Mostly Cloudy 37°F Mostly Cloudy [Forecast] ADVISORY! :: Thursday, January 8th, 2009
Vacation Info Wedding Info NEW! Kids & Parents

Media Watch

This is a journal of media matters for Cape Cod. It is dedicated to the memory of Justice William Brennan who said, "It is from the First Amendment that all our other Liberties flow."
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Cape Cod Community Club
A local consumer savings program that benefits Cape-wide charities! Save on holiday shopping and essential products & services at over 100 participating business. Join Now!
Atlantic Coast Drywall & Plastering
Complete plaster and drywall systems including commercial & residential, additions, metal stud framing, ceilings, spray painting & repairs. Quality work by experienced professionals - Serving Cape Cod, Southern MA & Rhode Island!

Why Romney will run for president

For the best reason of all - he can win. Here's why -

Romney, in effect, would be running as a candidate from three states - Massachusetts, Michigan and Utah.

He is governor of Massachusetts, which borders the quintessential primary state of New Hampshire; he is originally from Michigan, a critical electoral battleground where his late father was governor and is still highly regarded; and Romney's Mormon religion and successful oversight of the 2002 Winter Olympics make him an honorary citizen of Utah.

Massachusetts/New Hampshire, Michigan and Utah - Northeast blue, Upper Midwest heartland and Red State west - distinct regional voting blocs - and Romney has a firm base in all three.

That Romney is a Republican from Massachusetts doesn't hurt him; just the opposite. The state is more conservative than the cartoonish mainstream depiction of it; hence the GOP lock on the Corner Office since 1990. To the extent voters elsewhere see the Bay State as a calcified bastion of Bolshevism, Romney comes across as skilled in somehow getting elected governor.

While voters across the country shifted further right in '04, voters here swung left. Romney took his hits for failing in a major goal, which was to bolster the GOP's anemic presence in the Legislature. 

Romney wants to cut the state income tax to 5 percent, as mandated by the voters, and with a rising budget surplus as a cushion. He is being thwarted by a Democratic legislature with a 5-1 advantage over Republicans. Just one example of how conservative voters will see Romney as fighting the good fight against people who won't listen to reason.

That Romney looks like he stepped off the cover of Gentlemen's Quarterly, or the AARP version of it, also doesn't hurt, not since JFK came across better to voters watching the 1960 debates on TV rather than listening on radio.

Another parallel to JFK - Romney can field a formidable army of attractive suggogates - his wife, four sons and their spouses - as he did during his successful campaign for governor in 2002.

In his column this week, Time magazine's Joe Klein wrote that Romney's "demeanor and metabolism are the opposite of John Kerry's - informal, conversational, enthusiastic and speedy." The headline for the column, largely favorable: "The Republican Who Thinks Big on Health Care."

Unlike the Democrats, who have settled on Hillary Clinton as presumptive nominee, the GOP has no obvious front-runner - another dynamic nudging Romney to run. Process of elimination puts him in the top tier - divisions remain raw within the GOP over John McCain,  along with doubts about his health; Arnold Schwarzenegger, foreign-born, can't run; Republicans may be unwilling to nominate Rudy Giuliani if Clinton, another New Yorker, is the Democratic nominee; and Bill Frist can't seem to shake questions about health care financial skulduggery.

Potential wild cards - Virginia Senator George Allen, son of the late Washington Redskins head coach and as down to earth as politicians get; and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, running as vice president if Dick Cheney resigns due to his health.

My guess is that Romney is sweating Rice's possible presence in the race more than anyone else's, because Rice would draw from two core Democratic constituencies - women and blacks. The opportunity for the party of Lincoln to elect the first black president could be too historic to let pass and the best thing for race relations since, well, Lincoln.

Which is why Romney also makes an appealing vice presidential candidate - running with Rice.

Romney can't wait much longer to announce, certainly not in the week between Christmas and New Year's, the dullest news cycle of the year, or within a week of Christmas, as the holiday season kicks into full gear.

Nor can Romney wait until January, unless he wants to deprive himself of campaign contributions for the 2005 calendar year - all of which gives him about a week to announce.

Why haven't we gotten any hints of a looming announcement? Better not to build it up beforehand and risk the national media covering it as an afterthought when it actually happens - which is usually how the national media covers it.

99 comments
Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners.

12/13/05 @ 8:46 am
Monponsett [Member] writes:
It saddens me to see some rich kid get into politics being too lazy to work his way up the ladder.

"I'll debut as Governor of Massachusetts, and after a term I'll go for President."

I can honestly see the GOP trying to run Bush's brother next, counting on the fact that the Red States are too stupid to know when someone is raping their wallet.
12/13/05 @ 9:11 am
Drew [Member] writes:
Monponsett:

Do you know anything about Governor Romney beyond his being our governor? Get a tissue, dry your crocodile tears and take a look at our past Presidents. Playing politics for years is no prerequisite for being President.

Actually, from the looks of things, we would be better off with someone who has not even looked at the ladder, let alone climbed it.
12/13/05 @ 9:20 am
Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
To Monponsett: ignore Drew, he'll vote for anybody with an (R) after HIS name.
12/13/05 @ 9:24 am
Drew [Member] writes:
To Anonymous: Apparently you have never been in a ballot box with me. I imagine I should be grateful for that.
12/13/05 @ 10:27 am
Stephene Wright [Visitor] writes:
I think you hit it on the nose, I feel that Romney would have a resounding amount of success in the west especially, in California, Arizona and New Mexico. He should do well in Iowa also. A Romney Rice ticket would be great, but I think it will be Romney as the presidential candidate, with Rice as the VP.
12/13/05 @ 12:13 pm
Jack Coleman [Visitor] writes:
Monponsett, does your aversion to the wealthy going into politics extend to the Kennedys and Roosevelts?
12/13/05 @ 12:25 pm
Monponsett [Visitor] writes:
No.

JFK at least served a little time in government before deciding that he was fit to run the country. FDR was also in government for awhile before taking on the big job.

Hell, George Washington was rich, too.

Local politics is simply beneath Mitt. He ran against Teddy, lost, left politics, and returned when Massachusetts had a Governor's race he felt he could win.

This isn't a guy who loves Massachusetts, and got into politics to help Massachusetts. He's a rich kid who wants the Presidency as a toy. The absolute only reason he's living this state is because you can't get elected US Prez from Utah.

Massachusetts deserves better... and America does, too.
12/13/05 @ 1:05 pm
Puleez [Visitor] writes:
Condi will get the woman and black vote? Give us more credit. She's not exactly a soul sistah, more like menstrual minstrel, a puppet for country club Republicans to wave around.
12/13/05 @ 2:18 pm
bryfry [Visitor] writes:
Puleez:
Somehow I don't see Rice as a puppet. I wouldn't vote for her, due the fact that I believe there are better candidates. She may be a dark horse in the future. She most definately will get the black vote. If she were Liberal you wouldn't be saying squat.
12/13/05 @ 4:55 pm
Jack [Visitor] writes:
Monponsett, it's time to get over that cute rich kid who didn't ask you to the prom. As for JFK, he was biding time in Congress before going after his real goal. Funny you should mention FDR - he was elected president while serving his first and only term as governor of New York.
12/13/05 @ 5:04 pm
Jack [Visitor] writes:
In response to Puleez - I wrote that Rice would draw women and blacks from the Democratic nominee, not that she would take them all. Big difference. You are kidding yourself if you doubt that Hillary Clinton is worried about Rice.
As for Rice not being a "soul sistah," agreed, she's no Al Sharpton.
12/13/05 @ 5:26 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
I'll compare my Prom Date to yours anytime, Jack. I'll bet that you went with a cousin.

FDR was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and had been involved in government for decades before becoming President. He won his first election in 1910.

Whether you think Kennedy was "biding time" or not, he at least had some experience before going for the top job. Mitt hasn't even wrecked a PT boat yet.

Romney essentially walked in off the street, and is thinking "White House" before his term is over.

To compare a cheap opportunist like Mitten to JFK or FDR takes away whatever credibility you have remaining after blowing the FDR factoid.

Next time, try reading up a bit before posting this nonsense. You will be more persuasive if Blogger Commenters like myself aren't able to sweep your "facts" off the table so easily.

Yeah... I guess it was kind of funny that I mentioned FDR.... it just seems that the joke didn't quite land where you thought it would.
12/13/05 @ 5:46 pm
Jack [Visitor] writes:
I wanted to take my cousin to the prom, Monponsett, but better yet ended up marrying her instead.
Those "decades" of government service you claim that FDR served before he was elected president came to about 14 years. You should check your facts before you accuse others of being loose with theirs.
By the way, Romney didn't walk off the street into the governor's office, he was elected.
You are typical of so many on the fringe left who consider anyone not spending his or her entire career suckling at the government teat to be unqualified for public office.
12/13/05 @ 6:05 pm
great gadfly [Visitor] writes:
Spirited stuff here, what?
It is truly funny to ponder the prospect of Jesse Jackson having to swallow his pride and anger, and endorse the only black woman runnig for president. Rice is black in skin only, and her clear personal indentification with the 'haves' might not go over too well with the 'have nots'. Besides, she is knowingly lying to the world about the mess in Iraq; how we got there and what we are acrually doing while there. Can you spell 'baggage'?
Speaking of baggage, Hillary's beiggest liability will be Hillary. Her record as senator from New York is undistinguished and once the press begins to roll out her political and financial history she might as well join the Guard and go to Iraq.
By the way. Mitt's dad ran for Vice President. The Romneys have been a politically active family for a century.
12/13/05 @ 6:15 pm
Drew [Member] writes:
PULEEZ:

A female, black Democrat is a "soul sistah," but a female, black Republican is a puppet for "country club" Republicans. And nobody called you on such a racist remark?

Condoleeza Rice's accomplishments speak for themselves. That you would deny her this simply based on your unthinking, discriminatory attitude is sickening.

Here is a link to her accomplishments: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html

Please read it and come back and tell me she is a puppet again.
12/13/05 @ 6:22 pm
Brian [Visitor] writes:
One thing about Mitt that most people don't know is that he doesn't take a pay check to be governor.

He is going to need a much better team of political advisors if he wants the White House, IMO.

As far as Condi goes, I would vote for she is very smart.
12/13/05 @ 6:27 pm
Drew [Member] writes:
Gadfly,

"Rice is black in skin only"?!?!

What makes a person black inside and out... being a liberal Democrat?!?!
12/13/05 @ 7:25 pm
Jack [Visitor] writes:
Sorry, Gadfly, but George Romney was a candidate for president in '68, not vice president, and it was a fairly short campaign at that. Remember the trouble he got into for saying he'd been "brainwashed" about Vietnam? Romney may have been considered for VP that year or in campaigns to follow, not sure about that, but he was never a VP nominee.
Good question, Drew - "black in skin only"? This to describe a woman who grew up in segregated Birmingham and lost a classmate in a church bombing that killed four little girls. By all means, Gadfly, please elaborate on Rice's failure to meet the standards you set for black people.
12/13/05 @ 8:21 pm
Brian [Visitor] writes:
I think Gadfly is eluding to what black democrats call black republicans, Oreo's! As if making good things happen to yourself without the help of the government and refusing to buy into the victim mentality makes you anything other than a winner!
12/14/05 @ 8:06 am
Democrant [Member] writes:
What should be weighed is what Romney has to gain or lose by running. That must start with the risk of whether in fact he can win re-election. That is not a slam dunk and a considerable obstacle. I wouldn't imagine that Club Healey would drop $13 mill in the kitty in anticipation of a Lt Gov race. Mitt, while an effective campaigner, would also have significant obstacles in a GOP presidential primary.
12/14/05 @ 10:37 am
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Nice try, Jack.

You blew a fact, and I corrected you on it. Even FDR's polio makes my statement look a lot better than yours.

Remember, you implied that he served only a partial term as Governor before becoming President. You weren't even close to correct.

It's nothing personal (I don't know you), and it's nothing right-or-left wing. I just don't think that you should just take up politics and start thinking Presidency before your only term ever in politics is up. I'd say the same thing if Al Franken or Momma Clinton were looking at the Presidency like a shiny new toy.
12/14/05 @ 11:51 am
Jack [Visitor] writes:
Feeble attempt at spin, Monponsett. I wrote that FDR "was elected president while serving his first and only term as governor of New York," which is entirely factual. You claimed FDR had "decades" of government experience before he was elected president when the actual number of years was 14 (and probably closer to a dozen). That was also feeble spin. You might learn more about politics if and when ESPN starts covering it.
Romney and FDR don't have much in common, but if Romney runs for president and wins, he will have this in common with Roosevelt - both getting elected president after serving a single term, in a Northeast state to boot, as governor.
Like you said, nothing personal and all, but I'll have to remember that I am dealing here with someone who is never wrong.
12/14/05 @ 12:56 pm
Drew [Visitor] writes:
Monponsett,

It's not a right wing/left wing thing, just like your "White Bread" fantasy team isn't a black/white thing, right?
12/14/05 @ 1:25 pm
Peter Porcupine [Visitor] writes:
" I'll have to remember that I am dealing here with someone who is never wrong."

That would be me, right Jack?
12/14/05 @ 1:52 pm
Monponsett [Visitor] writes:
The feeble spin is yours, Jack.

You made a statement that implied that Roosevelt only served a partial turn as Governor before becoming President. I corrected you on it, pointing out that he had been in the game since 1910.

I've been wrong plenty of times, and will admit it when called on it. You, on the other hand...

Make all the ESPN jokes that you want... and maul FDR's political career all you want... but FDR had 20+ years in politics (even after his bout with polio, he was active and influential politically) before he became President.

FDR was in Congress in 1910, he was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and was well-qualified for the Prez job when he took it.

Romney had no political experience at all before 2003. He serves a partial term as Governor, and he's ready to run the country??? Even you should be able to see the flaw in this reasoning.

You chose to compare a hack like Romney to a legend like FDR. You just chose to do so in a very poor fashion.

Spin all you want, Jack... the ESPN kid seems to know politics a lot better than you do.
12/14/05 @ 2:10 pm
Monponsett [Visitor] writes:
Drew:

The White Guy All Star Team is indeed a black/white thing. If the NBA never segregated, this is what the All Star game would look like. I don't feel that it is a poor topic, and I consider it to be no different than writing about when the teams wear their Throwback jerseys- they're giving people a glimpse of the game's roots.

In this particular issue, if Al Franken were to try and run for President, I'd be against it for the same reason I'm against Romney- no true experience in politics. I'd hold that same line if Jack disparaged Franken... and I'd hold it if Jack was praising Franken's qualifications. That's what I mean by "nothing personal."

As soon as Jack had been upended on his FDR/Romney comparison, he starts making jokes about who I went to the prom with. That's not only personal, it's lame... especially when used to go after someone who had- quite innocently- made a point that Jack was unable to dispute truthfully.

Anyhow, I think that the truth is out. Romney is a partial term governor, and FDR had been in politics for quite some time before becoming Prez.
12/14/05 @ 2:48 pm
Drew [Visitor] writes:
Monponsett:

I never said your topic choice of a fantasy, "White Bread" all star team was poor, I was questioning your claim of innocent intentions.

The definition of "white bread" in the dictionary:

"blandly conventional, especially when considered as typical of white middle-class America."

If you do not think there are racist connotations to your labeling white basketball players "white bread," I can see where you might not support a prominent white male's run for President, despite his honorable public life and character.
12/14/05 @ 3:29 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Let the record show that I have nothing against a White Man in the White House.... unless he has no true experience. I'd say the same thing for a member of any race/religion/creed/political/sexual leanings.

I wrote the White Guy All Star Team piece as part joke/part history.

Since you're now questioning my innocent intentions, please tell me what I am guilty of intending?

PP.... I consider running for the Senate to be an ((attempt)) at gaining political experience. Had he won, served a few termsand THEN run for President, my distaste for the man's campaign would be lessened.

Would you want someone who was excluded from medical school for poor SAT's operating on your child? Even if he did get in, would you want him doing the surgery before he finished his first term at the school?

As for the term, "White Bread," it is a common term used in hoop talk. I'm sure Condo Rice uses it all the time.
12/14/05 @ 3:31 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
"If the NBA never DEsegregated"... made an error of my own there.
12/14/05 @ 3:37 pm
Takashi [Visitor] writes:
When Mitt Romney ran the 2002 Olympics, it was for NO salary, and he turned what was shaping up as a disaster into a positive national and international experience that showed off the good things about America to the world. His ability to turn it around and make it come out so well, and without a deficit (it actually bequeathed not only the Olympic venues but also endowments to run them to the community) is an example of real, successful public service. Romney was the son of an auto executive, but his Dad forced him to work, and he became (on his own) a hugely successful businessman who has benefitted more people through the jobs he created, and the pay and health care benefits they offered, than most state welfare programs. So he is not an example of the kind of socialist, run the economy into the ground candidate loved by Democrats, but he has plenty of experience successfully running high-profile, international enterprises, which are not bad qualifications for being CEO of the United States.
12/14/05 @ 4:33 pm
Jack [Visitor] writes:
Good observations, Peter. Monponsett also claimed that FDR was in Congress in 1910. That was the year Roosevelt was elected to the state senate of New York - and he never served in Congress. Let's see Monponsett demonstrate that alleged eagerness to admit error.
12/14/05 @ 4:35 pm
Drew [Visitor] writes:
Monponsett,

I accused you of being guilty of nothing more than attempting to mask your condemnation of Romney as innocent, unbiased commentary. Your "distaste" for the man's campaign, despite his aforementioned qualifications, speaks for itself.

As for "white bread," apparently I am out of the "hoop talk" loop. Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps those in basketball circles would be surprised by its common, derogatory use.
12/14/05 @ 5:20 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Porker...

I didn't dodge your question. I answered it directly, using your own initials before doing so. You just have no counter to my answer, so you start Demo-bashing.

As for this current/partial term question... if the man has Job A, he shouldn't be out seeking Job B. Massachusetts deserves better than that.

Listen, Porky... it's one thing if you can't answer my points... it's a whole other thing to deny that I answered yours.

NEXT!
12/14/05 @ 5:28 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Jack:

I did indeed make an error, and I thank you for pointing it out to me.

Of course, my error pales in comparison to yours.

I brought up the fact that Romney has very little political experience. You counter with some nonsense about JFK and FDR. I point out that JFK and FDR had experience before becoming President.

You- after introducing personal insult to the discussion- try to tell the world that FDR did only a term as Governor, hoping to beat down my opposition of Romney by exposing one of MY heroes. I simply pointed out that Roosevelt had been in politics since 1910. You come back with more insults.

So... we've seen how I respond to being incorrect ("I did indeed make an error, and I thank you for pointing it out to me."), and we see how you respond to being proven incorrect.. .personal insults.

I can see why you are no longer on the staff at CCT/MPG/ETC....
12/14/05 @ 5:38 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Drew:

My remarks about Romney were indeed unbiased. I said in this very forum that I would support the same argument if a Demo with no real experience ran for the Presidency.

I do have distaste for him angling for the Presidential nomination while he's still in his first term in the first political office he's ever held.

If I use the same logic for a GOP candidate as I do for a Demo, it seems pretty unbiased to me. Perhaps you'd care to explain to me where this bias exists?

As for "white bread," I pointed out that is a common term, and inoffensive to all but a few... the same few who would probably get mad at whatever I called a white person, especially if I had some sort of anti-GOP tinge to my remarks.

I doubt that ANYONE serious would be ofended by it's usage, especially in a basketball forum. If I was praising Mitt Romney in this forum, I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't have mentioned it.

Can't beat the argument? Attack the person making the argument. You can tell everyone that I'm a CIA agent, if it makes you feel any better.
12/14/05 @ 6:20 pm
Drew [Member] writes:
Monponsett,

I pointed out your "White Bread" all star team post as another obvious example of bias. That you claim not to be critical of Romney based on his being Republican is laughable. Even his Democrat Governor peers have expressed their admiration.
12/14/05 @ 6:23 pm
Drew [Member] writes:
Oh, and you are a CIA agent? I had heard they were schooled in sensitivity training these days...
12/14/05 @ 6:27 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
I could care less if Mitt a GOP or not. I feel that he lacks the experience in politics needed to be a good President.

As I've said again and again here, I'd make the same argument if some one-term Demo started thinking big. You can doubt my sincerity, but you'd be wrong to do so.

I still fail to see how my use of the "White Guy NBA All Star Game" shows bias against the GOP.... but if it makes dealing with me any easier for you, please continue to hold that misconception.
12/14/05 @ 6:32 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
I got my sensitivity training on AOL, where I was the sole female sports blogger for about a year. I've dealt with all kinds, and a few GOP stooges in some backwater forum aren't really going to put me off my game too much.

I may as well throw out a blanket statement. Anyone who is less than one term into their first political office should be considered to be too inexperienced for the US Presidency. I mean that for Mitt, and I mean that for the most left-leaning guy that the Demos could trot out (provided that he had the requisite inexperience).
12/14/05 @ 6:52 pm
Drew [Member] writes:
Monponsett,

The mention of the "White Bread" all star team had NOTHING to do with bias against the GOP.
12/14/05 @ 7:12 pm
Jack [Visitor] writes:
Yes, Monponsett, we have indeed seen how you respond to getting called on an error, which is by becoming even more shabby and thin-skinned. Agreed - my error towered in comparison to yours. Wonderful chatting with you; all the best in the future.
12/14/05 @ 8:08 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Jack... you lost an argument to a sports blogger, and responded by hurling insults at her.

Don't think that everyone reading this didn't notice your lack of class while trying to back out of your own baseless statements.

You run a low forum, and you're political science knowledge is comically weak for someone who runs a political blog.

You got whipped, you know it, and you can't stand it. I can leave it at that.

Drew...

Thanks for the help on the photo thing, but you may want to either comment in the NBA story... or come up with a slightly more relevant reference to the conversation. If it was just a personal attack, you may want to watch more Comedy Central, friend.
12/14/05 @ 8:26 pm
Matthew [Visitor] writes:
Umm, I didn't get to the end, but Mon was correct about FDR being in congress in 1910.. the two houses (Senate and House of Representatives) are the two houses of CONGRESS. Derr. Sure, when he said congress, we all knew he meant house of representatives, but technically he was correct anyways. :P

I'm not going to try to give away my political stance, and I was only supporting Mon because he was the underdog in this discussion, not because he is a Democrat.

Personally, I don't want to see a person run for office without YEARS of experience. Bush was experienced to run, as was John Kerry, both were qualified. I want to see another election similar to that, with two qualified individuals who know what they are doing.

Sure Bush may have made some mistakes, atleast he recently accepted the blame for Iraq (though a few years too late), but he's human, everyone makes mistakes.

Wow, I went on a huge tangent, and am no longer on subject....

Ending note: Vote Dave Chapelle!!
12/14/05 @ 8:26 pm
joseph smith [Visitor] writes:
Here's to you, Drew, Jack, and any other Mormon lovers.
I founded Mormonism with an idea I got from a young lady that had a 'seeing' stone, that she would put in a hat. I was a broke, desparate would be misogynist and well, it worked for me. The Angel Moroni spoke directly to me from this magic rock I found, and fortunately I was run out of town, eventually to Utah, where my disciple Brigham Young improved upon my use of 'sister wives' to spread the seed of the faithful, to say nothing of the occasion massacre of interlopers, even since polygamy was outlawed, so that we could join this great Union, that someday will be Mormon. I think Mit Romney would make a great president, and he may even give equal and separate time to those sports that should remain all white. After all, basketball was invented by blacks, just like rhythm and blues, and everything else, except for what the Muslims did. So us whites need a space of our own, and I gave it to you.
I am a Saint, and I still have a copy of the Nephi Plates on my hard drive.
And yes, Karl Malone is white.
12/14/05 @ 8:29 pm
Matthew [Visitor] writes:
Also, why are you even stressing over the term white bread, it's a god damn term. I'm white, I'm not offended, I don't personally know a white person whose offended by white slurs... if any truly exist.

God, get over yourselves.

and Mon... were you attacking comedy central!!!???

Without that show, I would have never met the amazing person that is MENCIA!

lol.
12/14/05 @ 8:58 pm
Jack [Visitor] writes:
Thank you once again for pointing out the error of my ways, Monponsett. Your presence here has done so much to elevate this otherwise "low forum."
12/14/05 @ 9:05 pm
Drew [Visitor] writes:
I give up, Monponsett is just too hardcore for me. I'm just a simple redneck who doesn't know what GOP even means. Put me out of my misery and molest my dead body.
12/14/05 @ 9:09 pm
Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
Wow, I just finished reading everything and I have to agree with Matthew, vote Dave Chapelle!!!

Matthew is so clever, I'm going to send money to his paypal account viz7bl@gmail.com!

Go secksy beasts
12/14/05 @ 9:11 pm
Matthew [Visitor] writes:
I agree with Peter on that note, Kerry was just being a little (excuse the language) bitch and playing it safe. Him staying in office showed that he didn't have confidence in himself to win and thus needed a Plan B for when he lost.
12/14/05 @ 9:32 pm
Look [Visitor] writes:
We all know that, Peter.
You ego would never allow a linkless post.
Relax dude....
still it is kind of funny. I would have ignored it but for your red flad.
12/14/05 @ 9:55 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Peter...I feel the same way about those three, for the same reason. I wasn't blogging when Dukakis ran, or I'd have been up on him, too.
12/14/05 @ 10:24 pm
Matthew [Visitor] writes:
Arguing over the internet is like playing in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded!

Yes I know it's old, but it's still fitting as ever.

PS: Yes, that was me "spoofing" your names. Have a problem with it? Flame me at viz7bl@gmail.com!
12/14/05 @ 10:42 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Awww, c'mon... Peter and I had just agreed on something!
12/15/05 @ 1:16 am
obviously [Visitor] writes:
viz7bl@gmail.com, and all his aliases, may in fact as old porky says, be nothing personal to you, mon.
In fact, this person may exist, as a complete waste, regarding nether regions, or the scum some women wish they could live without. That would be the issue. And I will leave it at that.
How did this poor excuse for evacuation get your AIM, or inbox?
You are the best thing that has happened to this sad site in years.
Mr. P.P. we can disagree, ad-infinitum. But he is the first to fight here.
Find a better way to hide your identity. Do not reveal any personal stuff, including IM, or remote stuff. Be really careful with who you are, and who 'I' am. If this is not a 'bot', I suspect a bad 'friend'. Obviously, no friend at all. And because you are being harassed from AOL, I suspect a previous link. No one from here.
P.P. AIM, is aol instant messenger, a great way to talk to everyone, and anyone, and some that unfortunately fall in between. Personally, I prefer ICQ, but this also has problems.
This, if individual, is masked. If Bot, what's the issue? By IT's words, person
12/15/05 @ 6:14 am
Drew Bryden [Visitor] writes:
Jack:

We seem to have trolls using foul language and commenting as bloggers. The comments of 9:05p.m. were not my own. I am assuming the comments of Monponsett, at 12:08a.m. were not her's either. It would be a shame to lose this forum to such cretins. Commenters should ignore them, and bloggers should delete such comments.
12/15/05 @ 6:35 am
Drew Bryden [Visitor] writes:
To the real Monponsett,

It was your claim that your distaste for Romney had nothing to do with poltitcs that I responded to. It is nothing personal, and I have no interest in your basketball post. Your quote:"it's nothing right-or-left wing." I sarcastically responded that your distaste was "nothing right-or-left wing" just like your White Bread all star team was not a black-or-white thing. I was hoping that using something you seem interested in would wake you up to the ridiculousness of claiming your argument against Romney was not a political one. Apparently, I was wrong. So far, I have found your attitude rude and condescending. I find your pet names for long time bloggers here offensive. Based on your intelligence, I would have expected the level of discourse here to increase, rather than deteriorate. Your arrival here seems to have brought these pages down.
12/15/05 @ 7:50 am
Monponsett [Member] writes:
My argument with Romney is a political one, just not a GOP/Demo one. That was me agreeing with whatever Peter was saying that Kerry, Tsongas and Duke should have either resigned their seat or run when they weren't Seantors or Governors.

What you think of my attitude means very little to me. I made a simple post in a political forum, and was insulted personally for it. If you wrote about me before writing about Jack, you have no credibility whatsoever.

I doubt that my arrival here has brought things down too much. Again, I made a simple statement about politics, and I got a few stooges after me. You seem to be unable to follow a simple comment thread, so I couldn't care less what you think my overall effect is here- chances are, it's wrong.
12/15/05 @ 8:04 am
Drew [Visitor] writes:
Monponsett:

I have had no trouble following the thread here. There were some comments that were posted over night that you might have missed. They were worthy only of deletion.

Our troll seems to be a teenager with a name: Matthew Estes... anyone know him?
12/15/05 @ 8:12 am
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
A lesson about human nature that you apparently never learned, Monponsett - if you wish to be treated with civility, you may want to treat others in the same manner. You toss around insults like a guttersnipe, then whine when given a dose of your own medicine.
12/15/05 @ 8:30 am
Jack [Visitor] writes:
Thanks, Drew. I've deleted a couple of fraudulent comments. Looks like "Matthew" is trolling for paypal swag.
12/15/05 @ 9:14 am
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Jack...

I posted a comment. You came back with a personal insult.

Go back to the beginning of the comments here. See who started getting personal, first.

If I got personal with you before you got personal with me, I'll refrain from posting here again. I think we both know how it will go if anyone scrolls back, though.

I invite any readers to do the same.

If you can't take losing a political argument, don't run a political blog. If you can't stand insults, don't throw out insults.

I came here talking politics, Jack... you were the one who turned it into some sort of insult-fest. You even lost that.

I don't know if Drew meant it, but "Matt Estes" is funny if read aloud.
12/15/05 @ 10:10 am
Drew [Visitor] writes:
Sorry Monponsett,

I am known to be smiling and joking the majority of my waking hours, but potty humor is no longer my bag (I do recollect going through a short phase as a child). It does not surprise me that you find reciting the name of our suspected troll humorous. Perhaps he is a student of your wit?
12/15/05 @ 10:54 am
Monponsett [Member] writes:
I used to be a teacher... I sort of read every name I see aloud. I also did some substitute teaching, and I sort of have a subconscious lookout for fake names.

It's a habit of mine, and I meant in no way to tie you to that particular bad joke. Honestly.

My bad....
12/15/05 @ 2:02 pm
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Monponsett - maybe you could help me refrain from such unfortunate lapses in the future by pointing out specifically where I insulted you - not that you would ever engage in such shocking, reprehensible conduct yourself.
Funny how you didn't start whining about insults until I called you on an error you had no choice but to correct. Stop insulting the intelligence of others and maybe they won't insult you back.
I must have been misled by that Apache gunship persona you boasted of early on. How about that, there could be a sensitive, easily wounded soul beneath all the bluster.
Tell you what, since you are clearly driven by an abiding need for the last word, it's all yours. Consider it my gift to you, and the other readers in this forum - Merry Christmas ... oops, sorry! Hope you don't take that as an insult.
12/15/05 @ 2:07 pm
Josh [Visitor] writes:
Monponsett:

Your right, folks like JFK were far more qualified to be president than Romney. I would much prefer people who have never worked a day of thier life in the private sector. Mitt Romney, as a successful private business executive had to manage large budgets worrying about such mundane issues as keeping his organizations running efficiently and "in the black." Considering the President of the United States doesn't have to worry about such issues and can run billion dollar defecits and preside over an organization literally trillions of dollars in debt, someone like Romney would be ill suited. Romney has never been very good at cronyism, nepotism, or corruption. He is faithful to his wife. He doesn't have a murderer for a brother. He earned everything he has through hard work rather than marriage. Your completely right, he is the wrong guy for the job, he just doesn't have the right kind of experience.
12/15/05 @ 2:25 pm
great gadfly [Visitor] writes:
Wait a minute,
My remark about Secretary of State Rice was not racist in the least. We have finally arrived at a place in our history where people are able to be seen as just people. Their skin color is, or should be, incidental. If one compares Rice to, say, Malcolm X, Farakan or Jesse Jackson, she is clearly not campaining for anything based on her race, nor is she known to be a black activist. She is definitely a Washington insider. And although her personal and professional acomplishements are many and substantial, she is still the Secretary of State for a president who has some curious views. She was his national security adviser when presumably all the information given to Bush upon which he based his decision to invade Iraq had to pass before her eyes. Bush now publicly admits he was given bad intelligence. I don't care if Condoleesa Rice can walk on water, a person of her vaunted skill and knowledge appears to have been had by some fairly amateurish career hacks at CIA. And she missed the errors in the information she passed to Bush. Whoops!
2100+ dead!
12/15/05 @ 2:38 pm
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Gadfly, if we are at "a place in our history where people are able to be seen as just people," as you put it, why your earlier description of Rice as "black in skin only"?
12/15/05 @ 3:05 pm
Monponsett [Visitor] writes:
Jack... I'm gonna have to assume you can scroll back. See who gets personal first. My offer to leave this thread is still on the table.

By the way... you started throwing insults BEFORE you were proven wrong in argument, and it only went downhill after that.

Weak arguments = weak blog.
12/15/05 @ 3:18 pm
Drew [Visitor] writes:
Rather than "waiting a minute" for Gadfly's response, his position seems obvious enough. By Gadfly's definition, to really be black, one must be an activist for issues related to their own race, and being a Washington insider excludes one from being a black insider.
12/15/05 @ 4:20 pm
great gadfly [Visitor] writes:
Jack and Drew,
As JFK once opined during a debate with Nxon, I have trouble recognizing my own views when stated by others. Condoleesa Rice can be whoever she wants to be. But, does anyone seriously think she would run for president just to be the first black U.S. president? Actually, think about it; it could be fun. Folks such as Rush Limbaugh would shout from the rooftops the virtues of blacks who do not join the welfare state, who behave like whites. Blacks would be justifiably proud of her. But do we honestly believe that Rice is or will become a social activist. She is using her considerable prestige to shine a sneaker when she serves as W's apologist. Who should be the next president is not about race, it is about who can get us out of the hole we have dug for ourselves. Spike Lee said of Colin Powell that Powell thought everything in America was fine because he had a good job. Lee felt strongly (still does) that in order to succeed on white terms American blacks must give up their natural ethnicity because whites expect nothing less. He's right, I believe.
12/15/05 @ 6:16 pm
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
I didn't misconstrue your views on Condi Rice, Gadfly, I asked you to elaborate on your description of Rice as "black in skin only."
12/15/05 @ 8:02 pm
Never Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
MENOPAUSETT,

Are you really as full of yourself as you sound? I can't take another mention on how wonderful you are as AOL's greatest sports writer.

Pleazzzzzzze, give it a break.
12/15/05 @ 8:09 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
They either love me or they hate me.... but if they hate me, they LOVE to hate me.
12/15/05 @ 8:27 pm
Never Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
God, you are just so full of yourself. Maybe, just maybe they find you annoying!
12/15/05 @ 9:33 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
That could very well be.

You're annoying before they find you, though.
12/16/05 @ 1:49 am
wow [Visitor] writes:
at the least, this chick with attitude has gotten the dander up, crawled beneath the skin, of lets say, our greatest thinkers here?
Monponsett must be quite a challenge to you boys without peers, eh? And it must be her, that dredges these trolls?
You know, every sunrise, you can tell me how bad it looks.
I always rise up singing.
O.K. sometimes not till moonrise, but is this not significant?
I want to agree with all of you, but cannot. Shall I take my punishment like a man?
Do you believe, as Christ taught, that an individual that repents should be spared, and put to use, as a teacher of us all?
No?
Then, I, a son of a Nazi, shall put you to death too. Because it is the right thing to do, politically. I'm sorry, though you have become the son of God, I have to make you a martyr because of my future plans.....
Hell, none of us that think we have a clue would recognize the Christ if we met him, let alone Arnold Terminator.
You that make a playpen out of these blogs will not welcome a new perspective, though condemn her for joining. Shame on you all.
Significantly
12/16/05 @ 6:59 am
Drew [Member] writes:
Gadfly said:

"I have trouble recognizing my own views when stated by others."

Do you have trouble recognizing your own words?
12/16/05 @ 8:18 am
bemused and bewildered [Visitor] writes:
What, no mention of the guv's lame announcement itself? Not a shining moment.
12/16/05 @ 11:03 am
Drew [Member] writes:
This post came before the announcement, so be bemused and bewildered no more.
12/16/05 @ 12:26 pm
Peter Porcupine [Visitor] writes:
Bemused - I was at a town Republican Christmas Party when the announcement was made - it had a lot of sparkle for the folks there!
12/16/05 @ 6:42 pm
Jack Coleman [Visitor] writes:
In response to Bemused - I heard Romney's remarks on my car radio and thought he did pretty well overall - and I got a kick out of hearing his announcement just a day after I wrote this post. But it was a stretch for him to claim how much he liked being governor. That being the case, why not stick around? I also think his departure will make it tougher for Republicans to hold onto the Corner Office. He'll the fourth drive-by GOP governor in a row. Three left of their own volition; the fourth, Jane Swift, was elbowed out of the way to make room for Romney.
12/16/05 @ 11:54 pm
Crusader [Visitor] writes:
Jack, Drew, Peter and other bully playpen pals,

I see you are at it again, harassing my fellow intelligent, assertive female friends. Bad boys. Don't you see a pattern here guys?

Get over yourselves and try to stick to the topic. As hard as it may be, try not to sway yourselves into such rude behavior. Our readers get weary of your dull propaganda.

Really, they do.
12/17/05 @ 12:00 am
Never Anonymous [Visitor] writes:
Crusader,

I love blogs because everyone can remain anonymous. However, it must be a female thing how you can reveal yourself and others as "females". Because most bloggers are anoymous, I never judge or respond by gender, it always seems to be the females that can detect other female bloggers. Why is that?
12/17/05 @ 12:03 am
Crusader [Visitor] writes:
Monponsett,

Don't let these bad boys get you down. They can't help themselves.

I've tried to be friends and play nice, but they constantly bully the playground.

You know what it means to be a bully, right? Insecurity issues.

Hang in there, girlfriend, you're doing a great job!

You're gaining support from readers and fellow bloggers like myself who are cheering you from the sidelines.

They work to distract--it's all they know. They have no real debating skills. Instead, they hurl insults to try and force those who disagree with them--out.

Hang in, we enjoy your fresh, smart style.
12/17/05 @ 12:05 am
Crusader [Visitor] writes:
Never Anonymous,

Call it female intuition--we have a sixth sense that guys don't.
12/17/05 @ 12:23 am
Crusader [Visitor] writes:
Mitt Romney, although a rich boy, (I usually dislike because life is always too easy-they bring no life experience to the job)did a good job as governor.

Getting the Sagamore Project accomplished was an amazing accomplishment--and the speed of it!

Even I didn't think he could pull that one off, but he did. The big dig, was another issue, not so easy to resolve. I wasn't happy with that entire Amarrillo/ O'Reilly debacle and neither were the rest of the Mass. taxpayers--it's a disgrace.

But, Mitt is done as gov. and now is setting sights for the Oval Office.

The presidency? I don't think so. Mitt may think he has paid his dues to King George, but I think he's delusional. He is not presidential material.

He's a mormon, he has no foreign policy experience, (are we forgetting people, we are still at war, here) he's not a country boy, and he's not a WASP.

He's not a true politician and hasn't made enough of the right friends.

I don't like any of the potential candidates. Who in their right mind would want it?
12/17/05 @ 12:31 am
Peter Porcupine [Visitor] writes:
Crusader - When have I ever been rude to you, or any other lady, unless you are so arrogant as to think that having the temerity to disagree with your superficial opinions constitues an insult?
12/17/05 @ 12:38 am
Crusader [Visitor] writes:
Peter,

I think you and "the boys" should take a break and go on vacation. You really take this all so seriously.

I'm just pointing out some truths by observing the dialogues of these blogs.

I ask you to scroll up and reread the comments. It's very clear to me and others that when one of you disagrees with opposition, you all gang up on that individual. Really, now Peter, IS THAT NECESSARY?

I'm just as happy to join in for a healthy debate--but that's not what this is. It could be a bit more professional.

It's almost 1:00 a.m., Peter. Go to bed, tomorrow is another day, my boy.
12/17/05 @ 3:08 am
insluted [Visitor] writes:
I bet you had a good laugh at your latest 'insult', Mr Porc. Clearly, you perceive yourself to be not only more intellegent, but more polite than those of us you so obviously denigrate.
Temerity is no badge of honor, Sir.
12/17/05 @ 8:40 am
Monponsett [Visitor] writes:
It's no problem, Cru...

We all had a difference of opinion, we had a little go-around, and we all got some shots in. I've seen far, far worse on AOL.

Until Jack shows up at my house and my husband has to kick him back down the driveway, the argument hasn't truly become Ugly.
12/17/05 @ 9:06 am
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
In response to Crusader and Monponsett - Merry Christmas!
12/17/05 @ 10:24 am
Nedster [Visitor] writes:
Upon reviewing this too too characteristic thread at Crusader's request, I'm seeing that it was Jack who cast the first t*rd into the punchbowl with the Prom remark. I mourn the demise of civil discourse.
12/17/05 @ 10:40 am
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Ah, a sensitive male has finally arrived. I was getting worried that the alleged bullies here would start talking sports or something similarly macho.
12/17/05 @ 11:41 am
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Merry Christmas to all... and to all, a good fight!
12/17/05 @ 12:42 pm
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
It's OK, Peter, I'm not too deeply offended. You could be right about the Pats, but their pitching is kinda weak in the backfield. Then again, they're awesome at the pick 'n roll.
Say, you still taking that way cool muscle car to poetry readings?
12/17/05 @ 9:42 pm
Secret Squirrel [Visitor] writes:
"It's very clear to me and the other squirrels in my attic that when one of us has a good acorn, you all gang up on us."

When more than one of us has our eye on the same acorn, it may very well seem like "ganging up" Crusader. Has it ever occured to you that the mad dog attacks you expose on these pages only apply to those who you would never share your acorns with?
12/18/05 @ 6:37 am
Pepe LePew [Visitor] writes:
Sacre bleu, for zee life of me, I don't understand why Americain men have such a deeficult time with zee ladies. Perhaps, mon amis, you should try what zee Frenchman do and all will be most hap-pee, c'est vous plais. We liberated our ladies from zee kitchen and now it is zee Frenchman who does zee cooking while zee Frenchwoman fights zee battles for us - and saves a little friskiness for zee boudoir, comprehendez vous? It is zee only way to go - Viva la France!
12/18/05 @ 8:30 pm
Monponsett [Member] writes:
I was born in Rouen, if it helps the theory along, Pepe....
12/19/05 @ 3:00 pm
Great Gadfly [Visitor] writes:
Pepe,
Your French is terrible, even for pseudo French...vous comprenez? Stick to English, si vous plait.

Drew,
Jay Cashman says hello; so do his brother Jamie and his mother. You should see the Cashman house in Dennis.
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Hudson Eldridge Insurance Agency, Inc.
Hudson Eldridge Insurance is a firm of proven professionals that is continuing a tradition started over 80 years ago... a tradition of knowing and serving the community and the people that live here. (Chatham)
Cape Cod Center for Whole Health
Whole health education, hands-on services, & mind-body techniques, to empower you while encouraging optimum health! Special classes in reiki healing, crystal healing, ear candling, hypnotism and more! (Mashpee)
IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR COMMENTORS & BLOGGERS: CapeCodToday now requires a one-time validation of your account email. When logging in or registering for the first time, you will be emailed a link to click that will validate your email and complete your login. The link in the email must be clicked in the same session when you are logged into the site for security purposes (i.e. retrieve the email right away and do not close your web browser).

This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.

Please Login or Register to leave a comment. There are 2,251 registered commenters!

CapeCodToday requires readers register an account with us in order to post comments. Become a trusted commenter and receive the benefits of posting instantly throughout the site. It's quick and easy!

Please note: If you are a CapeCodToday registered blogger, you can use your blogger login. Your login for the blogs is separate from your CapeCodToday main site login (if you have one).

Previous/Next posts in this blog

About This Blog

hat135Up-starts, up-smarts, other cranks & dilettantes adorn a media scene once renown for excellence, so this journal will attempt to point out the more obvious foibles and triumphs of the local press to our gentle readers and fellow Cape Codders. Contributors include Walter Brooks, Jack Coleman and Spyro Mitrokostas.

- site sponsors -