Baseball Kerry's away Bush

An odd title to be sure but this is a potpourri of my crazy goings on the last few weeks. Some funny some thoughtful and some just plain ol' boring.
Baseball is very, very good in St Louis these days. The Cardinals have THE best lineup in baseball and one of the greatest in the history of the game. This is my opinion and a fact.

Tony Womack leads off and is hitting 30 points higher than his lifetime average. He is followed by Larry Walker a lefty who is clutch and carries a lifetime on base percentage of .401. Walker will get his pitches because after him is Albert Pujols. Albert is the real deal, he will become one of the greats of the game in four years of major league baseball only two players have better all around stats. The Splendid Splinter Ted Williams & Joltin' Joe DiMaggio and they both hit around .400 in one of their first four years. Watch Albert at every chance, one of him only shows up ever generation or so.

The clean up batter Scott Rolen is considered the best all around third baseman in baseball. Scott is 6'4" fields third like Brooks Robinson and hits like Mike Schmidt. He is a scary and exciting player, while he is no Pujols, the fact still remains he would hit cleanup on any team in the Majors. Hitting fifth is Jim Edmonds who still has some pop and can hit for average. Jim strikes out a little much for my contact hitting preference but when he is on he can carry the team through a slump. Also with six Gold Gloves and what many consider the most dangerous arm in baseball, he makes plays in centerfield like Jackie Robinson.Batting sixth is Edgar Renteria one of the best clutch hitters in the game. He smells RBI anytime a man is in scoring position and delivers them over 35% of the time a huge number for any player. In fact, he is a better hitter with runners in scoring position that with no one on base.Journeyman Reggie Sanders batting seventh tells you how powerful this lineup really is because with his numbers he would be a fifth or sixth place hitter on any other team. The only hole in this lineup is Mike Matheny but he allows the Cardinals to pitch and keep runners on because of his arm and defense. In addition, this year he hit .247 while not overwhelming it does place him in the top 10 in the National league for number eight hitters.

This powerful lineup has played strong winning the National League Central by thirteen games over the Astros. They also sent the Dodgers to the links in four games of the Division Series. They have served notice to the Wild-card Astros by winning the first two games of the League Championship Series.

I camped out at Busch stadium a couple weeks ago to get play-off tickets. It was one of the best and worst experiences of getting post season tickets. The Cardinals choose to sell both rounds of the play-offs at once a great idea one night sleeping in a lawn chair and I am set for both rounds. The down side was they sold twelve tickets for each game and out came the scalpers. I will not get into this here but one of my next blogs will be devoted to the market of scalping. Needless to say, I was less than happy to find out that standing room only was all that they had when I got to the window eighteen hours after I arrived at the stadium. All of this was bearable due to Trudy being able to bring food and hang out with our new friends and me.
As I have found though standing room only is an awesome way to watch the game. Yes, it was a little tiring but when you watch, your favorite team win three games it is well worth it. Should they play any more games in St. Louis I will be seated... maybe. I may just wander down to standing room only to find the camaraderie of the masses.
On the side, Jeff ill call you during any extended rallies by the Cards because he is in Ohio and they like to watch some other team. Any one ever heard of them? Yankees?? I have no clue what that is all about.

Kerry is the alternative to our current presidential situation. My father and I spoke at length about a second Bush in the White House back in 2000. It was our conclusion that Bush would lead us into a war somewhere and my favorite place was Iraq. Now this is only verifiable by him and any one who might have remembered me talking about this. That is not as important as our current situation.

We are in a war no other words for it and of the two candidates, we have to vote for only one served under fire. He was awarded medals and no matter how you slice it he did something in Vietnam. I have never been under fire I have no idea my reaction in that situation but it is my hope to have served with honor as Kerry did.

As for him coming home against the war and testifying, I want to go on the record saying: Kerry earned the right to speak his mind about the war. If he lied intentionally, about what happened in Vietnam then he should be honest about what happened. Kerry should be called out about lies he originated and apologize for passing off any false fabrications told by him from other sources. He should not be called out on what he said by pundits who were not there and/or too young to even remember Vietnam. He should never be called out by some one who used his daddy's influence to hide in the National Guard. Kerry was under fire and he has the right, protected by the Constitution, to tell his story, the truth, to the best of his memory.

It has long been our in our political history to associate military service with the ability to lead the country. Let's remember though not every war hero who was elected was actually as heroic as their legend and political stumping would lead you to believe. So that this election would use war and service in wars to help determine who is a more capable leader is nothing new. We as a Nation need to honor those who fought and served in the Armed Forces. Yet, to our discredit over the last year, we have allowed people to smear the records of men and women who have served with distinction.

As for the Liberal record of Kerry I'm sure coming from Mass. one of the more liberal states he is a product of the voting patterns of his state. Does being liberal make you more or less effective a Commander in Chief? Eisenhower was the most liberal of Republican Presidents and under his administrations, this country prospered greatly. Clinton in all his liberal beliefs led the country in one of its greatest economic booms. They both had a down side. Clinton had an affair that clouded the effectiveness of his administration. Eisenhower had affairs of his own and held a foreign policy that was one of the least effective of the latter Twentieth Century.

Bush to his credit has handled a number of crises during his administration. He also has done some things I personally disagree with. It is my personal estimation that once history reflects its light on this administration we will be appalled at the corruption and billions of Dollars that ended up in the pockets of Bush and his pals. That can be disputed until the election and after because we will never know until ten or fifteen years down the road. Remember, this is MY opinion take it or leave it.

The real issues and what should make every conservative cringe are two specific issues: Abortion & Gay Marriage. I will not get into my personal beliefs on these subjects because they deserve greater attention than I can afford here. For the writing at hand, I will represent the positions held by the majority of conservatives.

Abortion: For the most part, unless the life of the mother is in eminent danger there should be no abortions. An example would be a tubal pregnancy where neither the baby nor the mother would survive. In any other case, it should be determined by the viability of the baby to live outside the womb. Even if this would mean damage but not death to the mother should she carry to term. If you would like a statement of ethics on this take, a look at how any Catholic hospital handles situations and you have a good idea of the position of the majority of conservatives.

Gay Marriage: The vast majority of right wing conservatives hold to the position that gays and lesbians should not have marriage rights. Neither should they have the right to adopt children. Some would go so far as to say they should not have shared or sole parental rights to their own children. They should not have community property rights or the ability to have shared insurance.

Bush said Roe v. Wade would not be the litmus test for determining any judges. In the last four years, he has done nothing substantial on this front. He has even gone so far as to say he does not intend to overturn Roe v. Wade. The first statement was made at the third presidential debate in 2004. The second statement was made during the 2000 primary.
As conservatives, the ruling of Roe v. Wade is the crux of the issue. If this ruling could be overturned, it would be a great victory for the conservative base. Bush has done little than the status quo to alleviate this. He could have a grand plan to make this happen but with out a change in Judiciary appointment to those known to support the overturning Roe v. Wade it will probably stand.

He could have attempted to introduce a bill to congress limiting and redefining this Right but he knows no one in congress wants to have this on his or her records. I will not totally fault Bush on this one because he is actually playing politics as usual.
Bush on the issue of Gay marriage he has asked for an amendment to allow him to make a law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman in the Constitution. In order to pass this it would take a three-fourths majority of ALL members of Congress and then ratification of three-fourths of all 50 states. These things will not happen. This is a hot button, no politician wants to have on their record for voting up or down. Since, they would alienate a large portion of one base group or another.

Many conservatives say Bush is at the mercy of the Liberals in Congress and a Supreme Court that is split with Conservatives and Liberals. I offer this example. Harry S. Truman said the buck stopped with him. When it came to the biggest moral issue of his day, Racism, Harry used executive orders to integrate the Military, Federal Government, & Washington D.C. no questions asked. Truman did this in an election year with a majority Republican Congress and a dissenting "Dixiecrat" working to defeat any legislation insuring Civil Rights.

Should Bush honestly want to effect change he would find ways to make it happen. He only has a minority opposition from the Democrats and according to His own rhetoric, the majority of the American public want these things to happen. It is my estimation that Bush is only pandering to the Conservative Right to keep a large contingency in the Republican Party voting for him. Just as Bush used tremendous political clout to mobilize this nation to war he could have mobilized the Congress accomplish these two very passionate goals. Based in his comments and lack of comments on these two very key issues with conservatives he has done little to effect any real change.

I do not believe that either of these two choices are any more Honest, Honorable, or Sincere than the other one. In my opinion, Kerry showed better in the debates than did Bush. I know neither of them are sold on being truthful to the American public. I do not want anyone to vote as I see fit. If you want a place to look at the facts goto www.factcheck.org Frankly, for the reasons sited above Im not sure I can support either for President. As a person who holds certian Ideals sacred, knowing that neither truly suppport any of those I am left to ponder who to choose.

I will vote, there are a number of issues and canidates I can and am wiling to vote for. I am not sure what to do with the Presidental vote I may end up writing in my favorite choice if he would only run... Dave Barry. (I heard he has nothing to do starting in 2005.)

GO CARDS !!!