Bob:  Well, Loretta, it would seem that my party is still the party of ideas. 

Loretta:  Bad ideas.

 Bob:  Ideas.  At least, we’re not the party of abstractions. 

Loretta:  Abstractions?  What do you mean, Bob? 

Bob:  I would’ve thought that would have been perfectly obvious to even a bleeding heart, such as yourself. 

Loretta:  You could hardly call that an explanation. 

Bob:  Well, one of your candidates, Sen. Obama has really started something with two words—change and hope.  Abstractions. 

Loretta:  First, he’s not one of my candidates.  Second, I have to agree.  I don’t think abstractions are policies. 

Bob:  First, I stand corrected.  I forgot your heart dropped out of the race.  Second, I’m glad to hear that even you can see sense.

 Loretta:                          Thank you, dear. 

Bob:  Don’t mention it, hon.  There was a member of parliament, in the nineteenth century.  I can’t remember his name, but he said, and I quote:  “Sometimes, the old ways are best.” 

Loretta:  I guess that’s why they call your party the Grand Old Party. 

Bob:                                             Well, I understand that change, according to the dictionary, means, “to replace with another,” or, “to make or become different.”  Not sure what the Senator means when he uses it, but he had Senator Kennedy, doing the change thing. 

Loretta:  So, I heard. Bob:  Then, maybe you heard the word hope, getting bandied about by the Senators, and the daughter of President Kennedy.  That same dictionary says that hope is, “to desire with expectation of fulfillment,” or, “one that gives promise for the future.”  I’d have to say that Senator Obama means the latter rather than former. 

Loretta:  Hope is legless, in my book.  Which is why I am glad that two of the candidates of my party haven’t fallen into abstract conundrums. 

Bob:  You surprise me, Loretta. 

 Loretta:  I don’t know why.  I happen to believe in possibilities. Not a synonym for hope, I assure you, nor is possibility a riddle or a fanciful whim. 

Bob:  So, you replace one abstraction with another. 

Loretta: I just told you, Bob, I believe that what is possible means, “being within the limits of ability,” or, “able or fitted to become.”

 Bob:  Well, that makes more sense than hope and-or change. 

Loretta:  Sounds like an idea to me. 

Bob:  It would.  Here.

 Loretta:  What’s that for? Bob:  It’s to wipe that little bit of blood on the— Loretta:  Your joke is a bit on the tired side, dear. 

Bob:  Not nearly as tired as those abstractions that your party likes to bandy about instead of substance…hon. 

Loretta:  It appears to me that the only one of your candidates with any real policies would be Senator McCain. 

Bob:  My point, entirely. 

Loretta:  Meaning?

 Bob:  I claim the sanctity of the ballot. 

Loretta:  So, you wouldn’t vote your heart. Bob:  That’s your job. 

Loretta:  I seem to remember I told you that I was voting my conscious. 

Bob:  That’s still your job. Loretta:                                    Are you through? 

Bob:  Are we done? Loretta:  Unless you have something of substance to add. 

Bob:  Substance would be a synonym for my party. 

Loretta:  Bob— 

Bob:  I’m finished, Loretta. Loretta:  Then, we can say— 

Together:  See you soon.

 Bob:  Do you think your party needs a policy adjustment? 

Loretta:  Bob–

Bob:  Well, Loretta, it seems that your party has survived the blood bath in Nevada.

Loretta:  Don’t you think your rhetoric is little strong, Bob?  A, “blood bath?”

Bob:  No, I don’t, and yes, a I can say it again—a blood bath.  You know that battle of the labor unions that went on over the caucas on Saturday, past. The Culinary Workers Union came out for Barak Obama, and the Teacher’s Union tried to stop the Culinary Worker’s Union, having the caucus at the casinos where the majority of the Culinary Workers are employed.

Loretta:  Be that as it may, Bob, Hillary Clinton carried the day.  Barak Obama received more delegates, so the news pundits declare, but they do not state that he received more delegates than Hillary Clinton.  Some how I get the impression that there is a lack of clarity in the language, and I thought you might explain this lack to me.

Bob:  Why should I?  I’m a farmer.  I’m not schooled in the use of language.

Loretta:  Now, Bob, I seem to remember that when I met you, all those years ago, you were working on an advanced degree in Latin, and I seem to remember you, “schooling,” as you put it, our eight children on the Greek and Latin rehetoricians, or perhaps I was mistaken?

Bob:  You weren’t mistaken.  I did teach our children the uses of rhetoric, but I wasn’t the English teacher in this family.  You were, Loretta.  I’m surprised that you wouldn’t tackle this lapse of clarity, as you put it, but want to put it at my feet when it isn’t even my party.

Loretta: It is precisely because it isn’t your party that I asked for your explanation.

Bob:  Honey, are you going to take up all our time with this?

Loretta:  It is important, dear.  If you wouldn’t mind.

Bob:  Well, I do mind.  I’ll be doggoned if I know what the rules, surrounding the Nevada caucuses happens to be, and I’m not about to stick my neck out, clarity or no clarity.

Loretta:  Thank you, dear.

Bob:  Don’t mention it. Anything else I can help you with?

Loretta:  I don’t want to trouble you.

Bob:  No trouble at all. Shoot.

Loretta:  Well, if you are sure it won’t be a bother to you I wanted to ask you about the interview Barak Obama gave to the editorial board of the Reno Gazette Journal, regarding President Reagan.  In it, Senator Obama praises Ronald Reagan and the way he corrected the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, saying that Ronald Reagan.  Precisely, he states:

“I think that Ronald Reagan changed the trajectoryof America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, in a way that Bill Clinton did not.  He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.  I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses  of the ‘60s and ‘70s, and, you know government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating, and I think that people just tapped in…he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity; we want optimism; we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism, and…uh…you know, entrepreneurship.”

What can say to clarify this, Bob?

Bob:  Say?  Nothing.

Loretta:  Nothing, Bob?

Bob:  Well, I can say this, Loretta.  Clarity isn’t this candidates’ strong suit. I mean, since you asked me, let me illustrate from the junior Senator’s own mouth:

“…[W]e just had the tape.  You just said that I complimented the Republican ideas.  That is not true.  What I said—and I will provide you with a quote {not the quote, but, ‘a’ quote}—what I said is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their {isn’t that what you call a “reference error,” Loretta?}, an agenda that I objected to.  Because while I was working on those streets, watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer, sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.”

Senator Obama, sort of, begs the question on double speak. I can’t say fairer than that.

Loretta:  I see, dear. Thank you for your trouble.

Bob:  Think nothing of it, honey.  By the way, do you want to clarify the Republican primary in South Carolina?

Loretta: …It was a foregone conclusion.

Bob: I see.  Pretty much like Senator Obama. You know I have to say that just because a black man runs for President, does that mean he’s the right person at the right time, or the wrong person at the right time.  Take the Reverend Mike Huckabee—

Loretta:  Please!

Bob: Thank you, Hennietta. As I was saying, the Reverend Huckabee puts in an appearance at Ebenezer Baptist Church, the church where Reverend King pastured.  Now, a white man shows up at an all black church with a significant history, in this country, on the day that this country celebrates his birth, his achievements, but the black man does not. How’s my clarity?

Loretta:  I see your point. By the way, Bob, just whom are you supporting?

Bob: The sanctity of the ballot—

Loretta:  Yes dear, but are you voting with your heart or your head?

Bob:  Have you ever known me to vote with anything other than my head?  You’re the resident bleeding heart liberal in this household, not me.  What about you?

Loretta:  I want to vote my heart.

Bob:  That would be Dennis Kucinich, then, honey?

Loretta:  The sanctity of the ballot, dear.

Bob:  I suppose—

Together:  See you soon.

Loretta:  I was listening to Democracy Now!  this morning— 

Bob:  More liberal clap-trap.

 Loretta:  It’s progressive, not liberal.

 Bob:  It comes to the same thing—clap-trap.

 Loretta:  Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive.

 Bob:   

Loretta:  I said Teddy Roos— 

Bob:  I heard you the first time. I just couldn’t think of a rebuttal. 

Loretta: It isn’t everyday that happens. 

Bob:  It isn’t everyday I have to listen to you, talking about liberal— 

Loretta: Progressive. 

Bob: –clap-trap radio. 

Loretta:  Anyway, there was a debate with some assistant professor and Gloria Steinem. 

Bob:  Swell. Loretta:  What did you say, dear? 

Bob: I said I couldn’t think of a rebuttal. 

Loretta: Anyway, listening to this debate, I decided that the whole public discourse was misguided. 

Bob: Misguided, hon? 

 Loretta: Yes, dear, misguided, and if you give me a minute, and save your need to rebut I will explain it to you.

 Bob:  I’m all ears. 

Loretta:  First, I decided that Barak Obama had begun the discussion about race, referencing Martin Luther King, Jr. His campaign was very smart to turn the tables on the discussion, and the mass media picked up on it, and tarred and feathered Hillary Clinton with the race card, but the truth is Barak Obama began this discussion.  Now, as far as I can tell, and our son, Livy, in his piece on genocide talks about this, got me thinking that the whole conversation is really about class. 

Bob: I read that whole piece, and I didn’t read anything such thing about class.  Are you sure you read the correct piece, or is this more of your woman-think?

 Loretta: Bob:  I guess it isn’t. Go on, dear 

Loretta: Thank you, hon. As I said, I decided the whole conversation is really about class, and that’s where John Edwards is, but the media, you see, don’t want to give him any credence because the mass media has a nervous breakdown when some one candidate starts to talk about class. You see, if you keep the subject on race, then you create divisions that can be…what’s that word Livy likes… uh, it’s, ‘exploit.’ You see when the subject changes to class then the mass media and the corporations behind them because the business of newspapers is to sell advertisements, not to report the news; anyway, say what you will about John Edwards, but he is to be commended for his effort to change the dynamics of the public debate away from race, to class.

 Bob: Loretta: Why do you look as if I told you that none of our children were yours?

 Bob:  The longer I stay married to you the more unpredictable you become.  Now, you’ve taking to manning the barricades. 

Loretta:  Is that some kind of allusion to class warfare? Because you know that’s what used to happen in the past.  I believe it was William Bennett who came up with that. Bob:  So, it’s the fault of Republicans for the state of the public debate?  I thought the primaries were about the delegate count, as a matter of fact. I mean, hon, sure, there’s a lot of debate, and there ought to be, and I mean the right kind of debate, but this all really about how many delegates the candidates bring with them to the party convention. So, I mean, luv, that we need not to get hung up on issues that obscure the debate, and not lose sight of the fact that the primaries are all about delegate count, and all the candidates should be allowed to participate.  At least, as far as my party goes, that seems to be true.  What I mean, hon, is that the only place the debate is not stifled, right now, is the Republican Party. So, I repeat the question:  is it the fault of the Republican Party for the level of debate? Loretta:  Well, no, dear, but if the shoe fits, put it on. Bob: You know I don’t think it does, but that is not to say I can’t follow where you lead, over hill, down dale, through the forest, and look at all those trees. 

Loretta:  Is that supposed to be a joke—dear? 

Bob:  If the shoe fits— 

Loretta: Thank you, dear. I also started began to think about the subject of race, and the fact that we still have to have this discussion, and it led me back to that series Livy wrote on genocide, and he talked about how the allies won the war but lost the peace because genocide, the legacy of Nazi Germany, is very much a part of our world, and I decided that we could say the same thing about the Civil War.  The Union won the war, but they lost the peace to the south because they have set the terms of the discussion about race.  You know they have had this ideology of race since 1836, and a literature, and a whole mythology about the natural superiority of whites, and this has infected the whole nation’s civil discourse, not to mention the way race is so much a part of every facet of our culture. 

Bob: Race and class. 

Loretta:  Class, dear.  John Edwards has that much going for him. 

Bob: You going to change your vote, then, hon? You did say you wanted to vote your heart.

 Loretta:  You? 

Bob:  I stand beside my man. You? 

Loretta:  The sanctity of the ballot is a wonderful part of our democracy. 

Bob:  So, where’s this going to go? Loretta:  I thought out to the kitchen for a cup of tea and a slice of pie.  Would you care for some? 

Bob:  Do we need to continue this discussion, or can we call this a break in the, uh, dialogue? 

Loretta: We have to take our breaks where we find them. 

Bob: You can say that again—but you don’t have to. 

Loretta:  Then, we can say— 

Together:  See you soon.  

I’ve been up talkin to Saint Peter,

and he gave me this here pen,

and sent me back to the earth,

and told me to try it again.

Whatever it was

I didn’t do it.

Whatever it was

It was already done.

Nobody cared,

and it didn’t matter–

Everything’s gonna be alright.

January 9th  Loretta: Well, dear, are you satisfied? 

Bob: How do you mean, satisfied. I can’t read your mind, hon. 

Loretta: After all these years of marriage, eight children, a radiant collection of grandchildren, you’d think you could.

Bob: After all these years of marriage, and your career as a junior high school English teacher, you’d think that you would know how I feel about your lapses into woman-speak. The last time I looked I hadn’t changed gender. 

Loretta: Hemmmmmm, alright let me say that you ought to be satisfied that your choice for candidate won in New Hampshire.

Bob: Ah, yes. Well, I trusted that the, ahem, rank-and-file of my party would see sense, and vote for the right man. You know character counts, when it is all said and done.

Loretta:  Well, yes it does— Bob: In your party, whom do you prefer? Loretta: “Sisterhood is powerful—“ 

Bob:  Ooohh, not that old saw, please. We’re not going to rehash the seventies, are we? It seems to me we had enough of that the first time. 

Loretta:  You mean, speaking of precise speech, when I became interested in— 

Bob:  Yes, you and the girls, for a while I thought me and the two boys were held hostage by a rag-tag group of radical feminists.

 Loretta:  That’s the, boys and I, dear. We were hardly, as you call it, a rag-tag group of radical feminists.

Bob:  That’s a matter of opinion. 

Loretta:  So be it. It didn’t make you any worse for wear, dear.  Besides, it made good men better. 

Bob:  Perhaps, but tell me who are you for?

Loretta:  Well, I wanted to vote my heart.

Bob:  Your heart?

Loretta:  Yes, my heart, and if you’d let me finish a sentence—

Bob:  I apologize…dear. Loretta: Indeed. Yes, I wanted to vote my heart, but I decided to vote my conscious because I believe our country is at stake.

Bob:  So, you’re for Senator Clinton, then?

Loretta:  I would have thought that perfectly obvious from the quote. What’s that for?

Bob:  Your heart. It’s bleeding all over the keyboard.

Loretta: Thank you, dear.  You are such a character.

Bob:  I’m glad you noticed.  Besides, I think Senator McCain is imminently qualified.  I—

Loretta: You don’t disagree, then, with his stand on immigration?

Bob: What? Well, it’s a thorny issue, and I can’t say what the answer ought to be. I thought that President Bush had the right idea, but he didn’t seem to be able to convince anyone else except Senator McCain. I do know that I agree with him. That and the fact, that unlike another member of the Senate, running for the nomination of your party, he doesn’t ignore the hard questions, nor does he avoid an explanation to a vote he’s given. McCain puts his country first.

Loretta: You would be referring to Senator Obama, and the fact that he ignored a question he was asked in Iowa about the subprime loans, and the two points raised by Senator Clinton on his votes for the provision of funds on the Iraq War and his vote for the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Bob: Yep, precisely. Seems to my mind he’s a one issue candidate. When that retired nurse asked about the subprime loan, he danced around the question like he was on hot coals, and then fell back to his health care position. I must say that Senator Clinton does stick to her guns, explains her positions, and doesn’t apologize for votes she’s given—

Loretta: You mean she shows character?  I mean, after all, she is a Democrat, not a Republican, puts her country first, I believe, and she’s not your cup of tea, so-- 

Bob: Oh, call it what you will, but, yes, it does show character on her part. I can’t say fairer than that.

Loretta: No, indeed you can’t.

Bob: Well, at least we agree on character…

Loretta: Imminently.

Together: See you soon.

January 4th

Loretta:  That’s our theme song, folks, and I want to welcome

 you all to our first blog and–

Bob:  That, ‘our,’ would be me and my wife. My wife’s the Democrat in and I’m the Republican, and we are going to be follow the political fortunes of the presidential candidates in this election cycle.

Loretta: Thanky you, dear. I was going to tell the folks all of that, but thank you for, saving me the effort.

Bob: You are welcome, honey.  I just want to let the nice folks to understand what we are up to here.

Loretta: I’m sure the folks can read this, don’t you?

Bob:  Read and understand, I trust you mean, Loretta.

Loretta: Thank you, dear.

Bob: You’re welcome, hon.

Loretta: Anyway, as I’m sure everyone knows Iowa has spoken, and what they have said is that Senator Barak Obama is their man, with 37% of the vote.

Bob: In my opinion, I think the people in Iowa are suckers–

Loretta:  Bob! Please, you aren’t at home.

Bob:  I can speak my mind in my own blog, can’t I.

Loretta: Speaking your mind, and being rude are two different–

Bob:  Just a horse of a different color.

Loretta:  You mean like the former Governor of Arkansas, Reverend Huckabee?

Bob: I mean that your candidate is the kind of politician that’s all to familiar, and, after eight years of dull and witless speak–

Loretta:  That’s your President Bush, dear.

Bob:  That’s right, Loretta. He’s my President, and I can’t help the fact that the only time he spoke clearly and succinctly was when he spoke about the Mitchell Report.

Loretta:  That’s not saying much, dear.

Bob: What I was trying to say before you jumped in with both feet is that your candidate has stepped in the rhetorical breach.  He’s got those rhetorical flourishes that are short on commitment and long on empty promises. At least the Rev. Huckabee sounds like a person. In fact, for a minute, I thought the Senator was the Reverend and the Reverend, the Senator.

Loretta:  I need to correct you on something.

Bob:  Okay–

Loretta:  First, Senator Obama is not my candidate. None of the people I preferred, got past Iowa.

Bob:  I see. You don’t think that one of the people you preferred, throwing his Iowa candidacy behind the Senator, made a difference?

 Loretta: I think it made some, not much. Secondly, I want to say,most emphatically, that, though I understand the dearth of political rhetoric, I don’t believe that rhetoric matters, one lick,  and, I do believe that people have a need to hope because things are bad.  Surely, even you can see that, Bob.

Bob:  You going to start that lecture about Taft, again?

Loretta:  Well, Bob, listening to the victory speech of Senator Obama, I remembered that when President Bush first began his presidency, he quoted President Theodore Roosevelt, and even mentioned that he admired him, but, then all of that changed, and we wound up with eight years of Taft, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover combined.

Bob:  You did the lecture, hon.

Loretta: Of course, I did, dear.

Bob: The last word is down to you, then.

Loretta: 1-zip.

Bob: Until next time, folks. This is Maximum Bob–

Loretta: And Maximum Loretta, saying–

Bob and Loretta:  See you soon.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!