In a tragic setback in Iraq, it was announced today that a dog ate the just completed Iraqi constitution.
“We finished it, honest to god,” said assembly speaker Hajim al-Hasani, looking greatly chagrined and scuffing his toe. “It was all done, we had it, we just needed that extra day to make it look really good. And then we were carrying it to work and this dog just came out of nowhere. It barked and scared us, and I was so startled that I dropped the constitution. Next thing we knew, it was in this dog’s mouth and he was running away with it, chewing on it.”
The constitution and dog have eluded capture. Authorities believe that the dog may have been associated with insurrectionists, since there have been several instances of dogs being employed as suicide bombers.
Fox News reported CIA suspicions that protestor Cindy Sheehan may have been behind the theft, stopping at nothing to make President George W. Bush look bad.
“I sympathize with the Iraqi assembly,” President Bush stated from his annual one month vacation in Crawford, Texas. “I remember when a dog ate my copy of the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention. We still haven’t gotten over that one.”
With the Iraqi assembly now having to start all over again, a new delivery date for the Constitution is uncertain since they’ll have to re-create it from memory.
PAD
• 
I know this is (among other things) a bash Bush site. But could someone please explain to me how things would be if someone other than Bush were in office. Can you be so sure a different President wouldn’t have gone to war, etc. ? Can you hate person ‘A’ so much that you are 100% positive that person ‘B’ would have done things any differently?
Dave,
No, we can’t be sure of the things you suggest, not having access to alternate universes. (Where’s a quantum fissure when you need one?)
Speaking for myself (as the line of people asking me to speak for them in all things is inexplicably sparse), I can only judge based on the actions and personalities I *do* see in the corridors of power, and criticize them on the basis of those actions and personalities.
There are some things I’m pretty sure a Pres. Gore (or Kerry) wouldn’t have done, and some things I disagree with that one of them might well have done. I’m well aware that no candidate I support is going to agree with me 100% of the time unless I lead an amazingly charmed life. I don’t criticize an action with “Gore wouldn’t have done it,” at least so far as I can remember back.
How would things have been different? Ðámņëd if I know. But I know that right now, things are very very bad (and not looking likely to improve any time soon) and I call it on that basis.
TWL
There is simply no way that a President Gore would have attacked Iraq. First of all, the Iraqi invasion had been advocated by Bush’s “lamebrain trust” years before Bush was even in office. Bush wanted to go after Saddam, and 9/11 handed him the perfect excuse.
Second, I firmly believe that a GOP congress–which fell into lockstep behind their president–would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq.
PAD
There is simply no way that a President Gore would have attacked Iraq. First of all, the Iraqi invasion had been advocated by Bush’s “lamebrain trust” years before Bush was even in office. Bush wanted to go after Saddam, and 9/11 handed him the perfect excuse.
Even if true, this first point has no bearing on what a President Gore would have done.
Second, I firmly believe that a GOP congress–which fell into lockstep behind their president–would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq.
I disagree with this as well. No WAY the Republicans would allow themselves to be outflanked on the military issue.
If anything, I suspect the Republicans would have begun loudly calling for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9/11. Whether or not Gore would have agreed is unknowable. My guess is that Bill Clinton, who has been more supportive of Bush than many would have guessed, would have urged him to take action–Clinton seems genuinely regretful at not having done MORE militarily.
But of course, we’ll never know, so one person’s theory is about as useless as anothers.
I know this is (among other things) a bash Bush site.
Really? I just thought PAD was a great writer of fiction? There is actually non-fiction on this site?
😉
Iowa Jim
“There is simply no way that a President Gore would have attacked Iraq. First of all, the Iraqi invasion had been advocated by Bush’s “lamebrain trust” years before Bush was even in office. Bush wanted to go after Saddam, and 9/11 handed him the perfect excuse.”
“Even if true, this first point has no bearing on what a President Gore would have done.”
The notion that you could say “even IF true” considering it’s been thoroughly proven, speaks volumes. And it has every bearing on what Gore would have done, because there was NO 9/11- RELATED REASON TO ATTACK SADDAM. I know it, I suspect you know it, and I’ll wager that Gore knows it as well.
“Second, I firmly believe that a GOP congress–which fell into lockstep behind their president–would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq.”
“I disagree with this as well.”
There’s a shock.
“No WAY the Republicans would allow themselves to be outflanked on the military issue. If anything, I suspect the Republicans would have begun loudly calling for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9/11.”
Really. And you base this on…what? Even in THIS reality there was no call by the GOP for an attack on Iraq. What I suspect is that the RAM (Republican Attack Machine)would have immediately launched an investigation looking to blame Gore for 9/11. It wouldn’t have taken months to get it going, either. The same people who declared that we had to fall into line behind Bush would have, I believe, sought to pillory Gore, saying, “See? See? You put Gore into office and immediately we’re attacked!”
PAD
PAD should write for The Daily Show. It’d be a perfect fit. 🙂
Posted by Bill Mulligan
Sadly, the use of animals as suicide bombers was first used by the USA against Germany in World War 2. They strapped tiny bombs onto bats (!) and dropped them over Germany, thinking that they would go into barns and dislodge the attached devices, setting fire to German farmland and crippling their food supply.
Tragically, the plan did not work. The bats fell asleep at the cold temperatures of the high flying planes and fell straight down, blowing up and sending bits of fledermaus all over confused German farmers.
Actually, i believe you’ve got parts of a true story there; i think that the fire-bats WERE used — but against the Japanese, on the theory that if dropped over cities, they would find places to sleep under the eaves of houses and so on. The idea arose from the image held in the US (true or not) that Japanese houses use a lot of paper partitions and would burn readily.
And here’s an interesting true tidbit (i know the guy involved) — as a solution to an Army Staff College assignement (“Devise a means of widely disseminating biological warfare agents within the the Peoples’ Republic of China.”, one student recommended using mice to carry the germs; delivery would be easy, since a mouse can survive a fall from ANY height — even 20,000 feet.*
Fly over under the radar with a C130, dump a few thousand infected mice out the back, and beat it. Repeat as needed along all borders.
*They’re small enough that the square-cube law makes them so light in relation to their aerodynamic cross-ection that their termainal velocity is low enough to be non-fatal when they hit.
it has every bearing on what Gore would have done, because there was NO 9/11- RELATED REASON TO ATTACK SADDAM. I know it, I suspect you know it, and I’ll wager that Gore knows it as well.
No, it really doesn’t. It may explain why BUSH did what he did, but it doesn’t tell us anything about what would have gone through Gore’s mind.
Unlike some folks who did not vote for him, I seriously doubt that Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan. Cindy Sheehan aside, there are very few people who did not support that war and had he shown any reluctance to pursue it there would have been a long line of Democrats ready to challenge him for the 2004 election. And, although I’m no Gore fan, I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t have done the right thing and taken the Taliban out.
I know there was no 9/11 related reason to take out Iraq, other than a general “let’s take out as many terrorist supporting states as possible” mentality that resonated with many after the attacks. But lots of folks expected a showdown with Iraq even before 9/11. Almost certainly not on this scale but I would have been surprised if Gore or a third term Clinton (as long as we are playing with reality) has allowed Saddam to last much longer.
Really. And you base this on…what? Even in THIS reality there was no call by the GOP for an attack on Iraq. What I suspect is that the RAM (Republican Attack Machine)would have immediately launched an investigation looking to blame Gore for 9/11. It wouldn’t have taken months to get it going, either. The same people who declared that we had to fall into line behind Bush would have, I believe, sought to pillory Gore, saying, “See? See? You put Gore into office and immediately we’re attacked!”
The statement you made was “I firmly believe that a GOP congress–which fell into lockstep behind their president–would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq.”
Sure they would have. You can make a valid argument that Gore would not have asked for it but there is no way that the Republicans would have turned him down. The reality that I base this on is that even John Kerry was forced to vote to give Bush such authority either because he believed it was the right thing to do or because it was the politically smart thing to do at the time. Had the shoe been on the other foot, I am pretty sure that the Republicans would have come to the same conclusion.
I note that my speculation on the actions of my ideological opponents is not based on the idea that they must be stupid or mendacious. Yours seem to be. Well, as you say, there’s a shock.
*They’re small enough that the square-cube law makes them so light in relation to their aerodynamic cross-ection that their termainal velocity is low enough to be non-fatal when they hit.
before I go out and do something that may make me very very ashamed of myself…is this true?
I have NO idea where to put this. At all. So this seems as good a place as any. Also have no idea if the site is a joke. But what the hëll.
http://accstudios.com/
All I can say is: Sean Hannity makes an….interesting superhero. And if that don’t pique your interest, nothing will.
oh- for the love of sattire!
even if my mother in law sends me a nasty letter after this, I still have to say “i’m lovin it!”
I’m sure most of you have heard this idea before, but wouldn’t it be nice if voting was manditory? If people didn’t want to vote, they could spoil their ballot or pay a fine, say $250.00 not to vote.
It apparently works quite well in Australia. One point I’d like to make is that folks who don’t vote usually get the government they deserve.
In this case, they got the government they did NOT deserve! However, two things:
1.) You’ll be fairly hard-pressed to find anyone who didn’t vote if you ask them now.
2.) Freedom is a responsibility and should not be taken for granted. Maybe if more folks took it as a responsibility they might exercise their franchise. Also, if you don’t vote, then you have absolutely no right whatsoever to criticize the government that gets elected. Zero. Zilch. Zip. You might have made a difference. Goodness knows there are lots of people roaming around Florida these days who just wonder what might have been…..
I think a President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11. We were going to flex our muscles after 9/11 and the Taliban was deliberate in their shielding of OBL. He was a guest, he couldn’t be turned in, etc.
I don’t think Gore would have gone into Iraq, though I think he would have (based on the same intelligence) worked on keeping the UN sanctions in place – which were in danger of being lifted – pre-9/11.
If Gore had gone into Iraq, I think there would have been concern from the Republicans, but not outright protest. Republicans gave Clinton some trouble for going into Bosnia (where we still have troops), but generally let the President call the shots without a lot of serious opposition.
Bill,
The statement you made was “I firmly believe that a GOP congress–which fell into lockstep behind their president–would never have given President Gore the authority to attack Iraq.”
Sure they would have. You can make a valid argument that Gore would not have asked for it but there is no way that the Republicans would have turned him down.
That’s not really his argument. He’s suggesting that the Congress would have acted quickly enough to blame Gore for 9/11 that Gore would be stymied at every turn and thus wouldn’t have had time to dream up the Iraq invasion.
I supposed that’s an argument that he wouldn’t have asked, but it’s certainly not an argument of such based solely on Gore’s own opinions, which I think was the gist of the point.
If it had gotten to the point where Congress needed to vote to give him the authority … then yeah, I suspect he’d probably have gotten it, though even there I think the speechmaking on the floor would’ve been very, very different.
TWL
The problem with that option is that it is, while amusing and momentarily gratifying, a completely meaningless gesture within the context of the electoral college system.
So is voting for a Democrat in a staunchly red state or vice versa.
I was speaking generally and not specifically within the context of the electoral college. I agree the system is broke, but it’s easier to rig this way, so don’t look for the powers that be to change it anytime soon.
If anything, I suspect the Republicans would have begun loudly calling for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9/11.
Would that be before or after they held 1000 hours of congressional hearings to make sure the blame for 9/11 fell squarely on Gore’s shoulders?
Also, if you don’t vote, then you have absolutely no right whatsoever to criticize the government that gets elected.
This is like saying that, because you didn’t write the book, you have no right to critique it.
Which is, of course, bs.
I didn’t vote in 2000, which was the first election I could vote in.
I didn’t vote because I thought all the candidates are crap; I don’t recall whether Iowa allows write-ins, although I do know that Nevada has a wonderful “None of the above” option.
Yes, in hindsight, I would’ve voted for Gore. But at the time, I had no reason to suspect Bush was anything other than a bumbling idiot.
It wasn’t until later that I realized somebody was pulling strings.
So, to summarize: people have valid reasons for not voting.
In general, I think people are greatly frustrated by the entire process, since Florida in 2000 proved that every vote doesn’t count, and thus doesn’t matter.
Republicans gave Clinton some trouble for going into Bosnia (where we still have troops), but generally let the President call the shots without a lot of serious opposition.
Except for the whole “You’re just bombing them to distract from zippergate” attack.
Craig, glad to see that someone that made a decision not to vote in an election is speaking up. Maybe other have that I’ve missed, but that just supports my thought that at least some portion of the silent 78 million are actually making a statement by not voting.
I’ve had this idea rolling around my head that, sometime in the next 2 or 3 Presidential elections, that 78 million needs to flex a little muscle. Start an internet campaign and just vote Green (heck, or even Nader), just to show both parties that they don’t have the lock on the government that they think they do. Honestly, if you don’t care for either of the big 2 candidates, doesn’t that mean that, whatever you do, someone you don’t want in the office will be elected? And if that’s the case, if you can’t win for trying, at least you can send a message to those 2 that, if their candidates are not worthy of taking the White House, we, as a People, instead of sending one of their stooges up, are going to send someone else’s stooge up. And it’s not like either party is going to lose that many legislative seats, meaning that whoever does take the Presidency won’t really have any power, but can you imagine the symbolic impact such an event would have on both parties?
Except for the whole “You’re just bombing them to distract from zippergate” attack.
Maybe it’s just faded memory, but I don’t remember that being a serious discussion point. Don’t get me wrong, I remember the whole “Wagging the Dog” lines, but I just don’t remember that it got much traction outside the extreme right other than as a punch line for Leno.
I know that I took it about as seriously as I did the criticism of Clinton being a supposed “draft dodger”.
Re: Mr. Nazarro’s post…
Forgot to put the “;>” emoticon at the end of my post. Mea culpa.
Mark: It got plenty of traction among members of Congress like Bob Dornan and Orin Hatch.
Bobb: I like your idea, but I think it will require someone with more crossover appeal than Ralph Nader to pull off.
Bobb:
The internet is a great tool to be used and abused by the current parties as a supplement to their existing methods, but to try and build an internet-based party out of the non-voters overlooks how big the digital divide still is in this country. Among the many reasons I feel Kerry failed, in the debates he kept referring to his website as the source for answers, i.e. “I have a great explanation for how I’ll handle that… on my website. Go there and read it yourself so I can spend the remaining time for this question saying ‘Hey, at least I’m not Bush'” The problem is that the lower socio-economic base that Kerry really needed to appeal to DOESN’T HAVE THE INTERNET, so to them, he appeared kinda snobby and/or unable to effectively communicate not just that he was different, but HOW he’d be different. I think we’re ten, fifteen years away from a completely web-based election campaign for a serious candidate in contention for a national office. On a local level, though, there are precincts and locales with enough internet penetration to run an effective internet election campaign, and these will likely serve as models for future national efforts. And, frankly, party hardliners WANT to get out and go door-to-door, etc., in the ground campaign; it’s how they get noticed in the political machine and get a place in line for political jobs and appointments down the road.
Jason, I totally agree with you. It won’t be the next election, but in 8-12 years, who knows? With Cell phones getting increased e-mail capability, wi-fi spots popping up all over, and in general connectivity on the rise, it won’t take long until what is only now discusses on blogs such as this becomes water-cooler chat. You can already see it happening, with news channels carrying Blog reports, which basically report out what the discussion of the day on a few blogs is.
But it’s coming. And you saw some of that in just the past elections, with both sides making use of internet resources to supplement their campaign efforts. Winning an election is all about reaching the voters, and the internet will be a big tool in future elections.
The flaw that I see is in getting that silent 78 to agree on someone. Nader might be a poor choice, indeed. But if the point is that you’re going to have a loser in the White House, why not make it one that really leaves a bad taste in the Party leaders mouths?
I’ve had this idea rolling around my head that, sometime in the next 2 or 3 Presidential elections, that 78 million needs to flex a little muscle. Start an internet campaign and just vote Green (heck, or even Nader), just to show both parties that they don’t have the lock on the government that they think they do.
Actually, I’d like to see every state have the “None of the above option” on the ballot.
I think doing that, and getting the word out that people should vote that way, would get people of all political affiliations who are sick of the current choices (which are, in reality, no more than 2), and would be a wake up call for Republicans and Democrats alike.
Sure, the Big Two would call it “throwing away your vote”, but they say the same thing now about third parties. They want you to think that your vote is worthless… unless you’re voting for them.
Unfortunately, seeing as how you might have to go through the Big Two to get it enacted in the first place (and Nevada is the only state with the “None of the Above” choice) is easier said than done.
I don’t think developing a successful, impactful third party completely independent of the current two parties is really feasible. However, I do think the 2008 election would be ripe for a splintering of one of the major parties. Especially on the Republican side, the party has been clamping down on party discipline for several years now. There are bound to be some key players just chaffing under this, and depending on how political fortunes fair in the 2006 elections (for example, despite the party discipline and efforts, a lot of Republican incumbents are voted out in hotly contested campaigns), they might see 2008, with the presidency up for grabs anyway thanks to term limits, decide to strike out on their own. Or, what if the Democrats turn some of this partisanship against the Republicans and work hard on wedge issues to splinter the cohesiveness between the major GOP interest groups? Sure, it might not help the Democratic party in the short term for the 2008 election, but the only way the Democrats can even begin to rebuild their own party as a cohesive force would be to splinter the GOP and shave off some folks for themselves. Of course, if the 2006 elections are another boon for the GOP, or even if it’s a draw or better, that will keep all but the most outspoken in lockstep with the party and keep the GOP juggernaut rolling through the 2008 campaign.
The best bet, it seems to me, for a viable third party campaign would be for a democrat and a republican to run together–a sort of Unity Party to “Bring the country back together” after the devisiveness of the Clinton/Bush 16 years.
As to who could do it…McCain, obviously, Guliani, Bill Bradley, Lieberman, maybe Joe Biden.
Imagine a McCaine/Bradley ticket. McCain would be 72 in 2008, Bradley 65. The expectation would be that McCaine would be a one term president with Bradley being almost a co-president, getting ready for his stint in 2012. Limiting himself to a single term would bolster McCain’s rep as an independent thinker unafraid to take on the special interests. The fact that they do not agree on every issue could even be a strength–“I want to be surrounded by the best people, not just the ones who agree with me on every issue.”
Whether or not it would work would depend in part on the Big 2 parties nominating people who appeal mostly to their base. Whether or not such an administration would be succesful with a congress full of people who deeply resent them is another matter.
Den,
Notice I said extreme right. Dornan was a loon. I have a hard time taking a Congressman seriously when he assaults members of the other party on the floor.
The best bet, it seems to me, for a viable third party campaign would be for a democrat and a republican to run together–a sort of Unity Party to “Bring the country back together” after the devisiveness of the Clinton/Bush 16 years.
I remember talk of a possible Kerry/McCain ticket for this past election, but it fizzled because McCain, regardless of what needs to be done, is too loyal to the Republican party and doesn’t want to be second fiddle to anybody when it comes to his own presidential ambitions.
Which is a shame, because it would’ve been a pretty good pairing.
You’d have to wonder if the same would happen if McCain ran and wanted a Democrat for vise president. You know Republicans would fight it tooth and nail.
You’d have to wonder if the same would happen if McCain ran and wanted a Democrat for vise president. You know Republicans would fight it tooth and nail.
Well, yeah. I guess they would. And dod you think that the Democrats would roll over and say, “Hey, we’ve got nothing better, vote for those guys?”
If Kerry had convinced McCain to join the ticket I think there might have been a serious revolt within the Democratic party. McCain is strongly pro-life and a major advocate for the war. Democrats may like him personally but if the party is at all serious about the positions they take it’s hard to see how they could have gone along with him being a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Also, choosing McCain would have been a tacit admission that the party was bereft of talent–the best man that Kerry could find was a Republican?
That said, if Kerry HAD managed to get it approved, I think they would have won.
wonder what they would do it the
“none of the above” got more votes than the actual candidates?
heh heh… oh well I can dream can’t I ?!
Declare the the Republicans won anyway.
Just my guess.
Mark,
I noticed you didn’t mention Hatch, who actually considers Ted Kennedy to be a personal friend of his despite being 180 degrees opposite from each other politically. He also played up the “Clinton is bombing other countries to distract from zippergate” card.
Den,
Maybe so, but my original point was that the Republicans overall were much less vocal about their opposition. You can always find exceptions. I think a Gore assault on Iraq after 9/11 would have been the same.
I think, regardless of who was in control of what, at the time the congress signed away the Constitutional power to declare war to the President, it would have happened, IF the President made the same accusations, and presented the same support for it at the time. I doubt the republicans at the time would have opposed any swift action in the face of the same presentations made by Bush, had Gore made them. What’s unknown is whether Gore would have manipulated the evidence the way Bush did, and if Gore would further have actually acted upon the grant of power from congress.
Also, choosing McCain would have been a tacit admission that the party was bereft of talent–the best man that Kerry could find was a Republican?
Well, snip that last part of your comment off, and you could say the same thing about Republicans – that it would have been an admission that Republicans are so bereft of worthwhile leadership, that McCain would join up with a Democrat.
If the best ticket is a combination of a worthwhile Republican and a wortwhile Democrat, then, by all means.
Doesn’t a good portion of the country already feel that the candidates being presented by both parties pretty much stink? It seems in both cases over the past 2 elections, one of the parties failed to put their best man forward.
“Sure they would have. You can make a valid argument that Gore would not have asked for it but there is no way that the Republicans would have turned him down.”
Sure there is. From the people who claimed that Clinton was attacking Bosnia to distract from Monica would come “Gore wants to attack Iraq in order to distract from the fact that he hasn’t caught bin Laden yet.” Plus, frankly, I don’t think Gore is as good a liar as Bush. He’d never have been able to heighten the atmosphere of fear as well as Bush and thus would never have gotten the public and congressional support he required.
Nothing in GOP behavior over the past years has given me the slightest reason to believe that they would cut a Democratic president the slightest break, no matter what the circumstance.
PAD
Huh. I broke my internet connection in the middle of writing a post, to answer a call from my wife, and return to find that PAD has made some of the points I was about to post. Well, who better to be beaten out by around here?
Anyway, I was going to chime in with my agreement that it does not seem likely that President Al Gore would have invaded Iraq, certainly compared to an administration which really was looking for any excuse for just this action. Certainly not as an immediate follow-up to invading Afghanistan (which, credit to this administration where due, was a more justified and relevent reaction to 9/11), certainly not with such a flimsy, contrived connection to the 9/11 attack.
And, like PAD and others, I am dubious that the Republican Congress would have lined up in as unified support for him if he had undertaken military action. Many of us find it hard to envision many of the current Republican politicians putting even the good of the country ahead of sticking it to the Democrats/emphasizing their own power. Maybe less of these “Republican Revolution” politicians are in office now, or maybe less of the Republicans in power are of this ilk than I think. This would be a case in which I’d like to be wrong; but I really haven’t seen much from many modern Republican officials in the way of admirable qualities.
Sure there is. From the people who claimed that Clinton was attacking Bosnia to distract from Monica would come “Gore wants to attack Iraq in order to distract from the fact that he hasn’t caught bin Laden yet.”
While I recall that there were those who made such claims, does anyone have any evidence of actual Republican obstruction of Clinton’s military adventures? I mean, I know that some made hurtful comments but since the Republicans dominated the house and Senate for most of BC’s time in office they could have passed resolution after resolution denying him the ability or authority to go into Somalia, or Bosnia, or Sudan. Did they?
And if they didn’t, the idea that they would have to President Gore after 9/11 is just wishful thinking.
But of course, we’ll never know and at some point we begin to look awfully silly, like two kids arguing over who would win in a fight, Buck Rogers or Tarzan.
For the record, it would be Tarzan.
Oh come on; now you’ve just gone off your rocker, Bill. I can’t believe you’d be so stupid… Buck Rogers has frickin’ laser beams. By the time monkey boy yodeled for the animals of the jungle, Buck’s gonna mow him down like an American-contracted lumberjack in an Amazon rainforest. And honestly, Rogers gets the nod when it comes to sidekicks AND love interests; robots and Tanya Roberts in a tight, bosomy space suit versus a chimp and Jane?
Bill, you know I love ya, right?
While Rogers hides behind his laser pistol like a stinking coward, Tarzan would use his jungle know-how to go all Rambo on his ášš. What’s Buck gonna do when a herd of stampeding Rhinos sends him straight into the quicksand? Call on his 20th century wisdom?
This is easy to settle: http://www.googlefight.com.
RESULTS:
Tarzan-1,790,000 results
Buck Rogers- 1,040,000 results
Booyah! In your FACE! I now do the Dance of Victory!
Nahh…..Buck Rogers wouldn’t have the guts to face Tarzan. He’d just nuke ’em from orbit. After all, it’s the only way to be sure. 🙂
So he would win, but he’d win like a pansy. It’d be: Game over man… Game over! (dámņ, I loved that movie.)
Now the match I’d like to see……Buck Rodgers vs…..FLASH GORDON!!
Plus the villians match-up: Ming the Merciless vs Killer Kane.
“This is easy to settle: http://www.googlefight.com.
RESULTS:
Tarzan-1,790,000 results
Buck Rogers- 1,040,000 results
Booyah! In your FACE! I now do the Dance of Victory”
Yeah, well, not so fast, tap-dance boy…
Tarzan-1,750,000 results
Cindy Sheehan-2,400,000 results
The lord of the jungle just got his ášš kicked by a middle aged protestor.
PAD
Tarzan would never fight a lady. He’s English, you know.
But it raises an interesting point: Tarzan, one of the single greatest pop culture characters in history, got beaten by a story that is only a few weeks old. Will the internet, with its ability to create a level of recognition in days what it once took decades to achieve hasten the demise of the old icons? It’s already getting difficult to reach kids; my killer Edward G Robinson impression falls on deaf ears.
One last one:
Cindy Sheehan: 2,290,000 results
paris Hilton: 7,840,000 results
Jesus wept.
The Texas (clean-up-the-ranch) Chainsaw Massacre:
George W. Bush: 23,800,000
beats everyone above put together.
Well, it’s not Bushlike numbers, but
Results 1 – 10 of about 14,300,000 for spongebob
Ok, I found out who can topple Bush…
Results 1 – 10 of about 32,900,000 for barbie.
King (err, queen, even if anatomically incorrect) of the hill goes to she of the corvette/hair salon driving, ageless (one would almost say…plastic?) queen of all things unattainably female.
So Tarzan’s got a better publicist; big whoop. That just means the story of how he got his ášš fricasseed with Roger’s death ray will spread that much faster. If I was trying to pick who I want on my team, sure, I’ll pick Tarzan because he’s gonna keep me alive in the jungle. But if we’re talking who’s gonna win in a throwdown, then I pick Buck Rogers because of the frickin’ laser beams and, honestly, the more rogueish personality that would let him fight a little dirty to win. Cuz Buck’s a winner; Greystoke’s an environmentalist 😛
And just for your information, using your questionable number of hits statistic as an indicator, laser beams and robots definitely win against Mister Throws-His-Feces, if they’re the right robots:
Tarzan: 1,790,000 results
Transformers: 3,620,000 results
Yeah, note I didn’t use the Go-Bots…