Like several others (including Michael), I liked the idea of Kinky Friedman running for governor of Texas. Given Perry's abysmal record, Strayhorn's insanity, and - frankly - Chris Bell's lack of presence, the idea of an outsider like Friedman bringing something new to the race appealed to me.
In much the same way playing the same song 20 times in a row on a bar's jukebox appeals to me, I guess.
Then again, a lot of people bought into Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose situations weren't necessarily parallel to Friedman's. Even so, they demonstrated the apparent feasibility of such a campaign.
Far from "bringing something new" to the gubernatorial contest, however, Friedman has yet to bring anything aside from increasingly tired one-liners and increasingly idiotic opinions, such as:
"I am going to see nondenominational prayer and the Ten Commandments put back in the schools," he told the Kilgore News Herald several weeks ago.
"If you don't love Jesus, go to hell," he added.
Well fuck you, too. And then there's this:
He told conservative TV commentator Bill O'Reilly last year that he would "seal the border" against illegal immigrants by bringing in the "National Guard, the Texas Rangers, the entire Polish Army, whatever it takes."
"Good fences make good neighbors," he added.
More recently, as quoted in the Dallas Morning News, Friedman said, "My immigration policy is 'Remember the Alamo.'"
Tongue in cheek (as he likes to claim) or not, the fact that Friedman is spewing this kind of bilge is - at best - disappointing. At worst, it's an alarming indicator that the dude has no intention of taking the job seriously, even if he's elected.
Joke's over, Kinky. If you aren't prepared to give no-bullshit answers to questions about immigration and articulate a position that consists of something more insightful than "not eating burritos in the barrio," then step aside for someone serious about doing the job right. Texas is in sorry enough shape after six years under an incompetent governor. The last thing we need at this point is a clown.
EDIT: Link corrected. For some reason, it's no longer up on the Chron website.
Having lived through The Body Ventura's abysmal time as governor in Minnesota, I have to say that some of these guys have a lot of charisma but that doesn't make them worth a sh*t in office. The election that placed Ventura was the most electrifying, come-from behind victory I have ever witnessed in a big race. Unfortunately, all of his good ideas must have been used up getting elected. He spent most of the time in office being petulant at the ever-present media, trying to get his wife a paying position as first lady (governor, what-ever), and pimping himself out to the XFL, Pro-wrestling, and for new book deals (which he wanted the taxpayers to pay for his security during his signing tours).
Good luck with the election down there, but from what I heard, change with Kinky may be a double-edged sword.
Also, he just committed to not veto-ing a trigger bill if it is voted in to make all abortion illegal in Texas. He was being interviewed on Dan Patrick's show, and Dan asked him. When Kinky said he would not veto it, Dan explained to him again what a trigger bill is to clarify and asked him again. Kinky said three times that he would support it.
Wow. I haven't been paying attention, I guess. At first I figured he was just a joke, but even then I was fearful that Kinky would take votes away from Bell, and thus ensure a victory for Perry. Now I guess I have to be worried about not only that scenario, but also the outside possibility that he might actually win. I guess now we have an answer for the supposedly rhetorical question, "Why the hell not?".
I'd take some sort of grotesque monster comprised of Strayhorn's, Bell's, and Friedman's body parts over that abomination in the Governor's Mansion right now.
My condolences to you Texans. Just read that Ann Richards died. I've never lived in Texas, never was there when she was governor (too little anyway), but whenever I saw her on TV being interviewed about something, she always struck me as bright, charismatic, and always upfront. She also exhibited this as narrator of a documentary I saw a few years ago, "Barbecue: A Texas Love Story." Quite a rare lady.
Now, I'm not saying Pete is a liar, but I should point out 2 things:
1. The link he gives for the 'idiotic opinions' goes to a page that says "No such article." on the Chronicle site. I'm inclined to think Pete got the link wrong (at least it didn't try to go to Yahoo email this time..). I'd like to see what the page he meant to link to says, so I hope he can fix it.
2. Going to Kinky's website actually sheds some light on some of his political stances: www.kinkyfriedman.com
On immigration: http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/2006/09/friedman_addresses_immigration.html
His plans for illegal immigration include increasing the number of Texas National Guard troops on the border (from the current 1,500 to 10,000), imposing $25,000 and $50,000 fines on companies that hire illegal immigrants and requiring foreign nationals seeking employment to purchase a foreign taxpayer ID card once they have passed a criminal background check.
“Texas can no longer wait for our federal government to solve our illegal immigration problem,” Friedman said. “These are steps that Texas can immediately take to help stem the tide of illegal immigrants penetrating our border.”
Oh, and after some digging, I found the Kilgore News Herald article mentioned. Here is the actual quote:
“I am going to see non-denominational prayer and the Ten Commandments put back in the schools.”
Friedman said the Ten Commandments might have to be called the ten rules or something similar but they need to be back in the schools. “They say this is part of my wussification campaign but, as my spiritual advisor Billy Jo Schafer says, “If you don’t love Jesus, go to hell.”
Again, his idea is one I doubt any of us would agree with, but the "If you don't love Jesus, go to hell" quote changes in the original context.
I guess my real point of this post is, he HAS given some no-bullshit answers, it's just not as fun for the press to report on as his clever and highly entertaining one-liners.
MikeD: Why do you think it changes it to indicate that he's quoting someone else. It not like he says "Some dirtbag said 'If you don't love Jesus, go to hell', but I don't agree with that."
MikeD: Why do you think it changes it to indicate that he’s quoting someone else. It not like he says “Some dirtbag said ‘If you don’t love Jesus, go to hell’, but I don’t agree with that.”No, he doesn't disagree with it, but it certainly lessens the impact of the statement when he attributes it to someone else. The whole comment becomes more anecdotal.
Oh, I see, it's like you guys are playing that telephone game from kindergarten, except the person who was second in line got it wrong already (Clay, who apparently wrote the article that isn't at chron.com anymore). Not that any of you bothered to check kinkyfriedman.com to begin with for the no-bullshit answers mentioned above.
Increasingly tired one-liners and idiotic opinions indeed.
Now, I’m not saying Pete is a liar
How sweet of you.
1. The link he gives for the ‘idiotic opinions’ goes to a page that says “No such article.” on the Chronicle site. I’m inclined to think Pete got the link wrong (at least it didn’t try to go to Yahoo email this time..). I’d like to see what the page he meant to link to says, so I hope he can fix it.
I have no idea why it isn't archived on the Chron website, but here's a link to the full text.
Again, his idea is one I doubt any of us would agree with, but the “If you don’t love Jesus, go to hell” quote changes in the original context.
I think you're reaching here. As Michael said, quoting his "spiritual advisor" from a comment to supporting his Ten Commandments position changes nothing about the intent. Was Robison sloppy in not pointing this out? Yes. Does it change Kinky's apparent position. Not a bit.
Oh, I see, it’s like you guys are playing that telephone game from kindergarten, except the person who was second in line got it wrong already (Clay, who apparently wrote the article that isn’t at chron.com anymore). Not that any of you bothered to check kinkyfriedman.com to begin with for the no-bullshit answers mentioned above.
The issues listed on his FAQ page are the same they've been since he announced his campaign, because they were crafted with the help of his PR guys. The guy has a fine turn of phrase, but continues to dance around how the hell he actually intends to accomplish his agenda (when he admits to having a plan, which doesn't appear to be the case with border security). He's not going to work with the Legislature? Plans on appointing Willie Nelson to his cabinet? Is he serious? Does he even know?
I said I was a supporter once, but until he convinces me this whole thing isn't an elaborate joke, I'm afraid he's lost me.
I think you’re reaching here. As Michael said, quoting his “spiritual advisor” from a comment to supporting his Ten Commandments position changes nothing about the intent. Was Robison sloppy in not pointing this out? Yes. Does it change Kinky’s apparent position. Not a bit.
What about the fact that he's jewish? Does that change the context at all? And frankly I think the misquote (and it is a misquote) changes the tone considerably. "spiritual advisor"? He could just as easily be ridiculing 'Billy Jo Shafer'. Have any of you considered that maybe the article was retracted because of Robinson's sloppiness?
And thank you for the link to the text.
Some thoughts on various poll-related items from this week... 1. By now you've probably heard about the two recent polls (Zogby Online and Rasmussen) that show Governor Perry with very low levels of support - 33% in the Rasmussen poll,......
| --Posted to Kuff's World on Sep 14, 2006 11:11 AM:. |
What about the fact that he’s jewish? Does that change the context at all?
Yeah, he's Jewish like I'm Zoroastrian. Frankly, I suspect he doesn't give much of a shit either way, but if that's the case he should - y'know - say it.
What about the fact that he’s jewish? Does that change the context at all?
Given that I knew that beforehand and that the meaning of the words "you can go to hell" are reasonably plain, no it doesn't. If you said "What about the fact that he's Norwegian and he was talking about Hell, Norway?", then that would be a case of changing the context.
Tell you what. I believe the words mean what they say they mean, and you don't. That's fine. Why don't you contact his campaign and see what they have to say about it and report back?
Look, it's not like I'm a big Kinky apologist or anything, there are tons of holes in his campaign stance (as there are on all of the candidates, actually.) The fact of the matter is, at least 2 of you regurgitated a blog post that quoted an article that misquoted the original article without even checking to see if the links worked. I, personally think, that while the intent of the statement is changed very little, the weight of the statement comes off very differently, in my opinion.
Yes, maybe I'm hoping a little too hard that we can actually get someone who doesn't adhere to a 2 party system that I agree with on a lot of things has a chance at winning a political race. I am sick of the good-cop/bad-cop antics of the Dems and the GOP and crave something different. Friedman, for all of his flaws, appeals to me.
The fact of the matter is, at least 2 of you regurgitated a blog post that quoted an article that misquoted the original article without even checking to see if the links worked.
Jesus christ. The link worked when I hit the 'Publish' button, as it did on Michael's blog (and on Chuck's blog, where I first saw it). It was up for several days, in fact. I have no idea why it was taken down, but it's fixed in the main entry now, for what it's worth.
Friedman appealed to me, too, at first. I'm more frustrated with the fact that he doesn't seem to take the dissatisfaction many of us feel with the current situation seriously. And if that's the case, why should I take him seriously?
MikeD, when I wrote about this on my blog, I went to the Kilgore paper's site and read it and used the same formulation as Clay, because it's not a misquote and there's no context. "As my sainted Aunt Gertrude used to say 'A difference that is no different is no difference'" All the attribution does is add emphasis by adding an authority.
I want what you want, but I'm pretty convinced that we won't get it from Kinky.
Oh, And saying that a link that is currently dead means no one saw it at that link or that we're liars is an interesting take. You must have spent some time on some other internet than the one I'm used to.
Oh, And saying that a link that is currently dead means no one saw it at that link or that we’re liars is an interesting take.
Except I never said that.
Oh, And saying that a link that is currently dead means no one saw it at that link or that we’re liars is an interesting take.Except I never said that.
My apologies. You claimed that, "The fact of the matter is, at least 2 of you regurgitated a blog post that quoted an article that misquoted the original article without even checking to see if the links worked." You also decided to start by saying "Now, I’m not saying Pete is a liar..." The vast difference between my summary and your statements is um, probably clear to at least you.
I suppose I could be more charitable and assume you're just tone-deaf on the internet and didn't intend to be hostile, but a simple "hey, btw, that link is broken, can you fix it?" might have been more like honey than vinegar. And your "fact of the matter" is wrong. Pete says he tried the link. I know I did, and searched out the KNH article. I'd bet a dollar that Chuck did, too. Link goes dead on the internet, film at 11!
When I said "Now I'm not saying Pete is a liar", I meant exactly that. I didn't want anyone to think wrongly that I thought Pete was lying, especially in light of the fact that the quote I found was different. It wasn't a veiled attempt at a dig. In fact, I go on to say "I’m inclined to think Pete got the link wrong (at least it didn’t try to go to Yahoo email this time..). I’d like to see what the page he meant to link to says, so I hope he can fix it." In fact, later I thanked him for providing the link to the text.
When I couldn't find the article quoted, and after looking on the other blogs to see if I could find the correct link without luck, it really seemed to me like a domino effect of referencing one erroneous original blog post. Now, I will happily admit and apologize for when I make a wrong assumption, but it would be ridiculous to think that based on my statements that I considered you all liars and that the article was made up or that no one saw it.
And as far as honey over vinegar: "hey, btw, that link is broken, can you fix it?" and "I’d like to see what the page he meant to link to says, so I hope he can fix it." Where's the vinegar?
let's say that I took offense to the assumption of intellectual laziness and that you've said you made the wrong assumption and stop worrying about that point.
So, back to your original comment. If I may summarize, the three points:
1: A communications misunderstanding leading to bad assumptions and offense, now resolved.
2: Your suggestion that the parts of the quote removed for brevity change the meaning in some way, disputed by me and others.
3: Your suggestion that Kinky has substance and will provide a third way, disputed by me and others.
Does that sum it up?
Yup. I feel I've stated my case on points 2 and 3 and am at the point where I say we just agree to disagree and call it a day.
You echoed my thoughts on all four candidates exactly. I really want to root for Kinky, but I want some substance already. Trying to be funny only gets you so far.
Speaking of unsubstantive posturing, take W's address earlier in the week. It had all the meat of the Kinkster's one-liners, but without the wit.