for 4th with Marc Leishman, losing to Adam Scott by 4 strokes) one top 6, and a ton of injuries and awful results.
Jack won 2 majors at age 40 and 1 at age 46. So we shall see whether Tiger can step up and get it done, or whether it is time for him to fade away and allow Spieth, Day, McIlroy, etc. to take over.
Friday, August 14, 2015
I Love LeBron, But Folks, He ISN'T Paying for 1,000 Kids to Go to College.....
The LeBron James Family Foundation has announced that if the 1,100 kids currently in 3rd to 7th grade fulfill the elements of the "I Promise" program that the Foundation will pay their way through college.
This has led to claims that LeBron is paying to put 1,100 kids through college at a cost of $41 million. I love LeBron, but people, this isn't "Scott's Tots" - he isn't going to be standing with his schlong in this hand 5 years from now hoping he still has enough money to write checks.
First -- the money is available only to kids who finish the Program. Part of the Program is getting acceptable grades and adequate standardized score results and getting through school in Akron. If you assume that 30% of the kids will not complete the program, I think you are giving the kids a lot of credit.
Second -- the money only goes to the kids if they go to the University of Akron. Assume you are a poor kid from inner city Akron and you stay in school, stay out of trouble, and have, say, a 27 on your ACT. You probably can go to most colleges for free or close to free, either on a need based scholarship or a merit based scholarship. If you can go to Ohio State or Michigan, do you want to go to Akron? Harvard or Akron? Stanford or Akron? You get the point. Assume that the kids who can go to a better school will. Let's say that is 10% of the remaining 750 kids. So drop 750 to 675.
Third -- the Foundation is partnering with the University of Akron. Do you believe that a poor inner city kid from Akron would be charged full freight for attending the U of A if he or she had stayed out of trouble, did well in school and had a decent ACT score? I do not believe that to be the case, and the U of A web site states that it awards both merit and need based scholarships up to $10,000 (tuition is currently $9,500). If LeBron approached the U of A, do you think that they screwed him and said, "Yeah, LeBron, a lot of these kids would actually go here for nothing or next to nothing, but if YOU will pay for them, we are going to charge YOUR FOUNDATION $10K/kid." I really, really doubt it. Therefore, LeBron probably said, "What would you charge a kid who was in this situation?" Around $3,500 on the average. "OK, that is what I will pay."
$3,500 X 675 kids = $9,450,000.
Fourth -- LeBron isn't paying the $9,450,000. It is the Foundation that is paying it. I seriously doubt that every dollar in the coffers of the LBJ Foundation is contributed by LeBron James. If it is, great, but generally Foundations do fundraiser and get donations, etc. Maybe not the case here, but, again, someone should at least look at the source of the funds at issue. If Dan Gilbert gives $10,000,000 a year to LeBron's foundation it is one thing. If Gilbert gives $0 it is another.
Fifth -- I doubt that anyone would be so stupid as to Michael Scott it and promise payment in the future without some clear source of payment. It is possible that the Foundation gave U of A, for example, $6,000,000 today and said, "That is it. That is all I will pay. You invest it and you agree that these kids all go for free if they want." Or you get someone like a bank or insurance company involved and buy some investment product today that they will guaranty will amount to the possible tuition payment in 4-5-6 years.
LeBron ain't paying $41M.
This has led to claims that LeBron is paying to put 1,100 kids through college at a cost of $41 million. I love LeBron, but people, this isn't "Scott's Tots" - he isn't going to be standing with his schlong in this hand 5 years from now hoping he still has enough money to write checks.
First -- the money is available only to kids who finish the Program. Part of the Program is getting acceptable grades and adequate standardized score results and getting through school in Akron. If you assume that 30% of the kids will not complete the program, I think you are giving the kids a lot of credit.
Second -- the money only goes to the kids if they go to the University of Akron. Assume you are a poor kid from inner city Akron and you stay in school, stay out of trouble, and have, say, a 27 on your ACT. You probably can go to most colleges for free or close to free, either on a need based scholarship or a merit based scholarship. If you can go to Ohio State or Michigan, do you want to go to Akron? Harvard or Akron? Stanford or Akron? You get the point. Assume that the kids who can go to a better school will. Let's say that is 10% of the remaining 750 kids. So drop 750 to 675.
Third -- the Foundation is partnering with the University of Akron. Do you believe that a poor inner city kid from Akron would be charged full freight for attending the U of A if he or she had stayed out of trouble, did well in school and had a decent ACT score? I do not believe that to be the case, and the U of A web site states that it awards both merit and need based scholarships up to $10,000 (tuition is currently $9,500). If LeBron approached the U of A, do you think that they screwed him and said, "Yeah, LeBron, a lot of these kids would actually go here for nothing or next to nothing, but if YOU will pay for them, we are going to charge YOUR FOUNDATION $10K/kid." I really, really doubt it. Therefore, LeBron probably said, "What would you charge a kid who was in this situation?" Around $3,500 on the average. "OK, that is what I will pay."
$3,500 X 675 kids = $9,450,000.
Fourth -- LeBron isn't paying the $9,450,000. It is the Foundation that is paying it. I seriously doubt that every dollar in the coffers of the LBJ Foundation is contributed by LeBron James. If it is, great, but generally Foundations do fundraiser and get donations, etc. Maybe not the case here, but, again, someone should at least look at the source of the funds at issue. If Dan Gilbert gives $10,000,000 a year to LeBron's foundation it is one thing. If Gilbert gives $0 it is another.
Fifth -- I doubt that anyone would be so stupid as to Michael Scott it and promise payment in the future without some clear source of payment. It is possible that the Foundation gave U of A, for example, $6,000,000 today and said, "That is it. That is all I will pay. You invest it and you agree that these kids all go for free if they want." Or you get someone like a bank or insurance company involved and buy some investment product today that they will guaranty will amount to the possible tuition payment in 4-5-6 years.
LeBron ain't paying $41M.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Tom Brady courtroom sketch
In her defense, the sketch artist had been hypnotized, ala "Shallow Hal," and drew what was inside of Brady.....
Monday, August 10, 2015
Why Fox News Cannot Touch Trump's Popularity - And Why They Should Try a Different Strategy
Fox News and its ilk are trying desperately to derail the runaway train that is Donald Trump running as a purported born-again Republican. Post-debate, the Fox News folks were saying just about anyone not named Trump won. End result -- Trump wins in the polls like 40-12 or 50-13.
Then Fox News is just OUTRAGED that Trump went after Megyn Kelly and suggested that she might be on her period while questioning him. Again - no discernible decline for Trump.
Fox News for 20 years has fought against intelligent dialogue. It has fought for candidates like GW Bush and Sarah Palin, each of whom did not have enough brain power to light a 30 watt bulb. "It doesn't matter, you vote for a fighter, someone who cares about you and who will try to get things done.....not some egghead. Eggheads cannot be trusted, they are too liberal."
So Trump is a fake Republican and a flip-flopper???? Hahahahahahahahaha. Who did Fox News support so hard in 2012 that Karl Rove on election night refused to believe he had lost?? Willard "Mitt" Romney. Mitt once campaigned for Senator on the basis that he was to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion rights! To the left of Ted Kennedy. He was running, literally, against Ted Kennedy, and telling people that they should vote for Mitt if they were truly liberal! By 2012, Mitt needed to get nominated, so he called himself "severely conservative" and decided that he hated everyone, and the 47% were killing America (never mind that the 47% included retirees on Social Security and the disabled, including disabled veterans). Fox News supported him.
So I guess that Fox News doesn't have much basis for going after flip floppers.
Trump is rude? Dick Cheney, in the Senate chamber, once told a U.S. Senator to "go fuck himself." The media was outraged. Not Fox News - "politics is a tough game, not for the faint of heart."
Trump is rude to women? What have we heard on Fox News for the past 5 years as state legislatures try to take rights away from women? "It is all make believe. We LOVE women. Why would we ever try to hurt them?" Recall Rush Limbaugh's abuse of Sandra Fluke? Calling her a prostitute and saying that if she got contraceptives paid for that he demanded that she tape her sex and let him watch? Here are the top two GOP Presidential candidates' responses --
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said "it’s not the language I would have used."[43][44] Fellow Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum dismissed the comments stating that "an entertainer can be absurd."
A woman went to Capitol Hill to argue that birth control is medicine and was called a whore? The response of the Fox News-led establishment? Meh.
So, Trump suggesting that an ugly woman is a dog or that a fat woman is fat is clearly way, way more defensible than actions that Fox News has swept under the rug in the past. Do they really expect their viewers to suddenly become 'overly sensitive pansy liberals" and demand that Trump go away? Come on.
Look, Fox News, Trump has beaten you at your own game. You know all of those years that Fox News has spent scaring the shit out of people and telling them to be outraged when they are asked politely not to spout hate? It worked. There are millions of Republican voters out there who do not give a fuck whether you call someone fat, ugly, on the rag, or use a racial slur. They don't care. And they believe that the greatest strength anyone can show is to stick it to all of the politically correct libs out there and speak like we used to speak in the 1970s. I.e., what the viewers call "telling the truth."
Therefore, every step Fox News takes in this direction against Trump is counterproductive. They have told viewers for years that the media is biased and that if the media tells you a candidate is dumb or rude or hates women or is called a flip flopper that this means the exact opposite -- you should vote for them.
What Fox News needs to do is simply not follow Trump. Pick three guys to feature and just hammer the crap out of featuring them. In the early 1990s, sports radio got tired of fellating Michael Jordan, and they decided that the true star of the Bulls was Scottie Pippen I heard hundreds of times, "Pippen is really the key. Pippen is really the better player." This was, of course, ridiculous, and not borne out by any review of statistics, but certain people clung to it just because they wanted to do so. It became a ceaseless drumbeat. Only Pippen's eventual failures post-Jordan ruined the meme.
Fox News should just pump the hell out of Christie, Cruz and Bush. Just follow every tiny little thing they do. Talk constantly about how awesome they are and do 1-3 hour specials on "this is Ted Cruz" or "this is Jeb Bush". Do nothing on Trump. People will eventually say, "Geez, saw a great story on Cruz yesterday. Might have to vote for him." Make Christie into the great bombastic leader of the party and replay things he has said and do a one hour item on "Speaking truth to power -- the Chris Christie Story."
Now, one might suggest that this isn't proper behavior for a news organization -- ignoring a guy who is doubling his next closest opponent in the polls. Fox News is not now, nor has it ever been, an independent news organization. Why pretend? Just promote the hell out of some of the other guys. When Trump does something outrageous, just ignore him. When one of the other guys does something outrageous, praise the hell out of him. "See, THAT is what we need!"
Provide Trump with debate questions about Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka -- no one can possibly make anything good out of those. Then ask him some questions about the other candidates -- "Of these 16 others, who are the three you most admire?" Stuff like that. No one can win a debate if you give them just deathly questions where you are just seeking useless info or info no one cares about.
Now, during debates, you are going to have to identify at least two other people to treat exactly like Trump. So, Walker is a good choice. And Fiorina or Kasich. Just ask them the exact same topics you ask Trump. Then when he complains the next day you can say, "Hey, we asked Walker the same things and he is supposed to be our darling..."
So there you go Fox News. (Stewie Griffin voice) "You're wel-come."
Then Fox News is just OUTRAGED that Trump went after Megyn Kelly and suggested that she might be on her period while questioning him. Again - no discernible decline for Trump.
Fox News for 20 years has fought against intelligent dialogue. It has fought for candidates like GW Bush and Sarah Palin, each of whom did not have enough brain power to light a 30 watt bulb. "It doesn't matter, you vote for a fighter, someone who cares about you and who will try to get things done.....not some egghead. Eggheads cannot be trusted, they are too liberal."
So Trump is a fake Republican and a flip-flopper???? Hahahahahahahahaha. Who did Fox News support so hard in 2012 that Karl Rove on election night refused to believe he had lost?? Willard "Mitt" Romney. Mitt once campaigned for Senator on the basis that he was to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion rights! To the left of Ted Kennedy. He was running, literally, against Ted Kennedy, and telling people that they should vote for Mitt if they were truly liberal! By 2012, Mitt needed to get nominated, so he called himself "severely conservative" and decided that he hated everyone, and the 47% were killing America (never mind that the 47% included retirees on Social Security and the disabled, including disabled veterans). Fox News supported him.
So I guess that Fox News doesn't have much basis for going after flip floppers.
Trump is rude? Dick Cheney, in the Senate chamber, once told a U.S. Senator to "go fuck himself." The media was outraged. Not Fox News - "politics is a tough game, not for the faint of heart."
Trump is rude to women? What have we heard on Fox News for the past 5 years as state legislatures try to take rights away from women? "It is all make believe. We LOVE women. Why would we ever try to hurt them?" Recall Rush Limbaugh's abuse of Sandra Fluke? Calling her a prostitute and saying that if she got contraceptives paid for that he demanded that she tape her sex and let him watch? Here are the top two GOP Presidential candidates' responses --
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said "it’s not the language I would have used."[43][44] Fellow Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum dismissed the comments stating that "an entertainer can be absurd."
A woman went to Capitol Hill to argue that birth control is medicine and was called a whore? The response of the Fox News-led establishment? Meh.
So, Trump suggesting that an ugly woman is a dog or that a fat woman is fat is clearly way, way more defensible than actions that Fox News has swept under the rug in the past. Do they really expect their viewers to suddenly become 'overly sensitive pansy liberals" and demand that Trump go away? Come on.
Look, Fox News, Trump has beaten you at your own game. You know all of those years that Fox News has spent scaring the shit out of people and telling them to be outraged when they are asked politely not to spout hate? It worked. There are millions of Republican voters out there who do not give a fuck whether you call someone fat, ugly, on the rag, or use a racial slur. They don't care. And they believe that the greatest strength anyone can show is to stick it to all of the politically correct libs out there and speak like we used to speak in the 1970s. I.e., what the viewers call "telling the truth."
Therefore, every step Fox News takes in this direction against Trump is counterproductive. They have told viewers for years that the media is biased and that if the media tells you a candidate is dumb or rude or hates women or is called a flip flopper that this means the exact opposite -- you should vote for them.
What Fox News needs to do is simply not follow Trump. Pick three guys to feature and just hammer the crap out of featuring them. In the early 1990s, sports radio got tired of fellating Michael Jordan, and they decided that the true star of the Bulls was Scottie Pippen I heard hundreds of times, "Pippen is really the key. Pippen is really the better player." This was, of course, ridiculous, and not borne out by any review of statistics, but certain people clung to it just because they wanted to do so. It became a ceaseless drumbeat. Only Pippen's eventual failures post-Jordan ruined the meme.
Fox News should just pump the hell out of Christie, Cruz and Bush. Just follow every tiny little thing they do. Talk constantly about how awesome they are and do 1-3 hour specials on "this is Ted Cruz" or "this is Jeb Bush". Do nothing on Trump. People will eventually say, "Geez, saw a great story on Cruz yesterday. Might have to vote for him." Make Christie into the great bombastic leader of the party and replay things he has said and do a one hour item on "Speaking truth to power -- the Chris Christie Story."
Now, one might suggest that this isn't proper behavior for a news organization -- ignoring a guy who is doubling his next closest opponent in the polls. Fox News is not now, nor has it ever been, an independent news organization. Why pretend? Just promote the hell out of some of the other guys. When Trump does something outrageous, just ignore him. When one of the other guys does something outrageous, praise the hell out of him. "See, THAT is what we need!"
Provide Trump with debate questions about Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka -- no one can possibly make anything good out of those. Then ask him some questions about the other candidates -- "Of these 16 others, who are the three you most admire?" Stuff like that. No one can win a debate if you give them just deathly questions where you are just seeking useless info or info no one cares about.
Now, during debates, you are going to have to identify at least two other people to treat exactly like Trump. So, Walker is a good choice. And Fiorina or Kasich. Just ask them the exact same topics you ask Trump. Then when he complains the next day you can say, "Hey, we asked Walker the same things and he is supposed to be our darling..."
So there you go Fox News. (Stewie Griffin voice) "You're wel-come."
Friday, August 07, 2015
Norwood Teague Loses His Mind....and His Job
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Thursday, August 06, 2015
Questions for the GOP Debate Tonight (Real and Sarcastic)
Real Questions:
1) Is there any position taken by the religious right in this country that you believe is incorrect?
2) Would there ever be a reason (for examine, war, national health emergency) where it would be permissible to raise taxes on those with incomes above $1,000,000 a year -- even temporarily? If so, what would that be?
3) Assuming you are unwilling to raise taxes, and assuming that growth cannot exceed 3% per year, identify $600 billion a year in spending that you would cut immediately to balance the budget.
4) Do you support trade with China, a country with a terrible human rights record and nuclear capability?
5) In light of your answer to #4, why is China a more acceptable trading partner than Iran?
6) Is the world roughly 6,000 to 7,000 years old?
7) Do you recognize that the Christians, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God?
8) If a man in Minnesota is 51 years old and has paid into Social Security and Medicare for 28 years, do you believe that you should cut his future benefits under either program?
9 - several subparts through follow ups)
Do you believe that the Confederate Flag should be displayed by states if they so choose?
follow up 1 -- If yes, then how do you square that position with the "Pledge of Allegiance" which states that the United States flag represents "one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice FOR ALL"?
follow up 2 -- Do you agree that the ideas for which the Confederate flag stands are not consistent with pledging allegiance to the United States flag?
follow up 3 -- If you continue to support the Confederate flag, do you believe that the Pledge of Allegiance should be abolished?
10) Are gas and oil prices too high or too low under President Obama's watch?
11) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that our national infrastructure needs $4.6 trillion just to bring it up to acceptable status. Can you identify any major U.S. infrastructure project that you would support?
12) How much would it cost to build a 1,000 mile 20-foot high wall across the border of Mexico and the U.S.? Would you build it if the Mexican government would not?
Sarcastic
A) If someone plays well in the JV debate, can the moderators decide to give them a chance to play half of the Varsity debate?
B) If you win 3 straight JV debates, do you get to be in the fourth Varsity debate? (Like the PGA tour does)?
C) As a white female Republican, is Carly Fiorina required to make wildly inaccurate false claims and then refuse to back them up?
D) Would it be OK with Ben Carson if Rand Paul voided the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allowed hotels and restaurants to decide if Ben Carson could stay/eat there?
E) John Kasich -- do you really believe in helping the poor or do you want to have any chance of winning?
F) To Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio - would you support a constitutional amendment that defined "natural born citizen" to include only people born in the U.S. to two parents who were both American citizens?
G) To JV Debaters -- are you embarrassed that your own party thinks you have no chance to win and put you in this shitty debate?
H) To Chris Christie -- Barack Obama, were you hugging him or merely grabbing his ass?
I) To Scott Walker -- isn't a college education basically a bare minimum requirement to getting a good white collar job today?
J) To Jeb Bush -- rank your mom, dad, siblings (including yourself) and GWB's twin girls by intelligence starting at the bottom with GWB. Go!
K) To Trump -- can you identify one positive quality that any of the 9 other people on stage have that is superior to any quality you have? You may answer, "No, none" if you would like.
L) To Mike Huckabee - Iran is basically run by a right-wing religious organization that believes that all laws should be based upon a book of religion allegedly blessed by the God of Abraham. Is there anything wrong with that?
1) Is there any position taken by the religious right in this country that you believe is incorrect?
2) Would there ever be a reason (for examine, war, national health emergency) where it would be permissible to raise taxes on those with incomes above $1,000,000 a year -- even temporarily? If so, what would that be?
3) Assuming you are unwilling to raise taxes, and assuming that growth cannot exceed 3% per year, identify $600 billion a year in spending that you would cut immediately to balance the budget.
4) Do you support trade with China, a country with a terrible human rights record and nuclear capability?
5) In light of your answer to #4, why is China a more acceptable trading partner than Iran?
6) Is the world roughly 6,000 to 7,000 years old?
7) Do you recognize that the Christians, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God?
8) If a man in Minnesota is 51 years old and has paid into Social Security and Medicare for 28 years, do you believe that you should cut his future benefits under either program?
9 - several subparts through follow ups)
Do you believe that the Confederate Flag should be displayed by states if they so choose?
follow up 1 -- If yes, then how do you square that position with the "Pledge of Allegiance" which states that the United States flag represents "one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice FOR ALL"?
follow up 2 -- Do you agree that the ideas for which the Confederate flag stands are not consistent with pledging allegiance to the United States flag?
follow up 3 -- If you continue to support the Confederate flag, do you believe that the Pledge of Allegiance should be abolished?
10) Are gas and oil prices too high or too low under President Obama's watch?
11) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that our national infrastructure needs $4.6 trillion just to bring it up to acceptable status. Can you identify any major U.S. infrastructure project that you would support?
12) How much would it cost to build a 1,000 mile 20-foot high wall across the border of Mexico and the U.S.? Would you build it if the Mexican government would not?
Sarcastic
A) If someone plays well in the JV debate, can the moderators decide to give them a chance to play half of the Varsity debate?
B) If you win 3 straight JV debates, do you get to be in the fourth Varsity debate? (Like the PGA tour does)?
C) As a white female Republican, is Carly Fiorina required to make wildly inaccurate false claims and then refuse to back them up?
D) Would it be OK with Ben Carson if Rand Paul voided the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allowed hotels and restaurants to decide if Ben Carson could stay/eat there?
E) John Kasich -- do you really believe in helping the poor or do you want to have any chance of winning?
F) To Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio - would you support a constitutional amendment that defined "natural born citizen" to include only people born in the U.S. to two parents who were both American citizens?
G) To JV Debaters -- are you embarrassed that your own party thinks you have no chance to win and put you in this shitty debate?
H) To Chris Christie -- Barack Obama, were you hugging him or merely grabbing his ass?
I) To Scott Walker -- isn't a college education basically a bare minimum requirement to getting a good white collar job today?
J) To Jeb Bush -- rank your mom, dad, siblings (including yourself) and GWB's twin girls by intelligence starting at the bottom with GWB. Go!
K) To Trump -- can you identify one positive quality that any of the 9 other people on stage have that is superior to any quality you have? You may answer, "No, none" if you would like.
L) To Mike Huckabee - Iran is basically run by a right-wing religious organization that believes that all laws should be based upon a book of religion allegedly blessed by the God of Abraham. Is there anything wrong with that?
Tuesday, August 04, 2015
Chris Christie -- Tough GOP Watchdog? Um, Well....
There is that little matter of all of the pics (real or imagined) of Christie hugging Obama. Kind of a big deal to rabid GOP folk.....
The dark pic is a tad fake, but the light-colored pic is real. And unless Christie is grabbing Obama's ass, he is definitely voluntarily hugging the man.
The dark pic is a tad fake, but the light-colored pic is real. And unless Christie is grabbing Obama's ass, he is definitely voluntarily hugging the man.
GOP Polling Data -- A Few of My Thoughts
| Poll | Date | Trump | Bush | Walker | Huckabee | Carson | Cruz | Rubio | Paul | Christie | Kasich | Perry | Santorum | Jindal | Fiorina | Graham | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 7/26 - 8/2 | 23.2 | 12.8 | 10.6 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 6.2 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.4 | Trump +10.4 |
| FOX News | 7/30 - 8/2 | 26 | 15 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Trump +11 |
| Bloomberg | 7/30 - 8/2 | 21 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Trump +11 |
| CBS News | 7/29 - 8/2 | 24 | 13 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Trump +11 |
| Monmouth | 7/30 - 8/2 | 26 | 12 | 11 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | Trump +14 |
| NBC/WSJ | 7/26 - 7/30 | 19 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Trump +4 |
Thanks to realclearpolitics.com for this data.
Thoughts:
1) Trump -- I just saw an article in which the author said that Trump would fail because he has no position on the issues. Here are your seven basic GOP positions:
-- lower taxes for the wealthy
-- say you are going to punish the poor economically
-- imprison blacks and deport Hispanics
-- remind old people that old white people should rule the world, while finding a way to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.
-- kiss the ass of the religious right
-- try to get in a war with any country you can
-- oppose anything Barack Obama is for
Which of these 7 basic policy positions do you think Trump cannot state? I mean, this isn't exactly rocket science. "What would you do if elected?" Cut taxes and repeal ObamaCare and go to war with Iran. (Wild applause from crowd).
I have always secretly wanted to be a Republican candidate because it is SOOOOO easy. You never do any thinking or analysis. You receive your 7 talking points and pound them hard.
Trump will do fine in debates. He gets 1/10 of the time for a 3 hour debate - even if there are no commercials, that is about 15 minutes (moderator questions take some time).
2) The Second Tier -- Bush and Walker -- these are the guys that the Rich Wing of the party wants. Cut taxes and eff over the poor. Pretend to be reasonable but, in reality, be as far to the right as we want you to be.
3) The Inexplicable Middle -- Huckabee, Carson, Cruz, Paul -- this is roughly 25% of the vote!!!! Huckabee wants a Biblical State, aka American Taliban. Carson is flat out insane. Cruz, according to party orthodoxy for the past 8 years, is constitutionally ineligible for the office (born outside U.S. to only 1 U.S. citizen, which were the facts they were TRYING to establish to DQ Obama!), Paul believes in repeal of the Civil Rights Act and he also believes that we should NOT get in a war at the drop of a hat, thus disqualifying him as a GOP candidate.
4) The Facially Decent Candidate With no Business Winning -- Marco Rubio -- Rubio is good looking and has some chance of attracting Hispanic voters. Sadly, now that he has abandoned his own pro-immigration legislation, Rubio's only real claim to fame is that he likes to drink water and he has a really good looking wife. He is 44. He has really never done much of anything. He went to 3 schools to get through college. He went to Miami Law School -- ranked somewhere around the 49th to 66th best U.S. law school. The GOP feel Obama is an idiot; Obama went to Harvard - a top 3 law school. Also, Rubio was born in 1971, at the time his parents were BOTH non-U.S. citizens! He is what the GOP generally calls an "anchor baby" and is of the class of people the GOP would like to declare as non-citizens, even if a constitutional amendment was needed.
On the plus side, at least Rubio (unlike Rafael Cruz and Piyush Jindal) he uses his real first name and doesn't try to fool the public as if he were a customer service phone representative for Target Corporation.
5) "I Can't Believe I Am This Far Down in the Polls" -- Christie, Kasich, Perry, Jindal
Hey, look, I don't like ANY of these guys, but at least they have done SOMETHING in their political careers. How they can be so far behind Tier 3 is evidence that the Poor Wing of the GOP is, in fact, bat-shit crazy. Just so that this item doesn't get quoted as me being pro-these-four, I will note:
Christie -- corrupt, fat, hugged Obama
Kasich -- either doesn't believe that you should f over the poor or he is a lying sack of shit, take your pick.
Perry -- by writing this Blog item, I have established that I am smarter than Rick Perry; nice glasses, Poindexter.
Jindal - terrible speaker, terrible Governor, once performed an exorcism, goes by a fake name - I mean, imagine if Obama had declared himself to be "Greg Obama" (Jindal selected "Bobby" from Bobby on "The Brady Bunch", so Obama could just as easily have gone with Greg). I mean, WTF?
6) The Dregs -- Santorum, Fiorina, Graham
I cannot imagine any scenario under which any party would allow any of these people to be its Presidential nominee. I mean, Santorum is no brighter than Perry and has an unbelievably unhealthy desire to interfere in everyone's sex life. He opposes birth control! I mean, that position is popular with Shawn Kemp, Travis Henry, Steve Garvey and.....who else? The Duggars?
Fiorina was never a good executive. She makes Trump look like he is as qualified to be President as FDR! "I will run the country like I ran.....oh, well, BETTER than I ran....OK, WAAAAAY better than I ran my company...."
Graham -- He would gain points with me if he simply came out and said, "I love John McCain so much and I want to have sex with him, so any other man isn't good enough." Take a page from Trump's book -- be honest, damn the consequences. Who knows? Maybe McCain will dump Cindy, sell a few houses and you live happily ever after? Barring such a bold move, it is tough to say why he is even involved in the race.
7) Etc. -- George Pataki and Jim Gilmore
Lindsey Graham is a polling juggernaut compared to these two failed governors (Pataki NY, Gilmore VA). I don't know if they were bored or unemployed or were told to do some publicity to get a book deal or reality TV series, but they are also running.......making them, literally, "also rans".
I cannot wait for Debate #1 in Cleveland on Thursday.
Monday, August 03, 2015
Good-Bye Roddy Piper
I was born in 1964. Around the time I was 10-12 I discovered the UHF channels on my parents' black-and-white TV and found some WWF wrestling from Allentown, Pennsylvania. I loved wrestling right away. But somehow my parents banned me from wrestling for a while (I recall it had to do with me elbow dropping my 9 year old brother and him complaining about a bump on his head).
Oh well.
By 1978 or so, the ban had still not been lifted, but I stumbled upon Mid-Atlantic wrestling one day. It was a production put on by the NWA (I was confused by the constant references to Harley Race, the great NWA champ, who never appeared on my TV). In any event, the stars of Mid-Atlantic Wrestling, in my opinion, were Ric Flair and Greg Valentine who feuded endlessly and beat the living hell out of each other. There were a lot of other wrestlers whom I would later follow out of North Carolina and Georgia. But I recall most vividly the Flair-Valentine feud.
One day Roddy Piper came into the Mid-Atlantic region. He was a terrible person, someone so villainous that you just hated him immediately. He was a great "heel."
Looking back at old clips, the shtick from 1981 or so is so tired and old that it seems like the guys are fighting over whether vanilla or French vanilla is a better ice cream flavor. Piper calls guys old and fat and they say Piper wears a dress (he always wore a kilt, thus obviously opening himself for this insult, a pretty obvious character flaw in 1981).
Piper and Flair fought against each other and fought together at times. They made a good combo, regardless of how arcane their stated differences were.
Then Piper disappeared, I know not where. Well, he turned up in the WWF where he continued his reign of being the #1 overall heel. Piper was just a guy you hated. He was loud and had a squeaky voice when he wanted to put on that affect. He liked to act crazy....but more maniacal than crazy. And he could just explode with hatred and bile, physically and verbally. His coconut to the head attack on Jimmy Snuka on "Piper's Pit" was one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen, but it was preceded with some of the most loaded racist conduct you could ever put together. Remember, this was a PG or PG-13 world, so the actual words Piper was saying weren't necessarily outrageous. It was how much he loved saying them.
I saw Piper wrestle in person in Buffalo and do a "Piper's Pit" segment live in the arena. I also saw Piper wrestle Rick Rude in 1989 at the Met Center in a "country whipping match" in which the men took leather straps to one another for 15 minutes or so (Piper defeated Rude, but both men were in awful shape by the end of the match).
Piper was a character. He really wasn't a great technical or scientific wrestler, and he really didn't have much profound to say. (The top of my blog features the sort of quotes Piper could provide -- this one from a movie, "They Live.") Yet he became so popular that I had two thumb wrestlers given to me as a gift, Hulk Hogan and Roddy Piper. No one ever asked, "Who is that other guy?" Piper for serveral years was the publicity equal of Hogan.
For those too young to remember Piper, looking back at his old highlights won't do much to show you who he was. It was a different time. We didn't inquire as to who our entertainers really were. If you acted poorly on screen, we hated you. If you acted as a nice guy on screen, we loved you. We didn't dig down any further. My mom once met a soap opera actress from the late 1970s who played the evil person on her show. She told my mom how she could not walk in a mall or go to a public beach without someone calling her a whore or spitting on her. We didn't look very hard at the "acting" part of the equation. Piper took advantage of that fact. He was a bad guy 90% of the time, and while he made some turns to the good side, he could never really be effective there. He needed to be evil and maniacal to be great. And he was. He was a great, great "wrestler" in the sense that he showed up and did his job in the way that brought him and his companies the most fans and the most money.
Losing Dusty Rhodes and Roddy Piper in one year is very hard on a wrestling fan born in 1964. At least Ric Flair survives. But when Flair dies, I may need to take a couple days off.
Oh well.
By 1978 or so, the ban had still not been lifted, but I stumbled upon Mid-Atlantic wrestling one day. It was a production put on by the NWA (I was confused by the constant references to Harley Race, the great NWA champ, who never appeared on my TV). In any event, the stars of Mid-Atlantic Wrestling, in my opinion, were Ric Flair and Greg Valentine who feuded endlessly and beat the living hell out of each other. There were a lot of other wrestlers whom I would later follow out of North Carolina and Georgia. But I recall most vividly the Flair-Valentine feud.
One day Roddy Piper came into the Mid-Atlantic region. He was a terrible person, someone so villainous that you just hated him immediately. He was a great "heel."
Looking back at old clips, the shtick from 1981 or so is so tired and old that it seems like the guys are fighting over whether vanilla or French vanilla is a better ice cream flavor. Piper calls guys old and fat and they say Piper wears a dress (he always wore a kilt, thus obviously opening himself for this insult, a pretty obvious character flaw in 1981).
Piper and Flair fought against each other and fought together at times. They made a good combo, regardless of how arcane their stated differences were.
Then Piper disappeared, I know not where. Well, he turned up in the WWF where he continued his reign of being the #1 overall heel. Piper was just a guy you hated. He was loud and had a squeaky voice when he wanted to put on that affect. He liked to act crazy....but more maniacal than crazy. And he could just explode with hatred and bile, physically and verbally. His coconut to the head attack on Jimmy Snuka on "Piper's Pit" was one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen, but it was preceded with some of the most loaded racist conduct you could ever put together. Remember, this was a PG or PG-13 world, so the actual words Piper was saying weren't necessarily outrageous. It was how much he loved saying them.
I saw Piper wrestle in person in Buffalo and do a "Piper's Pit" segment live in the arena. I also saw Piper wrestle Rick Rude in 1989 at the Met Center in a "country whipping match" in which the men took leather straps to one another for 15 minutes or so (Piper defeated Rude, but both men were in awful shape by the end of the match).
Piper was a character. He really wasn't a great technical or scientific wrestler, and he really didn't have much profound to say. (The top of my blog features the sort of quotes Piper could provide -- this one from a movie, "They Live.") Yet he became so popular that I had two thumb wrestlers given to me as a gift, Hulk Hogan and Roddy Piper. No one ever asked, "Who is that other guy?" Piper for serveral years was the publicity equal of Hogan.
For those too young to remember Piper, looking back at his old highlights won't do much to show you who he was. It was a different time. We didn't inquire as to who our entertainers really were. If you acted poorly on screen, we hated you. If you acted as a nice guy on screen, we loved you. We didn't dig down any further. My mom once met a soap opera actress from the late 1970s who played the evil person on her show. She told my mom how she could not walk in a mall or go to a public beach without someone calling her a whore or spitting on her. We didn't look very hard at the "acting" part of the equation. Piper took advantage of that fact. He was a bad guy 90% of the time, and while he made some turns to the good side, he could never really be effective there. He needed to be evil and maniacal to be great. And he was. He was a great, great "wrestler" in the sense that he showed up and did his job in the way that brought him and his companies the most fans and the most money.
Losing Dusty Rhodes and Roddy Piper in one year is very hard on a wrestling fan born in 1964. At least Ric Flair survives. But when Flair dies, I may need to take a couple days off.