Who You Gonna Call?

As the President of the United States might put it, the Story of the Day was how Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) apologized for slapping the Capitol Police officer who detained her for attempting to enter a federal facility without passing through a metal detector or presenting identification as a member of Congress.

The incident occurred on March 29 when Ms. McKinney, a young black woman, refused to heed repeated requests that she stop after entering a Capitol facility without proper identification. She was physically detained by a young white male officer, who she proceeded to wallop and berate for impeding her progress into the building.

After initially claiming the officer had assaulted her, and refusing to accept her part in instigating the confrontation, Ms. McKinney did in fact today issue a formal apology to both the officer in the dispute and to the Capitol Police as an organization.

In other news, court filings in the trial of former aide to VicePresident “Deadeye” Dick Cheney, “Scooter” Libbey, revealed today that President George W. Bush authorized Mr. Libbey’s disclosure of classified material to the press in the course of making the administration’s case for initiating hostilities against Iraq.

Many will make this revelation out to mean the President told Mr. Libbey to blow CIA agent Valerie Plame’s cover in retaliation for her husband’s having called the President a liar in public.

This is a different thing. But it’s also the beginning of the unmasking, the unraveling, the undoing of the Bush administration’s inept execution of authority.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is, not unlike our embryonic bretheren in Iraq, we don’t have a readily identifiable leader or coalition of leaders to save us from the immediate, not to mention the long-term consequences of BushCo’s empty hat.


  1. Mike - April 7, 2006 @ 9:56 am

    Have you notice the spin has already begun, “The President or the Vice president have the authority to declassify any information at any time for any reason” was the line being floated yesterday by White House apologists. If so why did we have an investigation in the first place? Credibility continues to be stretched.

  2. bubbles - April 7, 2006 @ 10:38 am

    In our “freedom loving democracy”, “The President or the Vice President have the authority to (insert anything whatsoever) at any time for any reason”. This is what distinguishes us from authoritarian regimes and terrorists that “hate us for our democracy”. Understand?

  3. Lore Cailor - April 7, 2006 @ 12:57 pm

    As I see it “Big corporations” love Bush and as long as we have (and can you imagine an America without Big Businss?) Corporations etc. we will have Presidents like Bush. Not unless we wake up (and by this I mean the Bible Belt, et al who voted for Bush because he seemed like the better Christian) to what true Democracy really was meant to be. Even Dick Cheney is a Bush lover now. So what next and who else?

  4. Tam O’Tellico - April 7, 2006 @ 7:26 pm

    The claims of absolute authority proferred by Bush, his bagman Attorney General, and other administration lawyers are no more than a thinly-argued rehashing of the “divine right of kings”.

    They may not be arguing that the law is whatever the President says it is, but they are arguing that the king – I mean the President – has no obligation to follow the law any time he, and he alone, decides that it is not in the country’s best interest.

    To put it plainly, that’s a load of shit. This argument stands democracy on its head, and anyone who falls for it or tries to defend it deserves neither security or democracy.

    The plain truth is that the President deliberately exposed a covert CIA agent in order to besmirch her husband. Leaving aside the fact that the husband got the facts straight and this administration did not, this act would have been criminal even if the vice was versa.

    While it may be argued that Valerie Plame was in no imminent danger from due to this petty tyranny, her life was callously and needlessly torn apart. Imagine having to explain to your closest friends that everything you’ve been telling them for years was all a lie.

    But beyond the personal effects, this criminal act also ended the career of a deep cover CIA agent. As I understand it, the CIA has a pretty heavy investment in such people. Worse yet, some of her contacts in the field may well have been exposed to danger over her outing.

    The truth is this was simply a pissing contest between the administration and the old guard in the CIA who did not relish having to bend the facts or their opinions to the delusions of the President and his advisers. But there is simply no way to justify an act that was petulant at best, and very likely criminal, regardless of what the President and his flunkies try to argue about his unlimited powers.

    The only good thing to come out of all this is that the Plame Affair has exposed far more than a covert CIA agent. It has also exposed this President for the fraud he is. Some of us have know this for a long time, but now even some of his ardent supporters realize they have been had.

    Let us hope they remember that lesson come November.

  5. lonbud - April 7, 2006 @ 9:29 pm

    I’m not sure how many of the sheeple know they’ve been shorn.

    w was working his flim-flam act in North Carolina this week, where an audience member took the mic during Q & A time and dressed down the president over his failure to comply with laws governing the way we do domestic surveillance here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. he said to Mr. Bush, “you ought to be ashamed.”

    During the harrangue, the president was moved to plead, “let the man speak” as others tried to squelch his blasphemy, but in the end, dissent was booed and the president’s reaffimation of the open-ended, paradigm shifting (though he’s never actually expressed it in such a term) War On Terrorism was greeted with sustained applause.

    Little is likely to change, as Lore alluded to above, in the absence of significant reorganization of the priorities we set and major retooling of the mechanisms by which we pursue them.

    I think it’s imperative to understand the Democrats have little to offer the nation aside from a slower, kinder, gentler, capitulation to the inhuman demands of corporate, industrial capitalism.

    What’s needed at this moment is some very out of the box thinking on the order of Jesus, Christ, Siddartha Gautama, William Blake, Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and John Lennon.

  6. Tam O’Tellico - April 8, 2006 @ 9:47 pm


    As I’ve said here many times before, most Christians are nowhere near ready to follow Jesus teachings 2000 years later. In fact, I would argue that today’s Christians are less ready than were the members of Jewish mystical sects of Jesus’ day.

    In any case what you are asking for is a leap of faith that people in this country are far from ready for. In the meantime, I’d be happy for a little following of previous thinking outside the box by Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, etc.

  7. bubbles - April 9, 2006 @ 10:09 am

    Christ Among the Partisans (published in todays NYT)

    THERE is no such thing as a “Christian politics.” If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: “My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here” (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.

    This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, “Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him” (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.

    Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: “When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you” (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.

    But doesn’t Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. “Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me” (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.

    The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.

    To claim that the state’s burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.

    The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a “Christian politics” continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.

    Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord’s name in vain.
    Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan “What would Jesus do?”

    That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him “Satan.” He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.

    The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father’s judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs — accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.

    He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.

    It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.

    The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer. It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.

    Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: “Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah” (Matthew 23:8-10).

    If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O’Connor described as “the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus” and “a wild ragged figure” who flits “from tree to tree in the back” of the mind.

    He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil’s agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.

    The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.

    Garry Wills is professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of “What Jesus Meant.”

  8. Tam O’Tellico - April 9, 2006 @ 12:56 pm

    Interesting stuff indeed, Mr Bubbles, and I would only add that beyond advocating love in all its forms, Jesus’ message was to think oneself and not bow and be bound to earthly authority. How sad that the very people who claim to be most happy to surrender all to Jesus (except their money, of course) are the same people who are most happy to surrender their freedom to King George in return for a little more security.

    The point of my previous post is that this flock is so far from the faith that they should not even claim the name. Call them the Church of America First or the Church of Me First but do not call them Christians.

  9. JJJ - April 15, 2006 @ 10:47 am

    Who do you call.?..your lawyers…the laws are there and the checks and balances are also present. Now….find the way to the courts….but….who is waiting in line for the next presidency if this present leader is bounced????…and don´t forget…Cheney´s Got a Gun….and after the elections in the fall…YESSSSSSS….maybe?
    In the meantime, help….these big guys in DC want to get into Iran…ohhh..80,000 Iraquis have left their homes for camps in Iraq…10,000s of people DEAD.

  10. lonbud - April 15, 2006 @ 9:57 pm

    Well, you’re right about one thing, 3 Js, and that’s the dire nature of our predicament — help, indeed.

    And yes, who will lead us and the world out of the terrible morass BushCo have driven us into? John McCain? He’s already shown himself to be far more a craven politician than a forward-thinking maverick, and the race for the Republican nomination hasn’t even begun.

    Barack Obama? He was last seen stumping for Joe Lieberman, which is about as backward-thinking (or non-thinking) as a Democrat can get.

    Hillary? Please.

    As godawfully incompetent as w has been in the oval office, there is no one on the radar at present who has any kind of a vision for doing anything different nor any shred of hope for stitching together the vast chasm w’s policies have rended in the nation’s political fabric.

  11. Michael Herdegen - April 18, 2006 @ 11:23 pm

    Bush has created a “vast chasm” ???

    The nation has been 50/50 from way back in ’00, which means that the chasm far predates Bush’s emergence as a national figure.

  12. lonbud - April 18, 2006 @ 11:44 pm

    w’s policies have exacerbated the divide, reduced the willingness of the hatfields and mccoys to work their differences out over the fencepost, and fostered an air of contentiousness not seen in our civic discourse in my lifetime.

  13. Michael Herdegen - April 19, 2006 @ 6:21 am

    Then you must be far younger than I had thought.

    Consider: LBJ and Vietnam. Nixon. Carter/Reagan – I knew people who were convinced that Reagan was going to nuke the USSR. Clinton.

    I mean, c’mon. The norm since JFK has been contentiousness, with brief periods of relative calm.

  14. lonbud - April 19, 2006 @ 7:39 am

    I believe the scale and the depth of the contentiousness are more critical now than at any of the periods you mention.

    Never before has the country been so at a loss for a way out of the problems created by the failed policies of its leaders. w will leave his successor a far greater mess to clean up than LBJ left Nixon, and while Clinton was a lightning rod for the smallmindedness, intolerance, and venality of America’s conservative theocrats, his policies engendered prosperity and economic expansion previously reserved for the fortunate few.

    it’s telling that the present leadership seeks to restrict prosperity and economic opportunity to the narrow class that has always suckled at the teat of our vast resources, and that many of them are the same people who had people you know convinced Reagan was going to nuke the USSR.

  15. fdxav8or - April 20, 2006 @ 8:50 am

    Actually Cynthia McKinney is 51, not exactly a young woman. Definitely old enough to know you don’t hit a cop.

  16. paverwater - April 20, 2006 @ 9:39 am

    lonbud, you re right. w and his “…I’m a uniter…” tripe was empty talk. Good thing is that folks are obviously scraping their vehicle bumpers and rear windows. Or could it be that POTUS supporters are leaving their big ass vehicles parked and are now choosing alternate means of transportation? Nah, probably not.

    As we bring the ‘uniter’ claim to present day, it may hold truth. Could it be that fundamentalism and blind faith are giving way to reason? Funny thing (not so much for the White House though) that w’s words would circle back to haunt him as angry, partisan hordes gather together and gang up on him and many of his short-sighted policies. Those fools who cling to the idea that current policies are sound and just are the same sort who would march on a jail house – looking for a lynching – just so SOMEONE would pay for a crime.

    Six years ago, it seemed like maybe it would be fun to have an ex-drug snorting party boy take the reigns and ride our proud stallion nation for a while. Unfortunately, the ride has not been such fun. As the little polecat trots our now dirty little mule around the world corral, we receive the ridicule and scorn we deserve.

    Overall, the cretin we hardly elected has cheated us and the world. We can’t count on Congresswoman McKinney to vent against w the same way she did on the Capitol steps, but it’s damn satisfying to witness so many former supporters now condemning the way our king has ruled our country. Without the junk in the way of their rear window they can see more clearly now. History WILL remember this administration as one that dropped the ball. And MH…If you feel you must respond to this… Kiss my a##, because your arguments hold no water here.

  17. Tam O’Tellico - April 20, 2006 @ 12:58 pm

    The Untied State of America

    At the moment, many Americans are fit to be tied; they know they’ve been had, not once, but twice. As the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Many are being forced to ask themselves how they could have been so wrong for so long.

    One example is an old high-school classmate, a fanatical Bush supporter I tried my best to “educate” prior to the 2004 election – to no avail. The abortion issue was enough to decide for him, he said. I found that response incredible. Don’t you care about the other issues, I asked? Nope, abortion alone had given him a convenient excuse to suspend reality. Other Bush supporters hung their vote solely on Gun Control or Gay Marriage or any of the other single issue hooks the diabolically clever Karl Rove made the election about – God forbid the election should be a referendum on Bush’s record.

    The sad truth is that voters like my friend ignored the sorry state of the Iraq War, the shaky economy, the frequent and outrageous administration lies, the outing of Valerie Plame – the list of virtually endless failures and little or nothing on the plus side of the ledger. But none of this mattered to people determined to vote for the man on their side of the political divide. In the end, they voted for the known incompetence of George Bush rather than the possible incompetence of John Kerry.

    How could this be? Because elections are no longer about competence. Unfortunately, we have reached the point where political philosophy counts more than performance, where elocution counts more than execution – though in Bush’s case even miserable elocution doesn’t seem to matter. That is a consequence of an electorate that is more deeply and bitterly divided than at any time in the last half-century.

    That division has been a long time coming. It began with a desire of some to slow and even reverse the left-swinging pendulum of public policy. Certainly, Kennedy and Johnson and the Civil Rights movement created a great deal of resentment, particularly among those who would pay the price for equality – the blue-collar workers on the fringes of the American Dream. That includes, as I have previously confessed, my own Yellow Dog Democrat father, who once voted for George Wallace.

    No doubt the country was bitterly divided under Nixon, a divide that can still be plainly seen in the left-over principals like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who see this administration as their chance to finally set all that right. Unfortunately for all of us, they were wrong then – and they are even more wrong now. Rumsfeld is McNamara déjà vu.

    A brief respite was enjoyed during the reign of Ronald Reagan, who charmed votes across the political spectrum, even though his policies often worked against the needs of the very working folks who voted for him. Bill Clinton was the doppelganger Reagan, crossing party lines to secure his Presidency, but leaving the Rabid Right positively apoplectic in their hatred not so much for what he did, but for what he represented.

    But there should be no question that George W. Bush has exacerbated these divisions, exacerbated them to the point that what was once only an abrasion of the American psyche has now become a festered and infected wound, a wound we should all pray has not become fatal.

    So – is there no hope for American politics? My unequivocal answer is maybe.

    Why the equivocation? Because it’s always dangerous to generalize from the specific – especially when the specific is also personal. But if my high-school buddy is any indication, there is still a faint hope.

    During our brief get-together, I asked him what he thought of his boy now. His face contorted in actual physical pain – it’s never easy having to own up to your own foolishness. After a very pregnant pause, all he could manage to say was “The damned loser.”

    If there is any good to come out of the Presidency of George W. Bush, it is that Americans may unite against a common enemy – the President himself. If that happens, we may once again be drawn together – just as we were forced to do after Nixon. If that happens, ironically, George W. Bush will prove to be a uniter after all.

    American voters continue to hope for someone – anyone – they can unite behind – someone who can untie the Gordian Knot of political affiliation. I suppose you could call it the last best hope for the Untied State of America.

    ©2006 Tom Cordle

  18. Michael Herdegen - April 21, 2006 @ 3:44 am

    Unfortunately, we have reached the point where political philosophy counts more than performance…

    When exactly was that halcyon age where performance counted more than political philosophy ?

  19. Tam O’Tellico - April 21, 2006 @ 6:01 am

    Incumbents have been dumped throughout our history when they failed to live up to their promises – just ask jimmy Carter or Bush the First.

    Unfortunately, Bush’s second term came about as a consequence of voters being too scared shitless to notice how truly awful his first term was. Well, whether you have the guts to admit even to yourself the all too obvious failures of this pathetic loser , you should at least be able to acknowledge that millions of former Bush supporters no longer want to “stay the course”.

    But of course, you’re going to argue that everything is just wonderful.

    Wake up, Michael, all is lost; it’s game, set and match. All that’s left for Bush is the Gerald Ford Dilemma. The last days of this administration will be filled with so many Presidential pardons, it will make Clinton’s pardons look like small potatoes.

  20. Michael Herdegen - April 22, 2006 @ 8:32 pm

    Wake up, Michael, all is lost; it’s game, set and match.


    Or perhaps you’ll be eating major crow in the years to come.
    It’s certainly funny how you’re willing to call the game at the beginning of the third quarter.

  21. Tam O’Tellico - April 22, 2006 @ 8:50 pm

    The past is prologue – w has bankrupted almost every enterprise ever placed under his control. Now his pitiful misundermanagement is about to bring on the biggest bankruptcy in the history of the world.

    If you think any of this brings me joy, reread my last post. I’ll be gone when a lot of these chickens come home to roost, but my son will be left to pick-up the checks Bush and the K-Street Cronies have been kiting for the last six years.

  22. lonbud - April 23, 2006 @ 7:13 pm

    w’s game as President is certainly over. About the best he can do now is run out the clock, though he’ll need both houses of Congress to remain in Republican control to accomplish that. If either or both revert to the Democrats he’ll likely finish out his term defending himself in impeachment proceedings.

  23. Tam O’Tellico - April 23, 2006 @ 10:12 pm

    One virtue of impeachment is that he won’t be able to pardon all his cronies upon his triumphal crawl from office. But I still say – no impeachment unless it’s a two-fer. If Cheney becomes President I’d have to go quail hunting.

  24. Tam O’Tellico - April 24, 2006 @ 9:25 am

    Michael, since you introduced the sports metaphor, let’s take that Republican favorite red herring to its clichéd extreme. For starters, your timing is way off – just like Bush’s. For this administration, the third quarter is not beginning, it’s nearly over. The only score for the home team has been a long field goal in a scrimmage against the Taliban JV in Afghanistan.

    In the big game in Iraq, the team hasn’t been able to control the ball against a rag-tag team of misfits, lunatics and religious fanatics thrown together by Coach Osama “Big Ben” bin Laden. The star of the team is rookie quarterback sensation Al “The Assassin” Zarquawi. The only thing that seems to be uniting these traditional sworn enemies is our very presence on the field.

    Misunderestimation of the opponent by Coach Dick “Duck” Cheney, Paul “One-World” Wolfowitz and the rest of the Neoconservative coaching staff left the team unprepared for a tough game. Assistant coach Don “Rummy” Rumsfeld is known to have cut corners on equipment and back-up players. When challenged about this, he said “You go with what you got” conveniently ignoring the rest of that cliché “or you don’t go at all”.

    QB Georgie-Boy Bush hasn’t had much success trying to overcome a bad start. But instead of objecting when he had the chance, he followed a tired game plan thrown together by his coaches, the same game plan that failed former QB Tricky Dick Nixon.

    Interviews with six former all-pro offensive linemen suggest that continual sacks caused by poor planning have left Georgie-Boy dazed and confused and very likely suffering from a severe concussion and multiple mental deficits.

    The consensus in the press box is that while that may be true, most pundits feel the QB was in way over his head to begin with.

    Here’s a brief game summary:

    QB Bush drops ball on first possession after calling ill-advised consecutive time-outs

    Paul “Money” O’Neill ejected in opening minutes of the game

    Coach Osama uses Statue of Liberty play and double-reverse and scores four times in first quarter

    Team responds by scoring long field goal against Taliban JV team

    Coach Cheney accuses opponents of illegal tactics and hiding weapons

    Team penalized when enraged Coach Cheney runs onto field and clips Joe Wilson

    Someone on team slips secret playbook to press

    Team uses diversion to score against Saddam “Hitman” Hussein and his reserves

    QB Bush penalized for excessive celebration

    Team’s most experienced lineman Colin “Cool-It” Powell severely injured in game and leaves at half-time

    QB Bush starts second half with poorly-disguised reverse play that doesn’t fool young fans (who suspect a rise in ticket prices) or older fans (who think their season tickets will be canceled)

    QB Bush fumbles on hand-off on next play when blurry vision causes him to mistake water-girl Harriet Miers for fullback John “Ironhead” Bolton

    On next possession, QB Bush laterals to scatback Mike “Brownie” Brown who fails to keep his eye on the ball, Brown claims he was tripped by guard Michael “HomeBoy” Chertoff, fumble results in disastrous start to third quarter in full view of national TV audience and standing-room only crowd in Superdome

    On next possession, Coach sends in Dubai end-around play, and team nearly scores

    Bush tries QB sneak from the one, but is stuffed at the line

    Bush tries ill-advised ram play, but loses a ton of yardage

    Opponents call time-out, and score a safety on next play when QB steps out of bounds in his own end zone

    Team penalized on next possession for intercepting opponents side-line communications

    During a break in the action, QB admits on-camera that he and Coach revealed team secrets to reporters

    Now we’re in the waning moments of the third quarter, and things look real bad for the home team. With the team already way behind in the score, it looks like most of the fourth quarter will be played on defense. Fanatical fans still hope Dicky-Duck and Georgie-Boy can pull off a miracle, but the betting line in Vegas is a million to one – and there are no takers.

  25. lonbud - April 25, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

    Cue Dandy Don, y’all…

Leave a Reply