Post-Debate Wrap-Up

What are your thoughts?

Did someone win?  Did someone come in second?  Did someone break out of a holding pattern?

•  Gravel won

  hands down

  by mhinds01 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:50:34 PM PDT

  •  He was the only one who spoke the truth nt

    by mhinds01 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:51:37 PM PDT

    •  He was highly entertaining, and

      when he was right, he was right, no minced words.  I hope he sticks around for a while, not because I think he has a hope in hell of being nominated, or should, but because he does shake things up a bit.

      by Petronella on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:52:57 PM PDT

      •  exactly

        Honestly, Gravel strikes me as being a bit kooky. But keeping him around is a good thing, because it makes the other candidates look more reasonable by comparison.

        by pine on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:59:53 PM PDT

        •  Good Campaign Slogan for Gravel

          "Kookier than Kucinich"

          Hey, I like them both though. But they are probably the only two candidates that could lose to Newt Gingrich in a national election.

          by easong on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:15:26 PM PDT

          •  Gravel...

            is a nut.

            by ajbender on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:21:50 PM PDT

            •  but in a good way (n/t)

              by betsyross on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:23:47 PM PDT

              •  american hero

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                Vietnam War and foreign policy

                In 1971, Gravel played a key role in the release of the Pentagon Papers — a large collection of secret government documents pertaining to the Vietnam War — which were made public by former Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg. Gravel inserted 4,100 pages of the Papers into the Congressional Record of his Senate Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds. These pages were later issued by the Beacon Press as the "Senator Gravel Edition" — the most complete edition of the Pentagon Papers to be published. The "Gravel Edition" was edited and annotated by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, and included an additional volume of analytical articles on the origins and progress of the war, also edited by Chomsky and Zinn.

                Also in 1971, Gravel embarked on a one-man filibuster against legislation renewing the military draft. Using various parliamentary maneuvers, Gravel was able to block the bill for five months before President Richard Nixon and Senate Republicans agreed to allow the draft to expire in 1973.

                Six months before US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's secret mission to the People's Republic of China in July 1971, Gravel introduced legislation to recognize and normalize relations with the PRC.

                by carlos oaxaca on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 11:40:12 PM PDT

            •  I'll say this for him.

              he's got grit.

              by JLongs on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:31:51 PM PDT

            •  Gravel's no nut.

              But after 80 or so years of watching everyone ELSE behave like nuts, it's clearly wearing on him.

              I like the guy.  I agreed with literally everything he said.

              by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:47:37 PM PDT

              •  He got up there and spoke his mind,

                no holds barred.  I think we'd all sound like nuts if we did that.

                And none of us would be the party's nominee (but we'd have fun, which I think is what he's doing).

                by Petronella on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:16:55 PM PDT

                •  exactly

                  EVERY race has its Mike Gravel. We Clinton ran in 92, it was Larry Agran, who crashed the debates in NH. For the GOP it was Alan Keyes a couple of times and one time it was Mory Taylor. We had Kucinich last time out. There's always someone who can say whatever they like because they and everyone else knows they won't win and losing won't hurt them. For examle,  you'll never see Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Guiliani or McCain behave like that in a debate. The reason is they all stand to lose lots by a bombed campaign.

                  by Pozzo on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:31:08 AM PDT

            •  Gravel won this thread...

              Or at least a race to the top...

              I like comparing the april straw poll to the "who won the debate" poll.

              I should note that some people who may be inclined to support certain candates may have been less inclined to watch the debate, and who won the debate does not predict who you vote for, so take this with a grain of salt.  (I think a straw poll tomorrow would be interesting though.)  Here is the straw/post breakdown.

              Biden: 0%/3%
              Clinton: 3%/11%
              Dodd: 0%/2%
              Edwards: 42%/20%
              Gravel: 0%/9%
              Kucinich: 2%/4%
              Obama: 25%/17%
              Richardson: 13%/6%
              More than one: NA/12%
              None: NA/11%
              More+None: NA/23%
              Other: 5%/NA
              No Clue: 5%/NA
              Other+No Clue: 10%/NA

              Potential gainers: Clinton, Gravel, None of the Above (Maybe Gore, Clark, Fred Thompson (j/k))
              Potential losers: Obama, Richardson

              by Pragmatic Left on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:11:36 PM PDT

              •  I think it more reflects the format ...

                ... I think that Edwards at several times connected with some of the people he needs to connect with. Hillary deliberately showed that she's got balls in a Commander in Chief sense, jumping in the pilot's seat to go bomb that Al-Qaeda (I'm sure that focused-grouped well), with Richardson in the co-pilot seat. Obama's strongest answer was on putting the Stars and Bars in a museum where it belongs.

                I don't think anyone won, as such.

                I think Richardson did not come across well, so I would concur with him as a potential loser, but not based on those numbers.

                by BruceMcF on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:08:29 PM PDT

          •  Gravel / Kucinich '08! :) [nt]

            by pb on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:30:06 PM PDT

            •  Their job

              is to move the Overton Window.

              by Heart of the Rockies on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:41:04 PM PDT

              •  Kucinich can try to move it...

                But Gravel was just pounding the hell out of it instead.  Hey, works for me!

                by pb on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:47:07 PM PDT

                •  Gravel/Kucinich would lose all 50 states.

                  Nominate a Gravel/Kucinich ticket and for the first time in history, you'll see a 50 state blowout.

                  Gravel/Kucinich will only win the District of Columbia.

                  by Phoenix Democrat on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:11:53 PM PDT

                  •  No, the Dems would take DC.

                    Oh, you thought it was Gravel / Kucinich for the Dems? No, form a new party, the "Great Old Party", and nominate them to the ticker for the GOP.

                    by BruceMcF on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:10:03 PM PDT

                  •  We'd still win a lot of states

                    by Asak on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 11:25:53 PM PDT

                  •  Do you really think they'd win DC?

                    I've got my doubts.

                    by leevank on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:46:19 AM PDT

                    •  I Have My Doubts

                      They would even win in Fairbanks.

                      by easong on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:11:22 PM PDT

            •  pb, ridiculous suggestion.

              Nominate a Gravel/Kucinich ticket and Americans would elect a fascist for president if he were the Republican nominee.

              To be honest with you, I wouldn't vote for either Gravel or Kucinich, especially that Kucinich voted against the Iraq Pullout bill because it wasn't liberal enough for him.

              by Phoenix Democrat on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:08:35 PM PDT

              •  Edwards' lame explanation for $400 haircut.

                OK, my mind has been made up.  I was deciding between Edwards and Obama.

                Edwards voted for the Iraq war.  Obama would have voted against the war had he been a senator.

                Edwards charged his campaign for the $400 haircut.  'Nuff said.

                Forget it Edwards.  Obama has my vote.

                by Phoenix Democrat on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:10:06 PM PDT

                •  Edwards' mistake was apologizing.

                  I hope you are being sarcastic.

                  With the media's propensity to nit-pick every detail, there's nothing wrong with someone who is on TV EVERY DAY getting a $150 haircut WHERE AND WHEN HE NEEDS IT (opportunity cost $250).

                  The only thing he should apologize for is not having the politcal saavy to realize it was probably better to use his own money to avoid the attention.  But yes, technically, he was totally justified in charging the campaign.  HE'S ON TV CAMPAIGNING!

                  by Pragmatic Left on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:14:30 PM PDT

                  •  $400 haircut hurts his image.

                    I thought John Edwards was supposed to be the "up from the bootstraps" candidate.  He sure made himself look silly by not only insisting on a haircut that costs $400 (what a prima donna!), but also charging his campaign for it instead of paying for it out of his own pocket.

                    by Phoenix Democrat on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:27:54 PM PDT

                    •  Who cares.

                      Except his enemies.  I already pointed out the poor political decision of letting it appear on his report, but he IS up from the bootstraps.  

                      This is bullshit.  We should be above debating this.

                      by Pragmatic Left on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:31:13 PM PDT

                    •  Re-Hash

                      Yawn. Discussed this issue ad-neauseum. At this point all it is is tired old Republican talking points. Move on.

                      by Shane Hensinger on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:07:55 PM PDT

                    •   whining about edward's hair cut is damn silly.

                      go write about he trillion or so bush has flushed down the toilet. duh

                      by stodghie on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:35:30 PM PDT

                  •  Edwards didin't put that tab on the campiagn

                    himself.  some fluky designated to collect receipts took it and handed it to the person around to pay on the road expenses, who passed it on to the bookkeeper who made an error about which account to charge the expense.

                    Edwards himself had nothing to do with it until it showed up in FEC reports, got reported and talked about.  Then he corrected it.

                    by SarahLee on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:45:01 AM PDT

                •  lame explanation?

                  I think the extent of his explanation was "it was a mistake".  Anyhow, I thought the haircut looked great.  I don't know what the rules are on campaign funding here etc., but I think it helped his look in the debate.  As for me, I'm still somewhat on the fence myself (as you were), but really we have an embarrassment of riches here.

                  by pb on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:15:39 PM PDT

                  •  I doubt

                    it was the same haircut, if he had to report it last quarter. Hopefully he paid for the next one on his own dime.

                    But this topic of discussion is just getting silly. And Williams was an ass to ask about it.

                    Can we just drop it now?

                    by stitchmd on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:17:40 AM PDT

                •  please! he brought a hair dresser to him. that

                  costs. why don't you comment on laura's $800 do?

                  by stodghie on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:33:49 PM PDT

        •  hard to say..

          I think that I share his viewpoint, but he was often incoherent... kooky is an appropriate adjective.

          by fartofliving on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:32:39 PM PDT

        •  He's the dude who published the Pentagon papers

          Kooky?  I don't think so. A tough brawler yes.

          by Salo on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 11:40:36 PM PDT

      •  I had never heard of him

        and was really impressed.  That said, I think the Democratic Pary won.  There was no one on the stage who was not light years ahead of our current president and any of the Republicans running.  They could speak coherently and made good  reasoned arguments.  I was proud of the whole bunch.

        by MadRuth on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:00:59 PM PDT

        •  One person on the stage was

          an embarrassment.  Brian Williams.

          by Boston Boomer on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:06:13 PM PDT

          •  I agree

            and still, no one fell into his elaborately orchestrated traps.

            by MadRuth on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:10:59 PM PDT

            •  Not so elaborate. n/t

              by Petronella on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:41:40 PM PDT

              •  Well

                he thought he was.

                by MadRuth on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:04:23 PM PDT

            •  He was very clear that they were the fault of ...

              ... the NBC Political Unit, and he was just delivering them.

              by BruceMcF on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:11:38 PM PDT

          •  Williams

            did not have control over that debate. People were off topic and over limit!

            by browne48 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:34:27 PM PDT

      •  Wow...he's older than McCain!

        Interesting positions though. The kind of things I like but he'd never be elected. Perhaps the next Pres will make him an policy adviser:

        ....guaranteed annual income (dubbed the "Citizen's Wage"), public financing of elections, a progressive tax with no deductions or exemptions, steps against the military-industrial complex (which he calls the "Warfare State"), a national law to do away with voter registration and other barriers to voting, abolition of the death penalty, universal health care, school vouchers, a drastic reduction in government secrecy, and an end to what he viewed as an imperialistic foreign policy.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        by vassmer on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:31:00 PM PDT

        •  Holy crap! I hate to admit it, but

          throw in emergency measures against global warming and to reign in multi-national corporations and you've got pretty much my agenda, if I have one at all.

          by brainwave on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:55:55 PM PDT

        •  actually that's a fantastic idea

          I could easilly see Sen. Gravel ending his twilight years as a policy advisor or cabinet member... or hell... speechwriter!

          -C.

          by Neutron on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:23:22 PM PDT

      •  gravel is in this race to get a message out.

        i say bless you, senator gravel. we need to hear what you have to say. i don't think he is crazy. i think anyone who still likes bush is fxxxxxx crazy.

        by stodghie on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:32:02 PM PDT

        •  Sanest man on the stage.

          Not a suck up.

          by Salo on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 11:42:01 PM PDT

      •  The reason he didn't mince words

        Is because he has no shot, he even admitted as much earlier. He had the courage of one who knows it doesn't matter what he does. He has the luxury of being able to say anything he wants because he has no future to worry about and no career to ruin. It's like throwing up a full court shot with the clock running down. Why NOT throw it up there, even though it probably won't go in? Color me unimpressed.

        by Pozzo on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:28:00 AM PDT

    •  Gravels gave the Overton window

      a mighty shove, no doubt.

      by scoff0165 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:21:48 PM PDT

      •  while the other contenders...

        ...played four dimentional chess Senator Gravel smashed the Overton window over the heads of his rivals.

        by Salo on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 11:43:22 PM PDT

    •  Gravel

      The man was an invigorating spash of cold, clear water.  He's right.  Who the devil ARE we going to nuke?  Why the devil are WE afraid?  Terrorists have always been with us.  Just as mindless warmongers and the military industrial complex have perverted our national purpose for more decades than I care to recall.

      I voted for Gravel as the clear winner of this debate.

      And I say this as a devout Edwards supporter.  (Well, at least unless Gore gets in.)

      by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:46:20 PM PDT

      •  word.

        i'm solidly between Edwards and Obama, and god damn if Sen. Gravel didn't just pull an Alan Schlessinger and destroy the place.

        It's like Senator Bulworth is up there or something!

        -C.

        by Neutron on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:24:25 PM PDT

      •  Another Edwards Supporter

        unless Albert goes which I hope he does.

        Why do I get the feeling that Gore would have wiped the floor with the whole bunch had he been there?

        by Toes on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:56:53 PM PDT

        •  If I were Al

          I'd avoid this motley crew like the plague.  If he's waiting to jump in he's playing a very neat game.

          Don't get me wrong... there are a few in that group I'd vote for.  But the dilutive effect of the sheer numbers (not to mention the Kucinich/Gravel factor) of entrants at this point is worth waiting out.

          Just at thought.

          by kfractal on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:15:16 PM PDT

          •  An awesome debate format

            I want to see 90 minutes of Hillary, Obama, Edwards & Richardson, and have Gravel moderate it.  Put it on like HBO or something, so that they don't have to worry if Gravel wants to say "That's just horse shit!"

            Come on, admit it "Democratic Presidential Debate: Uncensored" has a certain ring to it...

            by Mourge on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:55:19 PM PDT

  •  You read my mind.

    The man has passion. Passion, I tell you!

    by Rob Cole on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:51:49 PM PDT

    •  Passion?

      No, that's called lack of meds.

      by baronzito on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:52:34 PM PDT

      •  Amen

        I understand being passionately anti-war. Kucinich is passionately anti-war. But Gravel was vitriolic toward his fellow Democrats. Not f**ing cool*. He came off as loony, not passionate.

        by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:54:37 PM PDT

        •  I need to learn

          how to use asterisks.

          by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:59:02 PM PDT

        •  and what's wrong with some criticism?

          Seriously?  Criticism and vitriol are bad things to aim at fellow Dems?

          Please.

          Seriously: Gravel serves a purpose in this process, as Dean and Kucinich (and Mosely-Braun, to some extent) did in 2004.  He is there to keep the spin down and get the rest of the field to be honest brokers.  And this field needs that kind of person.

          He came across as passionate and, above all, frustrated with the status quo.  He sees his fellow candidates as mealy-mouthed on quite a few critical issues.  And who's to blame him?  

          If anything, the 2006 vote showed that voters like to hear the truth, unvarnished and raw.  They don't want the same 'ol, same 'ol spin.  And that's what Gravel - and likely a lot of other people - see in the current crop of candidates.  

          I am a Democrat - and a proud one, at that.  I serve on the DC Democratic State Committee out of a belief that the Dems offer the best platform for the people.  But I'm also willing to call out my fellow Dems for folly and lack of spine.  And that's something that any good, honest Dem should do at all times.

          So bravo, Sen. Gravel!  No, you didn't win this debate (and, frankly put, there's no way to win an 8-way, truncated-answer debate), but you served a critically important purpose.

          by DCFD Rudi on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:05:47 PM PDT

          •  It's not like

            he'll damage any democrat's chances in the national election by challenging them now. No one who finds themselves thinking less of one of the frontrunners because of Gravel's comments will vote for a repub instead.

            by pheedthemonkey on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:40:06 PM PDT

          •  No, Al Sharpton served a purpose last time

            Sharpton handled himself in the debates EXACTLY as a candidate who knows he has no serious chance of winning should handle himself.  He focused on the issues that the more established candidates might have preferred to avoid, but he did it with some humor, and without being negative toward the other candidates.  In fact, on several occasions when the other candidates' elbows were getting a little sharp toward each other, he good-naturedly called on them to remember who they were all REALLY running against.

            I wouldn't vote for either Sharpton or Gravel, but I think Sharpton played a constructive role four years ago.  Gravel was light-years from playing a constructive role this time.

            by leevank on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:53:27 AM PDT

        •  It used to be

          that Mike Gravel was a fairly typical, mainline Democrat.  There were lots of Democratic politicians like him back in those days.  It also happened to be that the Democrats were the overwhelmingly dominant party in taht era.  Then along came "experts" and "consultants" and "pragmatists" that said, Oh no, we can't ahve peop[le like that, they're too KOOKY, we need to be more mainstream" (Mainstream meaning looking talking thinking and acting like your Republican boss).  So the Dems ran away from people like Gravel and went all "mainstream".  They've been on a thrity-year losing streak since that process took effect.  

          Wondering if I'm the only one that can do the math...

          by ActivistGuy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:12:34 PM PDT

          •  EXCELLENT analysis.

            I remember those Dems.  I remember Gravel fighting tooth and nail for what was right - and sometimes WINNING.  There's nothing "kooky" or "nutty" about being passionate about what's right.

            How calm do we want our candidates to be in the face of the sheer filth our current government has spread over the globe?

            by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:51:46 PM PDT

          •  Mainline

            Gravel was one of the key Democratic figures who bucked the party on the Vietnam War, however, when he became involved in the release of the Pentagon Papers. That happened early on in his Congressional career,

            by darrelplant on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 11:14:18 PM PDT

          •  YES!!!

            In all caps and too many exclamation marks. 'Cause those were the Dems I loved to support.

            by SarahLee on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:52:46 AM PDT

        •  No. Hillary is a loony for not apologizing

          For bying Bush's idiotic WMD claim and voting us into war.

          by kingsbridge77 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:08:23 PM PDT

          •  Poppycock. n/t

            by KnowVox on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:55:16 PM PDT

          •  Hillary apologize

            I have heard enough apologies. Everyone seems to want public figures to demean themselves for us. Well that's entertainment (for some) but gets us nowhere. My concern is what happens next and from what I've seen and heard Clinton is the best person to get us out of IRAQ and keep us from getting in to another silly war. The debate last night showed that the "guys" were all ready to fight first and talk later. And that guy from Alaska. I would really want to try to negotiate with him -- what a bully.

            by feminist123 on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:37:23 AM PDT

      •  Too late: already posted.

        Here.

        by Rob Cole on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:56:29 PM PDT

  •  Word

    Go Gravel go!

    by Greyy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:52:41 PM PDT

  •  I'd never seen him before

    That is a cool old man.  He's crotchy as hell, but guess what... the status quo needs to be chided like a 5 year old caught pissing on the couch because they didn't want to miss a cartoon... so he came across as ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE.

    Gravel ROCKED THE HOUSE.

    That man does not give a F U C K!

    by teknofyl on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:53:09 PM PDT

    •  Pardon,

      but I've never seen the word "crotchy" before.  Can you clarify its meaning?

      Just curious.  I like it.

      by exiledfromTN on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:54:15 PM PDT

      •  misstyped crotchety.

        I'm guessing.

        by DawnG on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:56:33 PM PDT

        •  Nononono.

          I'm running with "crotchy."  And I want an answer.

          ;)

          by exiledfromTN on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:57:22 PM PDT

          •  Hmmm

            Rosie O' Donnell?

            by elveta on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:06:14 PM PDT

            •  And your associating "crotchy" with Rosie

              stems from what?

              by exiledfromTN on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:16:55 PM PDT

              •  Baseball

                by Heart of the Rockies on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:46:44 PM PDT

              •  Well

                it has to do with her grabbing her crotch and sayig "eat me." This is not a political issue. It has no place on this website.

                by elveta on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:02:47 PM PDT

                •  I had no idea.

                  by exiledfromTN on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:21:25 PM PDT

                •  wasn't that

                  Roseanne Barr?

                  by The Centerfielder on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:04:14 AM PDT

                  •  It was (n/t)

                    by leevank on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:54:48 AM PDT

              •  Well

                it actually comes fron seeing her grabbing her crotch and saying "eat me."    That is so incredibly vulgar. I am a very liberal democrat. She does not speak for me.  

                by elveta on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:17:25 PM PDT

          •  sort of like "pitchy"

            on American Idol?

            (I actually don't know what that means, as I'm hopelessly uncool)

            by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:06:47 PM PDT

            •  It's a made up word, for sure

              Funny you should mention that, since my household has adopted that term for use in reference to something that seems a little "off."

              It's slang for saying "off key."  Surely soon it can be found in Webster's.

              by exiledfromTN on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:15:38 PM PDT

              •  I'm a professional musician,

                and "pitchy" as a synonym for "out of tune" is sort of irritating.    I mean, all music has pitch, right?   Plus, there are a lot of established (but admittedly less cool) terms for bad intonation.  

                Idol is sort of irritating in general (I saw a few episodes, a few seasons back).  I do think it's funny that you've adopted the term for other applications... :)

                by Dem in the heart of Texas on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:42:35 PM PDT

                •  It keeps me sane

                  that is, adopting ignorant pop culture for my own "idle" usage, as it were.

                  by exiledfromTN on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:45:27 PM PDT

      •  Crotchety, I hope

        It means irritable, in a "Hey kids, get off my lawn" sense.

        Crotchy would, if it were actually a word, mean something very different. Think pedophile.

        -dms

        by dmsilev on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:56:44 PM PDT

        •  Prolly I just have bad vocab

          I've always said crotchy... and I've always used it with my grandpa in mind...

          The again, I'm very lax with vocab...

          by teknofyl on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:58:40 PM PDT

        •  thanks for the scary visualization n/t

          by pine on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:00:50 PM PDT

        •  Or baseball player!

          by Heart of the Rockies on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:47:29 PM PDT

      •  Crotchy (krah-chi)

        It's cranky and blunt, no bullshit and quick to jump on your as when you fuck up.  He reminds me of my grandpa... quick to chew my ass when I fucked up, but always with my best interest at heart.

        by teknofyl on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:57:11 PM PDT

        •  Its phonetic spelling

          seems like something one would get a black belt in.

          by exiledfromTN on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:58:04 PM PDT

          •  Psuedo phonetic

            I'm completely ignorant of actual phonetic notation... but you are right... I could make hundreds sell lessons in the lost Japanese art of Krah Chi...

            by teknofyl on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:59:59 PM PDT

            •  Sue Dough Foe Net Ick n/t

              by Lesser Dane on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:08:50 AM PDT

        •  I say

          crotchity - pronounced crotch shitty

          by jhwygirl on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 07:03:21 PM PDT

      •  Something to do with balls.

        by chicago jeff on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:59:55 PM PDT

        •  I'll wait for Colbert

          I bet he'd do a definition that would last a century

          by teknofyl on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:00:59 PM PDT

      •  I've always seen it "crotchety"

        Here's Dictionary.com's take on it. ;)

        by machka on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:34 PM PDT

    •  he's the 2007 version

      of Admiral Stockdale.

      Plus, he looks like Leslie Nielsen!  What's not to like?

      by JLongs on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:54:52 PM PDT

      •  He had a moment...

        ...like Stockdale's "Who am I and why am I here??" I missed it but it was on the crawl, did he say, "Some of these guys frighten me"?

        by MichaelPH on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 06:23:02 PM PDT

        •  yep,

          but it's somewhat lost in the soundbite--he had a much better line where he said something like... it's like when you're first in the Senate, you're thinking, wow, how did I ever get here? And then you're there for six months, and you're thinking, wow, how did those other guys ever get here? Great stuff...<