"And so this is Christmas. I hope you have fun. The near and the dear one. The old and the young." Those were the words of John Lennon and yes, this is Christmas, 2007. It is a day of joy and happiness. It is a day to remember our religious heritages, to eat the turkey and ham; to share a cup of eggnog; to sit down with family and share the joys of so many Christmas days that have passed by. And a day to remember.
Christmas was always a special day in my family. My dad was a product of the Great Depression and Christmas was a day to forget the trials and tribulations of the hard world created by the collapse of the economy and to be joyous for what you did have.
My dad was one of the fortunate people during the depression. He was a man that wasn't afraid of work and so when the WPA began looking for workers in the Parkersburg area, he was in line and managed to procure a government job. This meant a steady income when others had little if anything. And, Dad was a saver. He could find a way to put away 50 cents or a dollar each pay period, insuring that Christmas gifts would be plentiful on that joyous day.
He always bragged that my brother, Ed, always had a Christmas. Dad would frequently talk about buying Ed a bicycle during the Great Depression and hiding it for several months so that it could be "delivered" by Santa on Dec. 25.
Of course, I came along much later in life and didn't experience the frugality of a Depression-era Christmas. Still, Dad kept Christmas the most important day of the year. As October and November came along, his nightly commutes from Cleveland to Aurora would grow a bit longer as he would stop at a store along the way and make that giftly purchase for Mom or me.
And, until later in life, he wasn't much of a gift wrapper. He would hand you a bag, or most certainly several bags, and there was your Christmas from him. Those of you who might have received a gift from me now know why I have such an appreciation for brown paper sacks.
But it is the many Christmas Days in earlier life that I so often think about. Dad was always the first one up on Christmas morning. And, we are talking EARLY. His job made him an early-riser anyway, so crawling out of bed on Christmas morning at 4 a.m. was easy for him. I honestly don't remember him getting me up that early, but I do remember the 5 o'clock hour being the moment of reckoning.
Dad would shake me awake. I have to admit that sometimes I was already awake. Other times he succeeded to getting me out of bed to see what Santa had left for me. And it was always a treat. Dad and Mom so frequently went overboard. But, as Dad would say, "It's okay, it's Christmas."
Those days have come and gone, and needless to say I miss them. I miss seeing Dad's face beam with joy as he watched Mom and me open our presents. It didn't matter whether he got anything or not (trust me, he always did). The most important thing on Dad's agenda on Christmas Day was that those he loved were happy and well taken care of.
Yes, I was a very lucky child. And I miss Christmas with Dad like nothing else in life. Merry Christmas!!!
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Two Stories That Caught My Eye!!
Everyone knows of my infatuation with Cleveland. You have heard me say many times, "Cleveland, the best location in the nation." I am more than proud of the fact that such notable characters as Bob Hope, Drew Carey, Halle Berry, Alan Freed (the original Rock & Roll disc jockey), Hector Boiardi (Chef Boy-ar-dee), Tim Conway, Wes Craven, Joel Gray, Arsenio Hall, Henry Mancini, Elliot Ness (the Untouchables), Jesse Owens, Debra Winger, George Stephanopolous (political advisor and pundit) and Don Shula all hail from the lakeside city.
Additionally, I marvel at the downtown improvement that has occurred since I was a child. The ugliness of pollution created by the steel mills is gone and the renaissance of a great city has occurred.
Now, I am flabbergasted by a legal confrontation that has thrust Cleveland into the limelight of judicial interpretation.
Bob Kitts is a contractor in the Cleveland area. Whether or not he is a good contractor is not for me to determine. I have never seen his work, but I can safely say that at this point in time I will certainly not hire him to hang a door, plaster a ceiling or replace a window. And, most definitely, I would never give him a chance to look behind my walls.
Kitts was recently gutting a bathroom in an 83-year old home that is owned by Amanda Reece, a former classmate of Kitts. In the process of tearing out a wall, Kitts came upon a box below the medicine cabinet. Inspection of the contents led to the discovery of some $25,000.
Giving Kitts the little bit of recognition that he deserves in this matter, he contacted Reece who came home and further investigation led to the finding of more than $100, 000 additional money in two other boxes. The value of the money was multiplied by the fact that it was depression-era Federal Resereve bank notes that proved to increase the value to about $500,000.
Ms. Reese generously, and perhaps ethically, offered Kitts the standard 10% finders fee. But, greed reared its ugly head and Kitts demanded 40% of the take. Feeling as though she was about to be the victim of a shakedown, Reese has dug in and it appears as though the case will head to court.
Kitts and his lawyer claim that Ohio has a long-standing precedent of "finders keepers" rulings that boost his chances of gaining more than the offered 10% finders fee. These rules kick in when its unlikely an owner will reappear to claim a lost item. The original owner of the money may have been Peter Dunn, the owner of the house during the depression. His whereabouts are unknown, but he has likely passed on.
But, my logic says that once Ms. Reese purchased the home, she became the rightful owner of whatever was in that house. Under those circumstances she has been fair in offering the 10% finders fee and I can only hope that the judicial interpretations will work in her favor. If not, we could all be victimized by our neighborhood handymen that might just find something hidden inside our walls.
+++++
Seldom do I dip into the sports world to write about, but I want to send out a real quick congratulations from me to George Mitchell and his report on the use of performance enhancing drugs by professional baseball players. His rather long (409 pages) and encompassing report, listed 88 former and present players that may have participated in the use of steroids and human growth hormones.
Certainly the most notable of these players is Barry Bonds, who has long been suspected of being a steroid user, and Roger Clemens.
Bonds has not been good for baseball, I don't care how many homeruns he slugged, the records he broke or the denials he has long made about steroid use. He is arrogant and snotty. He has long demonstrated the attitude that the rules don't apply to him.
The sad part about his participation in the use of illegal substances is that he took what was a certain Hall of Fame career and turned it into a baseball sideshow.
Clemens has been a dominant pitcher in baseball for the past 20+ years. His exploits in Boston and New York are monumental in baseball history. However, in recent years his comeback efforts, his special treatment demands (not having to come to the ballpark if he's not pitching) and his numerous injuries have detracted from the record he established for himself during the prime of his career. Now a connection to illegal substance use drops him down even further on the ladder of respectablity.
Ironically, both Bonds and Clemens could be just five years away from election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. And most certainly they will be scrutinized like no other player has been. The test of deservability might not be their accomplisments which were established in the early stages of their careers. Their right to belong to the elite of baseball might be based on what they did at the end of their career. And in my mind, I hope to see them standing on the outside of the fence along with Pete Rose as they watch lesser-talented but more reputable people earning their way into the annals of sports history.
Additionally, I marvel at the downtown improvement that has occurred since I was a child. The ugliness of pollution created by the steel mills is gone and the renaissance of a great city has occurred.
Now, I am flabbergasted by a legal confrontation that has thrust Cleveland into the limelight of judicial interpretation.
Bob Kitts is a contractor in the Cleveland area. Whether or not he is a good contractor is not for me to determine. I have never seen his work, but I can safely say that at this point in time I will certainly not hire him to hang a door, plaster a ceiling or replace a window. And, most definitely, I would never give him a chance to look behind my walls.
Kitts was recently gutting a bathroom in an 83-year old home that is owned by Amanda Reece, a former classmate of Kitts. In the process of tearing out a wall, Kitts came upon a box below the medicine cabinet. Inspection of the contents led to the discovery of some $25,000.
Giving Kitts the little bit of recognition that he deserves in this matter, he contacted Reece who came home and further investigation led to the finding of more than $100, 000 additional money in two other boxes. The value of the money was multiplied by the fact that it was depression-era Federal Resereve bank notes that proved to increase the value to about $500,000.
Ms. Reese generously, and perhaps ethically, offered Kitts the standard 10% finders fee. But, greed reared its ugly head and Kitts demanded 40% of the take. Feeling as though she was about to be the victim of a shakedown, Reese has dug in and it appears as though the case will head to court.
Kitts and his lawyer claim that Ohio has a long-standing precedent of "finders keepers" rulings that boost his chances of gaining more than the offered 10% finders fee. These rules kick in when its unlikely an owner will reappear to claim a lost item. The original owner of the money may have been Peter Dunn, the owner of the house during the depression. His whereabouts are unknown, but he has likely passed on.
But, my logic says that once Ms. Reese purchased the home, she became the rightful owner of whatever was in that house. Under those circumstances she has been fair in offering the 10% finders fee and I can only hope that the judicial interpretations will work in her favor. If not, we could all be victimized by our neighborhood handymen that might just find something hidden inside our walls.
+++++
Seldom do I dip into the sports world to write about, but I want to send out a real quick congratulations from me to George Mitchell and his report on the use of performance enhancing drugs by professional baseball players. His rather long (409 pages) and encompassing report, listed 88 former and present players that may have participated in the use of steroids and human growth hormones.
Certainly the most notable of these players is Barry Bonds, who has long been suspected of being a steroid user, and Roger Clemens.
Bonds has not been good for baseball, I don't care how many homeruns he slugged, the records he broke or the denials he has long made about steroid use. He is arrogant and snotty. He has long demonstrated the attitude that the rules don't apply to him.
The sad part about his participation in the use of illegal substances is that he took what was a certain Hall of Fame career and turned it into a baseball sideshow.
Clemens has been a dominant pitcher in baseball for the past 20+ years. His exploits in Boston and New York are monumental in baseball history. However, in recent years his comeback efforts, his special treatment demands (not having to come to the ballpark if he's not pitching) and his numerous injuries have detracted from the record he established for himself during the prime of his career. Now a connection to illegal substance use drops him down even further on the ladder of respectablity.
Ironically, both Bonds and Clemens could be just five years away from election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. And most certainly they will be scrutinized like no other player has been. The test of deservability might not be their accomplisments which were established in the early stages of their careers. Their right to belong to the elite of baseball might be based on what they did at the end of their career. And in my mind, I hope to see them standing on the outside of the fence along with Pete Rose as they watch lesser-talented but more reputable people earning their way into the annals of sports history.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
A Pair of Folk Legends Pass On!
We all know it will happen. As certain as we are of our next breath, we are also certain that eventually there will be our last breath. From the beginning of life we edge closer and closer to death. And so it is recently, that two icons of the 60's and 70s' have surrendered to the call of nature. But oh, what a legacy they left.
Dick Wilson....oh what a common name! Who would ever think of him as anybody but the guy next door. But his legacy will live on as long as the children of 60's and 70's are around. His tombstone might read Dick Wilson, but in our hearts and minds he will always be "Mr. Whipple."
Charmin toilet tissue hit a home run when it put Dick Wilson on the payroll. A common man in appearance, he played the role of a genteel grocery store operator who did not want his Charmin display tinkered with. The ever vigilant Mr. Whipple was on guard constantly waiting for the shopping ladies (most shoppers during that generation were women) to pick up the soft package of Charmin and begin to squeeze it.
Pouncing like a father protecting its young, Mr. Whipple would always say, "Ladies, please don't squeeze the Charmin." Of course, his reprimand fell on deaf ears because Mr. Whipple was squeezing the Charmin more vociferously than his customers.
Dick Wilson passed away several weeks ago and his death was memorialized in USA Today by a full page ad in honor of Mr. Whipple by Charmin--a nice touch by a large corporation for a man who was the face of the company for so many years.
While Mr. Whipple was a gentle character, the other death of recent note was that of Robert Craig Knievel, Jr., more notably recognized as Evel Knievel.
Evel Knievel put the "dare" in dare devil. He always denied that he was a hero, but quickly claimed that he was a guy who could ride a motorcycle. And with a little bit of business savvy, he turned his riding skills into a sideshow of mega-proportions.
Jumping objects in his path was the gig that Knievel sold to the masses. From an initial jump over a mountain lion and some snakes in cages to the somewhat aborted attempt to leap across the Snake River, Knievel used his salesmanship skills to become a well-known character who had tremendous influence over the youngters who grew up watching him and attempting their own dare devil style jumps in their own backyard. It would be interesting to know exactly how many broken bones can be attritubuted to the influence of Evel Knievel.
True as it is, death doesn't wait for anyone. And these two folklore giants have passed into the anals of time. But its safe to say the two won't soon be forgotten.
Dick Wilson....oh what a common name! Who would ever think of him as anybody but the guy next door. But his legacy will live on as long as the children of 60's and 70's are around. His tombstone might read Dick Wilson, but in our hearts and minds he will always be "Mr. Whipple."
Charmin toilet tissue hit a home run when it put Dick Wilson on the payroll. A common man in appearance, he played the role of a genteel grocery store operator who did not want his Charmin display tinkered with. The ever vigilant Mr. Whipple was on guard constantly waiting for the shopping ladies (most shoppers during that generation were women) to pick up the soft package of Charmin and begin to squeeze it.
Pouncing like a father protecting its young, Mr. Whipple would always say, "Ladies, please don't squeeze the Charmin." Of course, his reprimand fell on deaf ears because Mr. Whipple was squeezing the Charmin more vociferously than his customers.
Dick Wilson passed away several weeks ago and his death was memorialized in USA Today by a full page ad in honor of Mr. Whipple by Charmin--a nice touch by a large corporation for a man who was the face of the company for so many years.
While Mr. Whipple was a gentle character, the other death of recent note was that of Robert Craig Knievel, Jr., more notably recognized as Evel Knievel.
Evel Knievel put the "dare" in dare devil. He always denied that he was a hero, but quickly claimed that he was a guy who could ride a motorcycle. And with a little bit of business savvy, he turned his riding skills into a sideshow of mega-proportions.
Jumping objects in his path was the gig that Knievel sold to the masses. From an initial jump over a mountain lion and some snakes in cages to the somewhat aborted attempt to leap across the Snake River, Knievel used his salesmanship skills to become a well-known character who had tremendous influence over the youngters who grew up watching him and attempting their own dare devil style jumps in their own backyard. It would be interesting to know exactly how many broken bones can be attritubuted to the influence of Evel Knievel.
True as it is, death doesn't wait for anyone. And these two folklore giants have passed into the anals of time. But its safe to say the two won't soon be forgotten.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Anyone Else??
Everything seems to be coming together as we surely trek toward the end of 2007. Christmas and New Years are rapidly approaching; the NFL playoff season is just around the corner; the NCAA football bowl season is upon us; and for school age kids, college and high school, the season of semester tests is beckoning. But maybe, just maybe, the most intriguing season of all is the presidential primary season which is just about to open.
For some strange reason the politicos have decided to move the decision making primary season up to early January instead of waiting another month or so. Thus, as we bake the Christmas ham, root for our favorite professional and college football teams, and prepare to move ahead in the educational system, we must partake of numerous political advertisements and the television talking heads as they analyze a race that is still 11 months away.
Why are we in such a hurry you might ask. Well its simple, at least in my mind. The two most electable people in the USA--Bill Clinton and Al Gore--are not running for office. So the political shakers and movers believe we need all this extra time to determine who the best person is for the presidency. And this is a unique presidency since for the first time in many years (maybe 1929) that a seated president or vice president wasn't seeking the top prize.
And, I think its safe to say, we have a wide range of candidates and numerous questions about the qualifications of the whole lot. Measuring reasons why someone should not be president might be easier than assessing reasons why they should be.
Perhaps the most controversial candidate is Hillary Clinton. She certainly lacks the political skills her husband possesses. He was a centrist--not a liberal-- and he used that quality to assure his reelection in 1996. Hillary appears to be much more liberal, cold, calculating and not nearly as personable as her husband. I would quickly agree that she has the organization skills, intellect and intestinal fortitude to be president. But, it also appears that she lacks the confidence of others as to whether she can win the 2008 general election. Needless to say, electing a woman to the presidency would be a first and this might be the wrong woman at the wrong time. It would probably be easier to vote against her than for her.
Barack Obama is certainly an interesting candidate. The Democratic senator from Illinois has burst on the scene and is legitimately the most electable African-American candidate to ever seek the presidency. He, of course, is plagued by the idea that he is not experienced enough to hold the highest office in the land. Then too, I do believe he is plagued somewhat by a name that might be disadvantageous in this era of Mid-Eastern terrorism and being Black also serves as an obstacle to overcome if he wants to be president.
John Edwards, who appeared to be an up-and-comer during the 2004 election, seems to be the odd man out in this race. Plagued almost from the beginning with the unfortunate issue of his wife's health, along with a $400 haircut, Edwards seems to be floundering in third place wherever he goes. Still, he has a great delivery, looks presidential, and has the experience of a national campaign under his belt. But, that might not be enough in 2008.
The remainder of the Democratic field--Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel--have no chance and will gradually disappear from the primary rosters.
While Republicans might look with glee on the issues that Democrats have with their presidential hopefuls, all they have to do is look at their own roster and begin to start worrying themselves. Looking presidential is not one of the better qualities of the right-wing contingent either. Each candidate carries a set of positive and negative qualities that will play a role in their electability.
Rudy Guiliani, former mayor of New York and the person most likely to wave his credentials in fighting terrorism, has held the early lead in the Republican race. But, as election days creep closer, Guiliani looks creepier and creepier. He has a somewhat dysfunctional family, perhaps because he is on his third wife, and she came into his life as his "mistress" according to one news report I heard earlier this week. He also has a relationship with Bernie Kerik, the former police commissioner of New York City. Financial irregularities led to Kerik's involvement with the legal system, stopped his nomination as Director of Homeland Security, and are now plaguing Guiliani who remains loyal to his old friend. Guiliani also is pro-abortion, welcomes immigrants and favors some gun control. I frequently wonder how Republicans can even consider him one of their own, let alone favor him for in the White House race.
Mitt Romney seems to me to be the most professional candidate in the race, regardless of party. He simply looks presidential. Still, despite his organizational skills and the ability to win the governor's race in highly liberal Massachusetts, he is not without a list of problems. First and foremost is his Mormon faith. While that doesn't bother me, others consider it nothing more than a cult and have said they could not support him. Additionally, he is a flip-flopper on the issue of abortion.
Fred Thompson, the actor who some compare to Ronald Reagan, is no Ronald Reagan on the campaign trail. First he hesitated entering the race, and everyone knows that "he who hesitates is lost." That delay was impacted by the fact that his early campaign style was not exciting. Thompson is hampered by the fact that he looks old and has what some refer to as a "trophy" wife who appears to be pulling the strings on this political campaign. While Thompson appears to be conservative enough to be a true Republican (unlike Guiliani and Romney) he seems to have miscalculated his candidacy and may never overcome that early error.
Mike Huckabee is the candidate that might be gaining the most notoriety, at least recently. As of Sunday (12/2) he appeared to have captured the lead in Iowa polls despite being short on funds. Huckabee is a respectable conservative, comes across well, hails from the city of Hope, Ark. (which seems to carry some weight since the presidency of Bill Clinton) and appears to be a long-term candidate in the primary race. Still, Huckabee has a very deliberate delivery and some wonder if he has enough fire in his belly for the presidency.
John McCain was recently endorsed by the New Hampshire Union Leader--the only statewide paper in that small New England state. A win in New Hampshire has been big in presidential politics and McCain will surely need one if the Iowa polls, which presently show him in fifth place with only seven percent of the voters favoring his candidacy, are right. McCain is perhaps the most interesting person in the race right now. A former Vietnam war POW, he is an honorable man with perhaps more of a centrist view than most conservative Republicans. That would make him more appealing to moderates and liberals. Still, at 71 years of age, if elected he would eclipse Ronald Reagan as our oldest president. Reagan became president just shy of his 70th birthday.
Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are also-runs in the Republican race.
So who will win the nomination? After writing this, I am looking for somebody else. There is enough listed here to make me wonder why any of these people would seek the presidency. And, more importantly, begs us to ask why we as voters might willingly support any of them?
For some strange reason the politicos have decided to move the decision making primary season up to early January instead of waiting another month or so. Thus, as we bake the Christmas ham, root for our favorite professional and college football teams, and prepare to move ahead in the educational system, we must partake of numerous political advertisements and the television talking heads as they analyze a race that is still 11 months away.
Why are we in such a hurry you might ask. Well its simple, at least in my mind. The two most electable people in the USA--Bill Clinton and Al Gore--are not running for office. So the political shakers and movers believe we need all this extra time to determine who the best person is for the presidency. And this is a unique presidency since for the first time in many years (maybe 1929) that a seated president or vice president wasn't seeking the top prize.
And, I think its safe to say, we have a wide range of candidates and numerous questions about the qualifications of the whole lot. Measuring reasons why someone should not be president might be easier than assessing reasons why they should be.
Perhaps the most controversial candidate is Hillary Clinton. She certainly lacks the political skills her husband possesses. He was a centrist--not a liberal-- and he used that quality to assure his reelection in 1996. Hillary appears to be much more liberal, cold, calculating and not nearly as personable as her husband. I would quickly agree that she has the organization skills, intellect and intestinal fortitude to be president. But, it also appears that she lacks the confidence of others as to whether she can win the 2008 general election. Needless to say, electing a woman to the presidency would be a first and this might be the wrong woman at the wrong time. It would probably be easier to vote against her than for her.
Barack Obama is certainly an interesting candidate. The Democratic senator from Illinois has burst on the scene and is legitimately the most electable African-American candidate to ever seek the presidency. He, of course, is plagued by the idea that he is not experienced enough to hold the highest office in the land. Then too, I do believe he is plagued somewhat by a name that might be disadvantageous in this era of Mid-Eastern terrorism and being Black also serves as an obstacle to overcome if he wants to be president.
John Edwards, who appeared to be an up-and-comer during the 2004 election, seems to be the odd man out in this race. Plagued almost from the beginning with the unfortunate issue of his wife's health, along with a $400 haircut, Edwards seems to be floundering in third place wherever he goes. Still, he has a great delivery, looks presidential, and has the experience of a national campaign under his belt. But, that might not be enough in 2008.
The remainder of the Democratic field--Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel--have no chance and will gradually disappear from the primary rosters.
While Republicans might look with glee on the issues that Democrats have with their presidential hopefuls, all they have to do is look at their own roster and begin to start worrying themselves. Looking presidential is not one of the better qualities of the right-wing contingent either. Each candidate carries a set of positive and negative qualities that will play a role in their electability.
Rudy Guiliani, former mayor of New York and the person most likely to wave his credentials in fighting terrorism, has held the early lead in the Republican race. But, as election days creep closer, Guiliani looks creepier and creepier. He has a somewhat dysfunctional family, perhaps because he is on his third wife, and she came into his life as his "mistress" according to one news report I heard earlier this week. He also has a relationship with Bernie Kerik, the former police commissioner of New York City. Financial irregularities led to Kerik's involvement with the legal system, stopped his nomination as Director of Homeland Security, and are now plaguing Guiliani who remains loyal to his old friend. Guiliani also is pro-abortion, welcomes immigrants and favors some gun control. I frequently wonder how Republicans can even consider him one of their own, let alone favor him for in the White House race.
Mitt Romney seems to me to be the most professional candidate in the race, regardless of party. He simply looks presidential. Still, despite his organizational skills and the ability to win the governor's race in highly liberal Massachusetts, he is not without a list of problems. First and foremost is his Mormon faith. While that doesn't bother me, others consider it nothing more than a cult and have said they could not support him. Additionally, he is a flip-flopper on the issue of abortion.
Fred Thompson, the actor who some compare to Ronald Reagan, is no Ronald Reagan on the campaign trail. First he hesitated entering the race, and everyone knows that "he who hesitates is lost." That delay was impacted by the fact that his early campaign style was not exciting. Thompson is hampered by the fact that he looks old and has what some refer to as a "trophy" wife who appears to be pulling the strings on this political campaign. While Thompson appears to be conservative enough to be a true Republican (unlike Guiliani and Romney) he seems to have miscalculated his candidacy and may never overcome that early error.
Mike Huckabee is the candidate that might be gaining the most notoriety, at least recently. As of Sunday (12/2) he appeared to have captured the lead in Iowa polls despite being short on funds. Huckabee is a respectable conservative, comes across well, hails from the city of Hope, Ark. (which seems to carry some weight since the presidency of Bill Clinton) and appears to be a long-term candidate in the primary race. Still, Huckabee has a very deliberate delivery and some wonder if he has enough fire in his belly for the presidency.
John McCain was recently endorsed by the New Hampshire Union Leader--the only statewide paper in that small New England state. A win in New Hampshire has been big in presidential politics and McCain will surely need one if the Iowa polls, which presently show him in fifth place with only seven percent of the voters favoring his candidacy, are right. McCain is perhaps the most interesting person in the race right now. A former Vietnam war POW, he is an honorable man with perhaps more of a centrist view than most conservative Republicans. That would make him more appealing to moderates and liberals. Still, at 71 years of age, if elected he would eclipse Ronald Reagan as our oldest president. Reagan became president just shy of his 70th birthday.
Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are also-runs in the Republican race.
So who will win the nomination? After writing this, I am looking for somebody else. There is enough listed here to make me wonder why any of these people would seek the presidency. And, more importantly, begs us to ask why we as voters might willingly support any of them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
