reyonthehill

I hereby present a solemn proposal for amnesty, a general amnesty that can be openly received by as many willing to accept the conditions, and by those for who it applies.

I propose granting amnesty, full and explicit, to any person who had voted for the Bush-Cheney ticket in the 2000 election, on either the GOP/Republican party designation or the Conservative designation, or any other designation the Bush/Cheney ticket was under for the election. This amnesty is granted for only those who had voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000, and not for those who voted for Bush/Cheney in 2004, regardless of their vote (if any) in 2000. (Voting for Bush/Cheney in 2004 is not a forgivable act.)

I acknowledge that the election of 2000 took place during a very different time. In fact, looking back it is nearly impossible to understand the issues that were discussed in the country during the campaign. Bush misled the American people into thinking he was a centrist, a compassionate conservative of some kind, although it has been proven that no such thing exists, and he did a pretty good job in doing so. The press certainly bought it, although the press can be easily bought these days.

In 2000, the nation was prosperous (although that came at a price) and at peace. The mood of the public was relatively good, and there was no real reason that Bush would mess things up, at least this badly. On the other hand, Al Gore had refused to run on the successes of the Clinton presidency and instead banked his election chances on a theoretical lock-box for Social Security. It was simply not enough for the average American to vote for the vice president and not for the former-alcoholic, good-lovin' uncle George.

I understand what took place, and I can forgive you. We all should. I grant each of you amnesty for making a foolish, yet honest decision. We can now move on.

For those who had voted for Bush/Cheney in 2004, despite how you had voted four years earlier, I offer no amnesty. The facts were there; Bush's form of conservatism was well known. The way Bush did business, the power of his nonconservative advisers, his wicked policies; all of that was on the table, open for all to see. Voters certainly knew what they were getting the second time around. Yet still, you defied logic and voted in a manner so nonsensical, future generations will study that lapse of judgment as part of their theses on the demise of American culture, and the plight of the then-future American government.

I am so very sorry, Bush/Cheney 2004 voters. Not for refusing to offer amnesty to you, but for the results that you -- yes, you -- created. Sleeping at night must be difficult for you. The acts of the Bush/Cheney administration are your doing -- the choice was certainly in your hands come election time -- and it is you who should apologize to the rest of the nation.

- Walmart has given up on building a store within New York City, although if you consider Staten Island a part of New York City, you have reason number 43 why I'd never want to live in New York City. Now, if only Walmart would give up on building in my town.

- Senate democrats have grown balls as they have attached a timeline to the Iraq war spending bill. Bush vows to veto the bill.

- And the city of San Francisco makes big news again, banning plastic bags. I am somewhat anxious to see how this will affect my trips into the most beautiful city in the world.

One of my long-term career goals is to become the owner of a baseball team (as I mentioned in my fifth-ever blog-post, way back in August 2003). I have started slowly, being the sole owner of a beer-league softball team here in the bay area is a start, but as my wealth grows (with the help of pushing and dumping penny stocks, and I know exactly who to call for assistance with that, hint, hint), I will set aside a large portion for the purchase of a baseball team. And then the fun will begin.

As I told my team, my softball team, that is (they may have been drunk at the time, myself as well), I am not here to win it all the first year (we only won two games), but that I am in it for the long-haul. I wanted to develop a consistent winner ten, fifteen years down the line. And the way to do that is with a good farm system. I have established a series of regional scouting operations, looking not just at college and high school baseball teams, but assessing talent at the underage bars too. We need winners, not losers. The deepest region of our farm system -- the Fresno/Bakersfield region -- has contacts with the parents of middle school shot-put champions. Like I said, I am in it for the long-haul.

The same goes for a professional baseball team. When I do purchase a Florida team (most likely as a minority but controlling owner) and move them to Buffalo, renovate the stadium to seat a hair under thirty-thousand, making the stadium the smallest (and coziest) in the entire majors, I will make sure to emphasize organic growth by way of a deep farm system.

A successful farm system does many great things for the baseball organization; it almost entirely ensures financial stability in the long-term, it allows for lower operational costs in the short-term, and when the need arises to bring in a marquee star, you have the potential to make a deal with prospects without mortgaging the team's future. Also, a young team is more fun to watch, in my opinion, the only opinion that really counts anyway.

I see this as my life goal. All I need now is money. (This blogging thing better pay off.)

I do this just because I can.

Our puppy, Haley, at 14 weeks...

- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in an interview with NBC News... "Let me — let me be more — more precise because I know that — with respect to this particular topic, people parse carefully the words that I use. (LAUGHTER) And — and I wanna be careful about what I say." Yea, pretty much don't lie.

- Related... "Monica Goodling, a key Justice Department official involved in the firings of U.S. prosecutors, will invoke a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions at upcoming congressional hearings." Taking the fifth is equivalent to pleading guilty, right?

- And the American people back Congress' investigation into the political firings of U.S. attorneys and want Bush aides, Rove included, to testify under oath.

Once again, real emails, real life. (Keep them coming.)

Have you finally backed down from backing Biden for 2008? Biden has no chance because he is too much of a loudmouth with experience. Experience is worthless as president. I like the Obama (P)-Edwards (VP) campaign. Hillary is smart but just the look on her face turns me off. This could all change if Gore decided to run! In that case I would possibly choose Gore (P)-Obama (VP).
-- Jimmy Steamboat, New Jersey

Okay, so maybe I was a bit off when I went all gung-ho on the Delaware senator as my choice for president, and I think it is safe to assume Biden will not be winning the nomination. What to do? Nothing; 'cept change my mind, that is.

Some may call this flip-flopping; I call it being flexible. Hey man, times change, people change. And if Rocky IV can single-handedly end the Cold War, I have all the right to change my preliminary pick for the democratic presidential nominee. That is why I am now rooting for Bill Richardson, the current Governor of New Mexico and the former congressman, ambassador and Clinton energy secretary.

From what I can tell, there are three primary classes of candidates in the democratic field, with an additional fourth wild-card class. They are...

The front-runners (lots of green, lots of press): Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards.

Easy, breezy middle-of-the-road (some money, not so much press, well-qualified): Bill Richardson.

No chance (no chance in hell): Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, etc., etc.

And the wild-card division exists solely on the whim of Al Gore, who should run for president. If Gore thinks he can wait another four years, he can kiss his presidential ambitions good-bye. And unless Gore has some kick-ass acting capabilities, a la Schwarzenegger, I don't think Gore's career in Hollywood is going to be too long and illustrious. Either way, Richardson is my dark horse candidate, and rooting for the dark horse is almost always the way to go.

Mike Keefe on Bush's numerous scandals...

Image: Time.com

- There is a movement to choose a bipartisan ticket for the 2008 election, which isn't really a bad idea, except that it would be nearly impossible for the candidates to raise money; that isn't a condemnation of the idea itself, it is just yet another reason to legislate money out of elections. In my opinion, a Richardson-Hagel ticket would be a big vote-getter, especially since the republican Hagel is mulling impeachment. And NYC Mayor Bloomberg (the former Democrat) would be a strong contender too, as he himself considers a run for the White House.

- "We have the support of our customers," is what the president of the pet food company that laced its food with rat poison -- killing hundreds of pets nationwide -- said, as he explained why his company hasn't ceased production at the tainted facilities. I highly doubt that you have the customer's support, if you have any remaining.

- And what is the over/under on Attorney General Gonzales being shown the door this week? He doesn't plan on testifying again, does he?

Four one-seeds, three two-seeds and a three-seed made up the Elite Eight, a feat that hasn't occurred in some time. Of those, I had three chosen from the start. I had picked one Final Four team -- Georgetown -- who I had picked to win it all. In the ESPN Tournament Challenge, I currently stand at a paltry 9.1 percent. Madness has subsided, life goes on.

The president (of the United States of America) has to be thinking, "Why the hell is everyone upset over a couple of political daggers being thrown at the backs of a few lawyers?" And this is the crux of the problem.

The American people were vehemently upset with the Bush administration in the run-up to the midterm elections -- not just because of the war, but also because of the blatant lack of policies that truly reflect the ideals of middle-class America -- and they let their ballots do the talking. On election day, the majority of Americans voiced their disapproval of Bush, the war, and the GOP-controlled Congress, and the democrats swept into power of both houses of the legislative branch. Why did the GOP members of the House and Senate get the ax, when the majority of voter angst was targeted at the president? Because of the GOP's relentless support of a failed war policy, as well as the rampant corruption that filled the morning papers, week after week.

So now here we are, a few months after the elections -- the democrats have control, they are obviously attacking the president with every opportunity they get, the president has all-but-abandoned any sense of bipartisanship (or even the spirit of bipartisanship) with Congress -- and we discover that all along, the president was actively planning on jettisoning the very prosecutors who were investigating the corruption in the House and Senate. And the president is surprised at the intensity of the debate over the issue? The president decries the Democrats' investigation as a "fishing expedition," but it is more like an elephant hunting trip at the zoo. Justice and reason has no meaning to our fallible president, and even his advisers cannot clue him in, because they are most certainly part of the problem.