July 19, 2004

outside the box

The headlines read “Nader campaign could hurt Kerry in Minnesota”. Over the last few months, there have been numerous stories about how Nader is hurting Kerry’s bid for the Presidency in states that are hotly contested. I’ve read stories about Blue v. Red States and Blue v. Red states of mind, analysis of how Nader affects swing voters, and diatribes urging that a vote for Nader is a vote for 43’s reelection.
What seems to me to be missing is a discussion of issues.
An issue free election is nothing new for Americans. I think we have come to expect it, if not favor it. As I said in an earlier post, we have come to enjoy the sport of politics more than the object: sound policy. Oh, we get superficial policy discussions. The kind of discussions that usually start and end with a version of Vote For Me because I support Puppy Dogs. We will get plenty of platitudes and very little rationale.
And the truth is, the rationale has ceased to matter for the political class. They have mastered a language that suits their purposes by helping them avoid accountability for ever having a genuine thought or passion.
Substance is never more filtered out of our information superhighway than it is in media coverage of third party candidates. I do not remember the last time I saw a story that actually discussed any of the Third Party or independent candidates positions on the issues, though truthfully, I haven’t looked that hard. But then, that is part of the point-the information that is most readily available to the majority of Americans discusses politics, not issues.
The sad truth is that we would all be better off if we spent a little time listening to the other voices out there. I am not a Green by any stretch of the imagination, but they have some ideas worth hearing, as do the Libertarians, Reformers and Progressives (surely there is a party out there somewhere touting that tried and true label). We are in such a collective hurry to cast aside candidates that are perceived as not viable, that we throw the issues baby out with the political bathwater.
What we need desperately is a viable third voice in our national conversation.
Ross Perot’s candidacy illustrated that our present deadlock might be breakable. The problem with the Reform party was not its platform, but rather its Favorite Sons (Perot and Ventura). Still, Perot demonstrated that stars get attention in our culture. It is a sad comment in our society that star-power is a prerequisite, but if we are going to get a reform minded candidate, it will not come from the two major parties and the campaign finance situation dictates that such a candidate would need instant recognition to have any hope of success. What we need is a star with their mental faculties reasonably in tact and who actually cares where we are headed as a nation.
I have no particular person in mind when I make this suggestion, though I would like to give a short list for the purpose of creating discussion and stimulating thought. This list is not a list of people I am advocating, but rather some that might seem plausible in the general sense of being discussed as representative of a class of individuals. I have no idea as to whether any of these would in fact exhibit The Right Stuff.
1) Bill Gates
2) Roger Staubach
3) Ron Howard
4) Jane Pauley
5) Charles Barkley
6) Ellen DeGeneres
7) Dennis Miller
8) Dr. Phil (McGraw)
9) John McCain (as an independent)
So there is some names thrown out for your consideration. Any thoughts? Anybody you think should be on the list (this Curmudgeon excepted, of course).
What is clear above all else to me is that the choices we face in the voting booth are really not choices at all. Our votes seem to seldom rise above the level of a vote against a person or issue, or a choice of the lesser of evils. It is my prayer that there is some genuine American out there with the resources and desire to change our destiny before we are completely lost.
If you are out there, please hurry. Time is short.


Blogger Andrew Dunlap said...

You're right Tony. Kerry has simply not seized the moment. He is too senatorial and not presidential enough. I'm afraid that whatever I do at the booth, including abstaining. if I vote for Kerry, it will not affect the electoral college vote in Texas because Bush has it locked up. If I vote for Bush, it would mean nothing for the same reason and if I abstain it would result in the same outcome.

5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Phil? That one almost kept me from commenting... ALMOST. :) btw... if we were going to have a comedian (professional... we already have an amateur comedian acting as president), Jon Stewart would be the best choice by a mile. And not Jane Pauley... but maybe Jane's husband.

Let me agree with your overall premise and get that out of the way.

I agree that "lack of substantial debate" is one of the (if not the number one) threats to our democracy. It's obvious that many of our politicians earn a living by getting the population to have to pick sides as if everything was black and white choices, when in reality, life and our democracy should be resolved deep into the gray.

That said, a few observations:

1) You could get the prez of your choice, and you are still stuck with a the House and the Senate composed of polarized clubs. A president isn't going to change that. If the election of that prez led to folks getting punted out of the Senate also... then maybe you get to the change and sustantial dialogue you are looking for... maybe.

2) Some issues won't be resolved with MORE debate (abortion, gay marriage). Luckily, I think that is the exception, and not the norm.

3) I don't buy the argument both parties "are equal". One party is for "healthcare for everyone" nearest I can tell... the Dems. The argument that both parties have equal agendas on an issue like Healthcare doesn't hold up. Both corrupted and playing games rather than having honest debates ... maybe... both equal... not even close. Electing Bush this year being equal to electing Kerry... sure... if you buy that I have some land to sell you.

4) I actually like much of what Nader is preaching, and your wrong that nobody is allowing his message to get out. Several of the networks have him on and go through his ideas. The problems there, however, is the same problem as the prez debates... you just can't have a substantial debate in the sound bite world. It takes effort and an attention span of the audience.. which begs the question... is the problem the politicians or the apathetic attention span challenged population. I have my theories... and they don't all get resolved with the "jeeze, if we just had a great leader".

5) I will bet you any amount of money you want that Bush 43 or Kerry will be our next prez. That means that if it does matter to you which one wins... it should matter to you if you support a third party position and causes "the worse of two evils" to get elected. Principal is great... and I even agree with you on the point that our two party system is not near good enough to produce the democracy I hope for... BUT... this year it matters. The truth of the matter is Andrew is right... very few of our votes will matter this year... very few states are probably in play. I'm very sad to say my state (Oklahoma) will follow RIGHT down the line with Texas. I will still vote anyway... my conscience will be clear at least.

6) We have a very polarized society... can't even agree we all should have healthcare. How exactly is that Great Leader you hope for going to dent that problem.

I know I'm in the minority, but I think our democracy shortcomings can be blamed on "us" and our "collective social justice blindspots" much more than our corrupt politicians. We have the ability to elect who we want... i.e. we deserve exactly what we get because we are the ones that put them there.


6:45 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

I can see that a follow up post on leadership might be in order before long. The short answer is that I think our only hope is a special leader that through force of character diverts disaster. You don’t think that Congress has been a problem ever before? It may be worse now, but it has always been a problem. Waiting on Congress to act is futile.

On the equality of the parties let me say this: they certainly are not equal in the sense of the agendas that they purport to pursue. Where they are equal is in there willingness to abandon their “core values” at the slightest hint that an upcoming Congressional vote might cause them a difficult in the upcoming election. This truth is but one dimension of the larger point that these parties are about the accumulation of power-that is their true core value.

At times these parties do things that tend to support their stated agenda, but only as it serves the higher goal of accumulating power. This is why the GOP campaigns on fiscal conservatism and then once elected spend like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store. This is why the Donkeys campaign on civil liberties but “inexplicably” roll over on the Patriot Act. And note in both of these examples they go the other way with little or no debate. This is entirely consistent with my assertion that the substance does not matter.

Hey, I am happy for all of you who think you are doing the world a great good to vote for Kerry or Bush. I am glad it makes you feel better. I guess you would call me a bit of an existentialist in the realm of politics. Your ‘leap of faith’ no doubt gives you great comfort in times of political turmoil.

Hmmmm....political existentialism...that could be a blog topic that might be fun.

9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Your reply didn't even address what I consider the most important point I made... that I think our problems are mainly caused by "US" and not the "corrupt politicians". Actually, only half of "US" ... the half that still beleives public education and healthcare are commoditities... and you should get to buy better products depending on your income/wealth. That's the half that no leader can fix. Heck, one of our sainted leaders (Reagan) even promoted the idea of personal responsibility over any type of common sense common good safety net.

I guess that is political.


10:11 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

No, I sidestepped the issue of "the problem is US" and hinted I might write a Blog post on the topic of leadership. I think leadership can bring better character out of people-not magically, but by appealing to their better instincts. Real Leaders inspire noble action. This is why George Washington is such an essential character in our history-he made those around him better.

10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I guess I don't see the distinction in your blog "let's get a Prez that is willing to debate" and "let's get a better leader". As long as we are hoping for a "leader to influence US" and not a "leader to reflect a less polarized US"... I will assume we haven't arrived yet... and the chances of that great new leader or minimum. I mean, by some standards you would have to concede Bush is a great leader if that is a measure of convincing the public of something (i.e. Iraq war).

Maybe someone else will get your intent better and chime in.


10:38 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

My intent was to get people to talk about some of these individuals and whether they or someone like them have a chance to lead us to a better place.

You could make the case that most of those names I gave were laughable. But, prior to their respective elections, you would have made the same case about Reagan, Ventura, Steve Largent, Jack Kemp (OK, that one's a bit different), John Glenn, Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson, and the Terminator to name a few.

For instance, I don't necessarily think that Gates has the Right Stuff, but isn't it interesting to think about someone who has the funds to run a campaign without special interest money? You can laugh at Dr. Phil if you like, but I know a lot of people who think very highly of him and he would have instant recognition.

Of course, the lack of response indicates, in part, that most of my readership disagrees with my premise that something is horribly amiss and we need radical change. Also it indicates that which my Stats also confirm, this is one of my least read posts ever.

12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) Bill Gates
I think the shortest route to this potentiality is for Microsoft to acquire the Federal Government as a tax shelter, then just have Bill take over the D.C. campus.

2) Roger Staubach
This could definitely work, assuming he's down by 6 points as time runs short.

3) Ron Howard
"Hail to the Chief"... Opie... Nope, don't see it.

4) Jane Pauley
I'll bet she'd be up for it, since the hours are so much better. How many Datelines a week do we need?

5) Charles Barkley
I dig this one just for the possibilities for the eventual "Barkley Memorial".

6) Ellen DeGeneres
I think her viability might be hurt by her proclivity towards... well, you know... she's a... talk show host.

7) Dennis Miller
Funniest State of the Union addresses ever, bar none. We'd spend weeks just analyzing the obscure references.

8) Dr. Phil (McGraw)
Never trust a fat guy who writes weight-loss books.

9) John McCain (as an independent)
I like a lot of McCain's views, and it would be really satisfying to watch someone cruise in one of the party's slipstreams to prominence only to start a political revolution to usurp the stagnant power of the status quo... so what's he waiting for?

And just to make it an even 10, how about Tom Hanks?

-- Gene

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good post. Unfortunately the media spotlights what it thinks the people think they want. They provide us with stories on the money race and focus on hyperbole and conjecture as opposed to day-to-day issues that tax-paying families are facing. Really, does anyone care what Al Gore is saying at Western Smith University? Surely the Demos don't care, right? Several Demo candidates brought up the "money race" hype by the media during the Primaries and they were right. I don't think some of those candidates really got a fair shake; and I'm a Republican.

Some of them had some good ideas and I don't think we do listen to enough voices when it comes to issues like health care, SS, education, the trade deficit, so on. There are a lot of intelligent people with some great ideas; red, blue, green and others alike. It's the people that do it caustically with bitterness and hatred that ruin it for their respective group. As long as no strong Democrat censures Gore for his hyperbole, I'll continue to associate them as having the same sentiment with one less political testicle. Us on the right are culpable as well. We have some people saying and doing some extreme things and there's plenty of blame to share.

An "extreme" thing I don't agree with is the idea of us helping Nader get on the ballot of some states. It's a political move - "It's the smart move...The Godfather" but still. I think it's great that Nader is running in and it's not for the reason you may think. I think he will bring people off the couch (or down from trees) to vote since there are probably not too many people thinking "should I vote for Nader or Kerry". I may be wrong but I don't believe I'm the only one who thinks this. If Wesley Clarke would be running against President Bush then I could see how a Nader campaign would be detrimental to the "leftist" cause.

You wrote that we need "A viable third voice", yes I agree. The thing is I don't believe it will come into play in a presidential election for many, many, many years to come. I think the avenue for these third parties is Congress and the Senate (only 1 indep - VT, though). I think it's a little too much to ask for to have these voices heard during the battle for the White House. I think it's a testament to our democracy that Naders and Perots can show up on ballots but (here I go again) I tend to lean on the side of realism. I don't believe this will likely happen at the presidential level.

So, what's the answer? I think helping the campaigns of people in the community that represent good ideas and helping them "reach the next level" is the real answer. It's not the exciting answer because it takes so long but again, reality is you can vote your conscience but unless your candidate is named John or George, your vote will help you sleep better but it will only count...sheep.

Humble apologies for OTS commentary.


4:44 PM  
Blogger Bob O'Malley said...

Hey Tony,
Good topic. I will promote a candidate that Michael Moore, the pariah that he is to some, proposed a year ago or so: Oprah Winfrey. She has the name recognition, money, and is trusted by everyone. She's not tainted by the dregs of politics, and like her or not, most people feel she's genuine, and that she would act in the best interests of the country and its people, not any party agenda or special interests group. I think she'd do a good job of inspiring Joe and Jane American to care about the important issues, make them aware of the options, and enlisting Congress to to take action and stop their ridiculous pork barrell politics.


7:48 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

JG: You said- You wrote that we need "A viable third voice", yes I agree. The thing is I don't believe it will come into play in a presidential election for many, many, many years to come.

But that is part of my point-we don’t have years and years. Things are going down the tube too quickly. That is what makes my head spin about people who try to be “practical”. Practical has turned into a road to Hell. We need something Big and we need it now.

Bob O: Welcome aboard. I didn’t know you checked the ole blog. Oprah is a great creative idea. She definitely is the type of person that could actually affect change. I don’t know much about her myself, but my first take is that she is intelligent and thoughtful. We could do far worse I would imagine.

Note to all: Off topic material is always welcome here. Nobody need complain or apologize.

9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I knew after the Dr. Phil comment it was just a matter of time before "Oprah" was mentioned. I have started to feel pretty desperate about things also, but you guys must be smoking something. What color is the sky in your worlds? If we are going to pick someone with zero experience to run the most powerful nation on the globe... couldn't you guys at least imagine someone with serious intellect... mabye a nobel scientist or something... Oprah, Dr. Phil... you guys are going to make me pee on myself if you keep it up.

Common Good (used to go by Dorf)

11:18 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

I think experience is over rated. Exactly what experience qualifies you to be President? It isn’t a bad question-I’m just not sure there is an easy answer. When I think about this the obvious example that comes to mind is Reagan. Now you can argue that some of his difficulties in his second term probably were related to lack of experience, but in a broad sense, our country didn’t suffer because he didn’t win a Nobel Prize. Brains doesn’t get it done in a vacuum anyway: Carter was proof positive of that.

Leaders surround themselves with people that can get the job done. Again, my purpose here isn’t to say that I think Oprah is the best choice. In fact, probably the best person we could get is someone you never heard of. But, as I said in my Blog post, if there is to be any hope for America’s future, we need a Star to rise up and lead. I really don’t know who it is, but it certainly isn’t the crop of candidates that will be on the ballot in November. Certainly Oprah wouldn’t be any more destructive than who we will elect.

11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"I think experience is over rated."

I don't. Let me put that in context. I agree with the importance of the surrounding team, but the role of a US president is a unique one. Monumental decisions that effect our nation and the world stop at the president's desk. Consider Iraq... reguardless of what input 43 recieved, one man made the decision in the end. Now I'm suppose to believe from the premise of your blog that what really matters in a president is "a really good person being able to make such decisions out of their... goodness". Let's consider Oprah and Kerry were both presented with the Iraq decision... go or no go. Let's see... Oprah falls back on her book club and Kerry falls back on years on the foreign intelligence committee and ... oh yeah... actually serving in a war. Now I'm also suppose to believe that because "Kerry is corrupted by the system" the decision he makes about "go - no go" on the Iraq war can't possibly be a good one because he is corrupted. It just doesn't hold water in this example. You may have more of a point if we restrict your point down to "social issues and social justice"... but even their a very high level of aptitude is required when making proper judgements about a very complex subject (the economy). One may actually make the case these days that the best president for social justice would be a world class economist... i.e. make moral decisions about social justice but don't bankrupt the country in the process.

We are a nation of 280,000,000 people... plus or minus. :) It's a very complex world. Why in the heck would we want to settle for "just a good person" for president. In fact, I would argue we should be striving for the top of the gene pool. Cuomo said it pretty good the other day. If you are running for president... and you don't feel in your heart you are the best choice available.. you should bow out. (Yeah I know... I'm not holding my breath either). But my point is... in order to think that you are the "best choice for the nation at this time"... out of 280 million people... how could you come to that conclusion by just measuring your "heart". Experience is everything... it provides the foundation for "nation changing" and "world changing" decisions that will be left up to you alone. What arrogance it must require to decide "that is you".

Finally, I disagree with your premise that both parties are equal and broke. The Dems platform is basically exactly what I believe. So I start there... I believe in the Dem platform... I only need a third choice if one of the two choices isn't serving what I believe. So... I have the platform I want (Dems)... all I have to do is vote those folks in and hold them accountable to that platform. For example... I believe in 100% healthcare coverage ... i.e. no one left out. So let's use Hillary as an example... someone you and I both don't like. She made an attempt to persue a healthcare policy that I was for (assume that... I wasn't paying much attention then). It failed... but was that because she was corrupt or not true to the platform.. or she just couldn't beat back the GOP knuckledraggers and the corporate interest lined up to stop her. If I come to the conclusion she fought the honest good fight on something I believed in... her personality isn't my biggest concern. Don't get me wrong... in a perfect world all politicians would be angels... but in this world I will let you concentrate on the "quality of the folks" and I will watch for results. Returning to your Reagan example... probably a great guy but moved the entire country to the right, which went directly against my belief system. Am I to believe I should try and elect more Reagan's because he was real, sincere, and dead wrong about social policy. I guess the best I should shoot for is real, sincere, and correct about major social policy issues.... which leaves us still polarized (i.e. no great person with wrong policies is going to be good for me). You call that politics... I call it common sense.

In the past I was influenced heavily when voting for a president by "who I liked"... or "who I would rather have a beer with". Bush was a no brainer at the time... who the heck wanted to have a beer with Gore. Man did I learn a painful lesson... I can drink homebrew with you... I need a serious smart dude in the White House, and I no longer care if he's an asshole. I would take an asshole in the White House with that $220 Iraq dollars back in the government funds in a heartbeat. Didn't 43 know "it's the people's money"? I though so... that's what he keeps telling me.

Moral of the story... if you are going to have an asshole in the White House, make sure it is an asshole with a high IQ.

Welcome back... and all JMO :)

Common Good

1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Practical has turned into a road to hell." This suggests a bit of an extremist view of our present situation dontcha think? I believe you doth protest too much, sir. This is one of the fundamental differences between our views in that your words depict a need for revolution and while that might work for a small super-intellectual facet of our society, Americans as a whole would not be served well by that. Let's modify our campaign finance laws. Let's set limits on public-to-private sector transitions for elected officials. Let's increase our financial auditing of government officials. We can bring about change without completely abolishing the tax code, dismantling the Dept. of Education and other "BIG" [things].

Let's ask ourselves a few questions that indicate how we've tried to change the system.
1. How many times have we written to our congress-people/senators?
2. How many campaigns have we been a part of?
3. How many city council/town hall meetings have we been to?
4. How many of us know where our congress-people/senators stand in relation to the issues?
5. How many of us vote in all elections and run-offs?

It's really easy to type our dissatisfaction of our political system and yet do nothing about it.

Expecting some third-party candidate to swoop in, get miraculously elected AND push ANY piece of meaningful legislation through the congress and senate is maybe not that reasonable. Something that is more reasonable is having third party candidates rise from among various states into governorships, congress and the senate to provide an environment for a national third party candidate to push some real reform through the system. Otherwise, it's like introducing someone to the game of football whose never seen it by making them quarterback an NFL team. Sure the analogy loses its legs but the point is, you won't get real change out of one 3rd party president. You'll only get four very frustrating years.

I just think the idea of having a president be representative of all people in a republic is not that practical. There's that word again. It sounds weird reading that back to myself but it's true. What were Republicans like when Clinton was in office...and the economy was really good for a lot of us. Democrats are just as pissed with President Bush at the head as Republicans were just a few years ago. Independents, unfortunately, have been upset for quite a bit longer. At minimum, when you're guy doesn't win, you'd want to at least know that there was a love for his country as part of his decision-making process and that there was little doubt he wanted to do good by the citizens of this nation. I don't mean that in such a defeatist tone but if Al Gore would have won, it's the only thought that would have helped ME weather his term.

Having said all that, the best person for the position would likely never run for it. That's what would, in part, make them the best person for it.


2:00 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG: It is wonderful that the Democratic Party is making such a happy home for you. I only wish it seemed so simple to me. Striving for the top of the gene pool sounds really good to me. Lets see how you like the list of what we get: “Richard Nixon, George McGovern, George Wallace, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, John Anderson, Walter Mondale, Bush the Elder, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Bush the Younger, Ralph Nader, Al Gore. Seems like the way it works now certainly produces the best and the brightest. Oh Brother.

JG: No, I don’t think the notion that America is going to hell is extremist at all. If it is, then I am an extremist. As I look around, I see very little hope for our country. We are falling apart at the seams, and nobody seems to notice, much less care.

I once was politically fairly active as averages go. Never worked directly on a campaign, but I did support some causes. I have written letters like you would not believe and no doubt my voice was heard in the sense of the politician sticking their fingers up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

All the fixes you name are nice, but it does not help that we are captives of a corrupt political system. You list five specific good things we can do but every one of them is something the politicians have talked about for my entire adult life. Maybe it is a mid-life crisis thing or something, but after a while, all the talk wears you out and you just get sick of it. At some point deeds must be done and so far nothing has happened on the big stuff. We sink further into the abyss and people go on voting for the big two parties because they think that they speak for them.

They don’t.

You said, “Expecting some third-party candidate to swoop in, get miraculously elected AND push ANY piece of meaningful legislation through the congress and senate is maybe not that reasonable.” Maybe not. But neither is a corollary statement to the effect that someone from the two major parties is going to get meaningful reform accomplished. I have never once said, I hope, that I think a radical candidate was the most likely thing to happen, only that it is our only hope. And the more I discuss the subject with people, the more I realize what an unreasonable hope that is.

I didn’t call this blog Disenfranchised Curmudgeon on accident.

3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I was thinking about it, and I need to apologize. When one sees a friend going off the deep end, they should respond with "compassion" and sometimes "humoring". Gene acted as a better friend when he humored your obvious mental meltdown on this blog. That bothers me because I have been a friend of yours much longer than Gene. So I apologize, and in the interest of being there for you in your time of crisis, I am humoring you by imagining Dr. Phil as president. One thing that comes to mind, given his skillset, would be an open invitation to the Terrorist for self-help and introspection. He probably would try and reach them through is TV show, and Oprah (because afterall he would still have books to sell even as prez)... but for sure he would write the Terrorists a letter. The following Dr. Phil letter is offered in the hope that by humoring you, you will soon return to sound mental health.

To: Terrorists and aspiring Terrorists

When you look in the mirror, who is truly hiding beneath that face?

The rest of the world sees angry, hate-filled young men, but I see "selfs".... in fact I see "Selfs that matter". In fact, I wrote a book titled "Self Matters"... and you can pick it up here: Self Matters and don't forget to pick up the companion product Self Matters Companion.

Mr. Terrorist you need to Get Real, Get Smart, and Get Going. What you need to do is develop some Life Strategies. You will soon either get it or you won't get it. You need to become a terrorist that get's it... i.e. get that you are a murdering terrorist. You need to create your own experience which involves Acknowledging and accepting accountability for your life, and murdering ways. Life rewards action.... Make careful decisions and then pull the trigger... no not an automatic weapon trigger you moron... it's a metaphor. We teach people how to treat us.... A terrorist must Own, rather than complain about, how people treat them. Actually, now that I think about it... not much complaining with you guys... we pretty much learn about you when something blows up. Hey, even Dr. Phil isn't perfect. People do what works... Identify the payoffs that drive your behavior and that of others. I guess in your case that often means identifying targets and countries... Dr. Phil doesn't want to go there... would be bad for my image. Anyway... to sum it up you guys are seriously flawed.. and need to Get Real, Get Serious, and Get Going. No better way to get started than buy my products.... did I mention I also have CDs? By the way, do any of you jihadist types have any weight issues?

President Dr. Phil.... making the world a safer and skinnier place.

Common Good

5:48 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...


Glad that Dr. Phil amused you so. That was funny.

But more seriously, I don't personally know the guy, but the point of including him was as I stated-he has the money and name recognition to give it a go. I purposely included names that were mostly food for thought. I suspect that if you knew more about Dr. Phil, he probably is a bright guy. I don't know if he is a leader...odds are against it I admit. But what about the names I didn't name.

I suppose that it doesn't shock me that only a couple of new names came up (Oprah, Tom Hanks)...which is the whole point of what I was trying to accomplish. Trying to think creatively on a critically important topic. There were a lot more likely names than what I listed. I sort of knew that.

I think Hanks is an interesting idea. I wonder if he reads my Blog. :-D

But by all means, go vote for Kerry...he has a great shot of winning. And a zero shot of changing anything in a substantial way.

5:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home