Thank You For Not Being Smoking

In light of the post-season flameouts of Jessica Simpson's Tony Romo and Giselle Bundchen's Tom Brady, I Boldly Predict it will be a long time before football fans see another uber-babe rooting up in the stands for her man.  Look for brothers, mothers, dads, or even dogs (the man's best friend kind, not non-uber-babes).

And let's draw the obvious political parallels - the much maligned McCain is the much maligned Manning.  And who is Tom Brady, the Golden Boy, the Chosen One - C'mon,that is too easy.  Tough luck for Barack if he matches up with McCain.

Comments

[Jane]

Don't start. It's hard enough.

[glasater]

For our host TM and Jane--here is word there is snow in Hawaii to distract.
Go to forecasts.

[Pofarmer]

O.K.

Is there any way that there could be main page buttons put at the bottom of the comment pages so you don't have to scroll clear up after you post a comment to see the other threads?

[Ann]

Good Morning

The polls have been wrong, the MSM pundits have been wrong, the underdogs have another day to fight, Lanny Davis looks terrible today, and Hillary is gong to garnish wages; I say again...Good Morning!!

[Jane]

There is a link under my name for an Obama ad that is really quite spectacular.

[glasater]

That is an incredible ad--Jane--but it's going to scare the wee out of every white guy in the country.

On another note--I use a graphics tablet so scrolling up and down pages is not a problem. The only unhandy part is putting the pen down for typing.

[TM]

Just to be clear - I was a total Sunshine Patriot fan on this game. I like Brady, but when Eli got the ball back with 2:45 to go I announced to the room that he had been good in these spots all year.

And it is a finger in the eye to Red Sox Nation, so its not all bad. No 19-0 history, though.

Oh, well - the talk radio callers are so happy today that you have to feel happy for them - this is one of those great sports days in the Greatest City in the World.

[GMax]

Well as a Cowboys fan one of the things you never ever do is root for the Giants, and yet I found myself grinning just a bit for Eli and Coughlin. It may have been the insufferable and unending talk of Tom Brady being able to walk on water that help get me there. He was a 6th round draft choice once upon a time. He must have been thought to have a few weaknesses once upon a time. And when you miss a wide open Randy Moss in the endzone, you most assuredly sink like all of us smucks.

Commercials were a letdown, Alicia Keys has a large butt and Tom Petty looked like a pensioner in need of a haircut! But the underdogs hung around got just enough traction to be ahead when the gun sounded.

As far as SuperBowls go, I even watched the last 1 second tick off, which is almost never the case in Superbowl which tend to produce large lopsided wins most often. A good show.

[Rick Ballard]

"I was a total Sunshine Patriot fan on this game."

So were 82% of the smart money people at TradeSports (InTrade's rich brother)

Looking elswhere, bettors at the TradeSports prediction market are giving the Patriots a 49.5 percent chance of covering a 12.5 point spread (and an 82 percent chance of winning outright).

The Pats were just inevitable winners...

[glasater]

Must have been precient--here is VDH's take on The White Man's Burden at Pajamas.

[Pofarmer]

My wife thought the Obama ad was annoying.

What annoys me, is all the incorrect suppositions that Barack Hussein and his supporters are using to frame his candidacy.

We can end this war!!!!
Uhmm, O.K. 45,000 troops coming home in July. This sucker is winding down.

We can SAVE the planet!!!!!
Really? I didn't know we could destroy it?

We can HEAL this nation.
Uhmmm, O.K.

[glasater]

Where Las Vegas took it on the chin was in the "line" bet. If one plunked down one hundred dollars on the Giants--you got three hundred and change back.

[Pofarmer]

Oh, Yeah, and how much of my money is he gonna want to do all that?

[Pofarmer]

I wonder how his speeches would sound if he changed that first line to

We can HAND the middle east over to Islamic terrorists!!!!!

Truth in advertising and all.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Oh, Yeah, and how much of my money is he gonna want to do all that?

All of it.

[Jane]

I'm not saying the ad was persuasive. I just thought it was really well done.

As for all the Giant's talk. I've got my hands over my ears and I'm saying "lalalalalalalalalalalalala" until you stop.

[glasater]

What a comment from Michael Reagan......

“Fred Thompson’s gone. Duncan Hunter’s gone... Huckabee could become Huckabeen—gone by [tomorrow]... All of a sudden you’ve got this Republican primary coming down to McCain, Romney and Ron Paul. With all this uncertainty, just where can a conservative go?... Who, then, could conservatives end up backing?... Newt Gingrich, that’s who... Why Newt? Ask yourself why Ronald Reagan won. He won because he was able to excite a group of people in America that the liberal wing of the Republican party has never excited—the grass roots. Newt Gingrich is the last Republican to have done that—to reach out to the grass roots, to all those conservative Republicans and Reagan Democrats. Remember, it was Newt who engineered the miraculous Republican take-over of Congress in 1994—something that was deemed impossible two years after Bill Clinton won the White House. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was out there quietly working the phones and hoping for a wide-open convention where the delegates—not the primaries that selected many of them—decide for themselves who they want to carry the GOP banner in the presidential election in November. If Newt throws his hat in the ring he knows that in the blink of an eye he will have the grass roots behind him.”—Michael Reagan

[Ann]

Michael Reagan is dreaming.

[Appalled Moderate]

glaster:

Newt!? Well, why not! He has Giuliani's marital history; McCain's talent for inserting foot in mouth and being gratuitously mean; Romney's perplexing yetch factor; Thompson's ability to flee from seeking power when the going gets tough; Huckabee's willingness to pander to the evangelicals when that is not good for the country. And, of course, most importantly, Newt has experience in losing to Bill Clinton.

Michael Reagan needs to sit back and watch some videos of his father in action. Even Newt knows enough not to suggest Newt.

[Other Tom]

Hell--Pats suck.

[Rick Ballard]

From comments at Bill Quick's Blog

Sorry, not buying any. In the first place, every Dem candidate is demonstrably worse on every one of those issues. For example, they’d not only stifle dissenting political speech related to campaigns, they’d slap “fairness doctrine” restrictions on generic political (conservative) speech by broadcasters. They’d not only provide amnesty, but unchecked franchise (preferably with multiple absentee ballots) for illegal aliens. In the second, the seminal issue of our time remains the war on terror. McCain is a long way from perfect on it, but again, he’s a lot better than the Dem alternatives.

I’m reminded of my favorite Orwell quote :

Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me.’

If you can plausibly claim McCain is worse (or no better than) Hillary or Obama–especially on the war–then fine. But if not, then it seems to me the claim of loyalty blinders is more applicable to those who demand party purity of their candidate, rather than voting for the best choice available (even if we have to hold our noses to do so).

That was Cecil Turner.

Quick provides the laundry list as to McCain's lack of appeal but should McCain prevail, I'm with Cecil.

VOTE McCain - We'll lend you a clothespin.

But vote Romney tomorrow, 'cause the "smart money" ain't always that smart.

[glasater]

Brady prolly choked--and who wouldn't with all the media hype.

This is kind of a hoot--The Boston Globe was evidently trying to raise extra money with a bogus book. 19-0.

[glasater]

Well--it's not a bogus book--but BG jumped the traces a bit.

[glasater]

Well yeah--I'll vote for McCain--but he is not raising any money. I mean--he's getting the endorsements but not the cash.
If I were him, I would start telling these guys saying nice things about him to start putting up some money.
He had to sell his mailing list for cash for heavens sake and then take out a life insurance policy (which is good) on top of that.

[MayBee]

I'm not saying the ad was persuasive. I just thought it was really well done.

Yeah. In this family, we thought we'd like to be the person that inspired someone to do that. Very creative and new.

[Pofarmer]

Brady prolly choked--

Choked? Nah, the Giants defense beat the hell out of him.

[jimmyk]

I'm not saying the ad was persuasive. I just thought it was really well done.

In a slick, Madison Avenue way, yes. I found it intolerable. Vintage Obama: All style, zero substance. Granted Hillary is the opposite extreme (never mind the frightening quality of the "substance"), equally unappealing.

[Patrick Tyson]

I felt like I did when the Yankees had it slip away in the 9th inning in 2001 and the Trojans couldn't stop Vince Young in the end in 2006. There's that "this was it" feeling. No matter how good they are from here on out, the Patriots lost their moment yesterday and it's unlikely we'll see their like again for some time to come.

That being written, the Giants played the better game and got the win they deserved. As far as Super Bowls go, I'm reminded of the 1989 Super Bowl, which would have been tied 6-6 going into the 4th Quarter if not for a last minute special teams touchdown in the 3rd and ended up 20-16 (49ers over Bengals) when a Montana to Taylor pass with under a minute to play completed "The Drive". Of course, "Joe Cool" pulled it out for my team in that one and it was my best Super Bowl payday ever (I bet that the Bengals would cover) so nothing else really compares.

[Jane]

This morning I read somewhere and I can't for the life of me remember where, that the whole Arlen Spector spygate redoux this weekend was because no one would give Spector tickets to the game.

That is just so bloody typical.

[Porchlight]

Yuck. Did that ad need to be over four minutes long? I think I got the point by about 00:30.

Kinda funny, some of the people standing behind Obama in those clips looked decidedly bored.

[RichatuF]

Rick-

Lifting this from another thread:

I just need to figure out how the cable cutting extortion relates to Hamas...

I was thinking that Iran might be gearing up for a major offensive [say starting March 20, 2008]-Hamas in the south, Hezb’ollah in the north, and various bottomfeeders through Syria to the Golan Heights. Cutting the lines would slow the information and capital flows in and out of Iran [keeping money there that the regime can seize and some level of tactical secrecy so Iranians and others don't know what is going on]. They could be using the North Korean mini-subs they got last year to cut specific lines.

Another possibility is that the US might be doing it to divert capital and infomation flows in and out of Iran [especially from NK accounts around South Asia]. The catalyst being, if the North Korean regime collapses, then the Iranians are out of time-both as an Axis of Evil member and their bomb.

[Ann]

RUSH just made a good point about the election and our candidate:

"The Patriots were INEVITABLE until they played the game."

[Rick Ballard]

Thanks, Rich.

The problem I have with probability scenarios for trouble to the US in 2008 caused by the various factions and leaders who aren't on our Christmas card list can be summed up by the following questionaire:

1) Are you a jihadi, a Chicom, a Norkom, a Venzcom, a narco-terrorist, in the Russian mafia or an anarcho-syndicalist?

2) (If anser to 1 is yes) What actions do you plan to refrain from taking in the coming year in order to aid your allies?

a) Wanton slaughter
b) Stupid bluster
c) Threatening interference in global markets
d) Spring offensive

3) Whom do you support more strongly?

a)Obama
b)Clinton

4) Can you be counted upon for a significant contribution?

5) In return for your generous and significant contribution do you expect:

a) Significant trade concessions
b) Trade secrets
c) A turned head at your next election
d) Weapons grade plutonium
d) Conversion to islam
e) Other (Please specify)

[Other Tom]

Very well said, Patrick. I had the same feeling yesterday, and I think the Pats' mojo is broke for good. And I felt the same way about the Mighty Golden Men of Troy when Vince Young put on that remarkable display.

[Other Tom]

Wow. Hillary and Obama are now at 53-47 on Tradesports. It was roughly 63-37 three or four days ago. It gives me an extraordinay thrill to imagine flopsweat on the brows of the Hillary campaign, and in particular the brow of one Sidney Blumenthal. (Is he the guy who was involved in some sort of wife-beating thingy? I know he had an aggravated DUI last month...)

Can we all agree that the 12th and 22nd amendments, taken together, preclude Bubba from the office of VP altogether?

[clarice]

Drudge claimed there was a beating rumor, Sid sued even after Drudge apologized and immediately w/drew the piece. Sid then proceeded to depose all his enemies but could never prove who was the source of the rumor and settled after paying Drudge his court costs.

[PMII]

McCain deserves what he gets. Manning didn't!

[Other Tom]

That's the way I remember it too, Clarice. My rhetorical question was what passes for impishness--but I don't do imp very well.

[clarice]

But your vamping is a-one, OT.

[Steverino]

Where Las Vegas took it on the chin was in the "line" bet. If one plunked down one hundred dollars on the Giants--you got three hundred and change back.

Nope, Vegas didn't take it on the chin. They move the line to represent the betting. The winners are paid off with the losers, and there's always a little vig left for the house. If there's a lot of betting on one side, the line moves toward that side to get more people betting for the other one. That way, the amount of betting on either side of the line is roughly equal.

If the line on the score went 2+:1 (you get your $100 bet back, plus a little over $200 more) Giants, then less than 1/3 of the betting was on NY.

[Other Tom]

Yet another Wow, this one from RCP:

"Another national poll out this morning showing Obama surging into a lead over Clinton. Cook/RT Strategies (Jan 31-Feb 2) shows a big move for Obama in the last month resulting in a 6-point lead:

"Democrats
Obama 43 (+17 vs. last poll Dec 15-17)
Clinton 37 (-1)"

Do we dare hope that the Democratic Party will actually reject this horrible woman?

[Ann]

That's why Hillary was crying in Conn. this morning!

[Other Tom]

"A fifth of British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real, a survey shows. The canvass of 3,000 under-twenties uncovered an extraordinary paucity of basic historical knowledge that older generations take for granted."

I guess if there's any good news in that item, it would be that American kids aren't the only young morons in the world.

(But hey, they're kidding, right? I mean, Sherlock Holmes was real, wasn't he?)

[Syl]

I'm beginning to have my doubts about romney. I like him and had pretty much (not entirely) overlooked his flip flops as mostly sincere changes of position.

I didn't know about the gun flip flop and it's a bad one. Maybe you all knew it already.

Go with the RINO you don't know instead of the one you know?

And believe me, peeps, I'm rooting for Hillary tomorrow but am losing hope. I don't think there's anyone strong enough to stop Obama. His foreign policy is pathetic, and his misplaced pride in his stance against Iraq from the beginning really really scares me.

Hillary would be horrible domestically but she'd be far better on the war.

I'm serious.

Be careful what you wish for.

[kaz]

OT,

And to think, in the '60's the Rolling Stones were confident enough of basic historical literacy to reference the czar and the Blitzkreig in Sympathy for the Devil. How times change.

[Paul]

Syl is right about Obama. Hillary will be much easier to defeat and is the lesser of two evils. Obama is in WAY over his head and believes his own hype about being the new JFK and savior of America and the world. If he becomes president, and I'm pretty sure he will, we are in for the worst chapter in American history. I know it sounds hyperbolic, but I see a perfect storm of catastrophe gathering on the horizon as this empty suit drunk with the idea of himself commits blunder after blunder advised by his fantasy ideology.

[Other Tom]

Kaz--

Greatest line in the history of English-speaking lyrics: "Anastasia screamed in vain." God did I love the Stones (still do). But the basic idea was a sort of sophisticated urban decadence, and for the sophistication part you at least gotta know your ass from page 5, history-wise.

[jimmyk]

I don't think there's anyone strong enough to stop Obama.

Call me naive, but I don't think Obama can really surve the scrutiny he will get if he receives the nomination. At some point he will stumble on substance (of which his speeches are breathtakingly short) and voters will get scared off from putting this empty suit in the oval office. Even though most of the MSM will give him a free ride, someone will trip him up the way Roger Mudd did to Ted Kennedy in 1980.

[bgates]

I see a perfect storm of catastrophe gathering on the horizon as this empty suit drunk with the idea of himself commits blunder after blunder advised by his fantasy ideology.
But he's the only one who can beat Hillary and Obama!

[bgates]

"A fifth of British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real" - a fifth of them also think God dictated his final testament to Mohammed. Wonder if it's the same fifth?