Wednesday, March 07, 2007
|
|
Tiger Woods 2024
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
11:56 PM
|
|
Oy:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After dominating the golf world for the last decade, is Tiger Woods considering a foray into politics?
The professional golfer, who was in Washington on Wednesday to officially announce that his foundation will host a golf tournament in the Washington area next summer, did not dismiss the possibility he might one day have political aspirations.
Asked at a National Press Club event if a political future was in the cards, the 31 year-old did not rule it out, saying he has had experience "meeting influential people in the political arena" but does not know where his "future lies."
And best of all: I hear he's a Republican.
In a Townhall column last month, Herman Cain suggested 2016 as the date for a Tiger run. I respectfully disagree. As a fan of the game, I want to give him plenty of time to rack up his 25 or 30 majors, which he'll be doing well into his 40s. And as a political junkie, I want eight more years to speculate about Tigermania.
Here's the plan: Woods wins the 2023 Masters at 47 (Nicklaus was 46 when he last won at Augusta) which is just the lead-in he needs to launch his exploratory committee. It'll be a late start -- but look at it this way: raising money won't be a problem for him.
|
|
1. Not to put too fine a gloss on this subject, but since you brought it up like that, Tiger, as he pointed out at two press conferences in '97 after he turned pro and got frustrated with clueless reporters getting his family wrong, is half asian (his mom, who may be both Thai and Korean, if I recall correctly), about one-quarter black, and one eighth Am indian and one eighth white. His oft-repeated childhood acronym for the whole thing was: cablanasian, or some such. If you're going to bring it up, do a little readin', ok?
2. "...conservative opposition to every civil rights statute...." ? WTF, are you really unaware that the '64 and '65 CR legislation was passed by a greater percentage of Repubs than Dems? Um, the "states rights" folks were southern donkeys, got it? You digress all right, from history.
3. The opposition, weak and worthless as it is, in the Gop is to ILLEGAL immigration, try to get this rather basic distinction. An explicit opposition, if fairly polled, shared by something like 70% of the citizenry, Repub or donkey.
4. Any evidence that his wife's Swedish heritage indicates Tiger's political views? Any interviews, him or her, anything at all, besides your rather silly assertion?
5. Tiger being from California indicates what again? He grew up in Orange County, which means nothing as to what his political views are, but I believe it is home to some cons. Um, wasn't Reagan from CA, for his last, what, seventy years? Need I say more.
6. I do not recall reading about cons going gaga over Lance Armstrong; I know he supported dubya, but beyond that it's news to me that he was a Gop candidate in waiting or something. I always thought he wasn't very strongly conservative, because he dated that looney lefty singer, but maybe he compartmentalized really well.
I reiterate that Tiger has given no indication of what his politics are, other than an abiding respect for the armed forces, which lamentably but reasonably nowadays leads many sentient fans to assume he's a conservative of some sort. |
|
I agree you have not talked about abortion. But I used that as an example because it is a big big issue for many in the GOP.
As for immigration--I fully agree. Let's stop illegal immigration. I do not want to alienate Latinos like Tancredo does or get into rhetoric about shipping tens million Mexicans back south. I would like to see the GOP be forthright about it--state uneqivically that illegal immigration will be prosecuted, by going after businesses that employ illegal immigrants and fining them(severely).
Illegals will either leave on their own or will get in line (behind those who followed the rules) to get legalized. We will never fully seal the border but we can certainly do a better job sealing it (wall, fence, patrols, etc.). We should also increase legal immigration (especially from Latin America) as the proper alternative to illegal immigration. |
|
And 2024 will become irrelevant.
This blog is just as silly as the author.
Why not Michael Jordan or Shaq ONeil or Tom Brady. Then we will have all of these athletes lining up for White House.
It's plainly silly! |
|
|
Tiger and Condi? Now that is a Republican ticket I could support. |
|
|
I left the GOP months ago to join the fastest growing party in America: unaffiliated independents. If you are a serious conservative, you should do the same. |
|
If Giuliani (hardly a center-right candidate) wins, how do conservatives win 80%? He is Hillary's twin on the issues. A conservative Congress driven by a Republican/Blue Dog coalition (it used to be called the Reagan majority) may not be as good as a true conservative-leaning president, but it sure is better than the across-the-board GOP dominance that has delivered Great Society II and is hell-bent on surrending America's sovereignty.
Joe.
You are setting up straw dogs by attacking my positions on abortion and immigration. I have never talked about abortion and being the son of LEGAL immigrants and living on an island amid the second largest city in Mexico, I can assure you that I am not against immigration but I will not compromise on ILLEGAL immigration. It is an existential issue threatening the very existence of law and order and my position is very much the same as most LEGAL Mexican-Americans, even the immigrants. I absolutely will not support a candidate who is not convincing about building the wall and prosecuting the employers.
If you don't think policies are important, why are you even getting all worked up about politics? Why not switch to sports? I've been a Red Sox fan my whole life so I know what disappointment is all about. But it doesn't have any material impact on the important things in life. Politics does. I really don't care about Republicans or Democrats. I think all politicians are sociopaths. The only was to get anything out of these crooked weasels is to beat it out of them. |
|
I am a fiscal conservative who wants a strong national defense. Beyond that I want government out of my life.
I want more rights to the states and I do not want anyone dictating to me what social policy should be where I live. I have enough problems with the lunatics who live in my state (I am sure you have the same problem being in Pasedena). If we have a democracy, let's act that way.
Abortion is a good example. Most people do not care for it (I do not), but most people do not want to see it made completely illegal or the equivalent of murder. I doubt that will change for this country as a whole in the next 100 years. I know many deem it a great evil, the equivalent of murder (and slavery)--but they definitely are not the majority. I think the majority would like to see abortion regulated, restricted, and discouraged as much as possible and that is where I stand. I would also like Roe to go down and leave the issue for the states to resolve.
I want a rational plan for immigration. Immigration is good. Illegal immigration is what is bad. I want the legal part greatly expanded and the illegal part enforced (through fines on businesses who violate the law).
I disagree with you on this Pasedena Phil. I do not want broad sweeping platforms on abortion or other social issues derailing good candidates.
|
|
If you want to drive policy, you can't do it sitting in the passenger seat. If you want to sit in the driver's seat, you MUST win national elections.
If the Democrats take the White House, "TRUE" conservatives lose 100% of everything they want. If a center-right Republican wins the White House, "TRUE" conservatives win 80% of everything they want.
It's your choice. If at the end, your GOP candidate isn't the nominee and you won't vote for a center-right GOP nominee against ANY Democrat, then please leave the Republican Party. You are doing your cause, your party and your nation no good. |
|
|
It's not about winning national elections. It's about driving policy. Most of the population just goes with the flow. They are Democrats or Republicans by chance and convenience. They will follow. Republicans started winning elections once they started standing for something. BOTH parties are trying to win the money people over by posturing as people who can pursuade you and me that the money is right and we are wrong. "Let me handle them, I know how to talk to these people." Apparently they know how to talk to you. They are not getting a single foot into my front door. It takes a pretty good salesman to convince me that cancer will cure all that ails me. That is what is now going on. We need to move on to or through Romney as either THE candidate or the gateway to him. Throw your polling statistics away. They don't mean a damn thing. |
|
I don't disagree much in principal. I do not care for Barak Obama as a candidate--primarily because of his liberal policies. I recognize he is a compelling candidate personally though and his a very bright and nimble opponent. He is certainly no victim of racism. That fact he is half African is relevant (at least to me) only because a black man has never been President.
We know that Selma appearance was about a half Caucasian-half Kenyan Black African winning over African-Americans democratic voters from a certain Caucasian candidate from Chicago with a bad southern accent. Seems like he was successful.
As for Barkley--is he a Jesse Vetura or Arnold when it comes to politics? I guess he is closer to Jesse. I still like the guy and think he should run for something (maybe not Governor right out of the blocks). |
|
I'll admit that it would be interesting to watch Pasadena Phil, benner and the other Rudy-bashers build their new party. But I'm afraid there'd be no one showing up for the dance. Sorry guys, but that's how I see it.
The idea that Rudy is a liberal is so laughable to anyone who lived in the NY Metro area in the 1990s. You don't become #1 on the New York Times's hit list (and oh how they despised him!) by being a liberal. |
|
I enjoy Barkley and frequently chuckle when I happen to catch him on the tube or radio, but I think buffoon applies when he ludicrously speculates about running for Alabama governor, as he did a few years ago. Barkley virtually relishes such appellations, as evidenced by his TBS persona, his on-court antics at the recent NBA all star gathering, his many interviews on the subject of his (sometimes very unsuccessful) gambling, his Nike golf commercial with Tiger, etc. etc. None of this bespeaks a serious thinker, albeit a harmless, and maybe personally fun, fellow.
You mis-understand my post. IF Tiger would ever run (I agree this must be a slow newsday) ONLY because of his suntan, and not because of his views about issues, like most candidates have to do, he would squander goodwill, which has always emphasized that one's race doesn't matter. Barack Hussein is doing precisely that, running solely on color, evidence for which is his appearance in Selma last week where he absurdly suggested that he is some kind of victim, some kind of heir to those who grew up and marched there two and three generations ago. If you may not be aware, he was mostly raised in Honolulu as a relative child of privilege. There are the further reports (though I'm not sure about their completeness), that his ancestors were slave-owners. Shouldn't matter at all, can't hold the sins of the great-grandfather against him, but if his sole, implicit, even explicit, message is that of opposing those evil whiteys, I and many others are entitled to point out his background. If Ms. Rice were to run against him, and if the issue were solely their American bios (relevant in a democracy, but not dispositive to me) and who has a more credible claim on victimhood, it would be no contest, as we all know (her childhood friends were murdered in Birmingham in the notorious church bombing). |
|
If you think Medved and Ruffini (and presumably George Will) are faux conservatives--the conservative movement is doomed. Maybe 25% of the country are very socially conservative (like you). About 20-25% are moonbat liberal. The remaining 50% vary, depending on the issues. Overtime people's political views do shift, but usually not radically. Many of us are not as conservative as you are (especially on social issues)--but don't like the Democrats. If you think you can win national elections with your 25% very conservatives--well get ready for a long visit to the political wilderness.
And I would never call you a Communist. You are a patriot and a gentleman.
I am not asking you to give up your principals--just recognize that a respresentational democracy involves compromise. Elections come down to picking the best available candidate who can win. To quote Will, perfect is the enemy of good. |
|
Clinton used polls to make decisions on policy. While it is perfectly proper to use polls to determine whether or not a legislative proposal has a chance or not--they should not be used to determine policy positions. That shows a lack of character.
I am curious if Mitt Romney gained any traction after CPAC (or there were any further trends with Giuliani or McCain). I am not being negative or postive about it--I am just curious what the polls show. Polls are a legitmate way of determining that. If Mitt's numbers do not change positively, that is a bad sign for his campaign. If Mitt cannot gain grounds with the GOP, how is he ever going to win the general election? It is a big deal for the GOP to pick a candidate who can win the general election.
If abortion is a deal breaker for you--I respect that but also respectfully disagree. While I think Roe is bad law and want less not more abortions--a strict pro-life position in a candidate is not a deal breaker for me. I care more about national security, fiscal responsibility (lower taxes and spending), and conservative judicial appointments (like Alito and Roberts).
I really don't need your approval on whether or not I am a principaled conservative voter. |
|
|
"Purity" has become a euphemism for insisting on being a conservative when the party is going liberal. We already have a liberal party, it is called the Democratic Party. We have become so complacent as Republicans that we can't separate the two words and so we are losing our identity. The landscape is shifting for conservatives. We are gaining fast in the Democratic Party (they like winning elections too) as the GOP goes wobbly. We are going to win in 2008, the question is whether the GOP is coming along. We have allowed our ranks to be diluted by faux conservatives (hello Michael Medved and Patrick Ruffini) who are trying to soften us up to accept a liberal democrat as our candidate. Keep in mind that the people lecturing us at TownHall are professional political operators who are here only to address conservative Republicans. They are party operatives, not conservative devotees. It's all about the party with them. I don't vote party, I vote issues. The GOP is going wobbly while conservatives are getting stronger. How much will it cost to continue to defy the will of the people? There is a reason that Wall Street firms are the biggest source of campaign funds: their one-world, corporatist agenda is corrupting the whole process. And don't call me a commie either, I'm a stockbroker who believes in capitalism. I just don't believe in crony capitalism. Most of all, I believe in democracy. |
|
I do not think Barkley is a buffoon. Why would you say that?
Frankly I find this whole "Run Tiger Run" post a tad light--is it a slow news day or is it because the Boss is on vacation?. But playing along, let's assume Tiger had political aspirations and thought he could contribute to the debate--what would be wrong with that? I do not think Tiger's hypothetical running would be "playing the skin color card" or would squander any good will. If Condi Rice decided to run for President--would that sqander good will for her? Wouldn't her ethnicity and background growing up black in the South be relevant (frankly it is a compelling story of hard work and discipline in her case)?
While Obama seems to be running on style more than substance and I do not support him for President--I do not think he is improperly "playing the skin color card." Sure he is of half African-ancestry and that is a factor for his campaign--but Obama is no Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. |
|
His late dad was indeed a Green Beret in Vietnam, nicknamed his son (by his second wife) for his great friend in Nam, a South Vietnamese patriot whom he had known as a "tiger" for his manner. Golf Digest 7 or so years ago sent a reporter to Nam to try and find the original tiger, and after a lengthy and interesting search it was determined that the man died in a north re-education camp a few years after the fall of the South, i.e., in the late '70's. The man's widow and some kids got out and now live in the Seattle area. They declined any financial help from Earl/Tiger. I think the story is still available online where I read it a few months ago.
Never seen anything anywhere in any interview with or about Tiger wherein it is clearly stated that he is conservative or a Repub., other that assumptions of same because of his respect for his dad's career. Neither he nor his friends talk to the media about this, ever. Barkley may be his friend for golf and fun, but if Tiger ever follows Barkley's buffoonish political aspirations or runs for office playing the skin color card, ala Barack Hussein, he will thereby squander the enormous goodwill he has built up for ten years. |
|
Read the George Will article I posted--especially the part about Ronald Reagan's positions while Governor of California. Read the Michael Medved article I posted yesterday (on Hugh's vacation post).
If conservatives focus on some perceived "purity" they are doomed--not only in 2008 but for a long time. The GOP needs to bring in voters, not alienate them. The Dems get that (because they got wupped in a few election cycles for being nutjobs)--hence their backing down on certain positions. Conservatives and the GOP need to get that too. |
|
|
I just saw a picture of him sitting with Nancy Pelosi. His friends are all going to be dems for the most part. He is more conservative than liberal- but I bet he would still have a (D) after his name. I do give him props for supporting the military and his dad was an amazing guy. |
|
|
The GOP will be a third party fielding big name has beens, just like in 2008. If he really wants to be a serious candidate, he should be looking ahead at the future Conservative Party which will emerge as a force by 2012, maybe even for 2008. Remember, the Red Sox won nothing when they had Hall of Famer Orlando Cepeda hobbling through otherwise good seasons. Same with Giuliani. The difference is that Cepeda didn't destroy the Red Sox. |
|
but you people may have missed the boat.
(from New Republic): "Reading a great GQ article about the Inside the NBA show--during which the author, Joel Lovell, got to spend some quality time on the show's set with Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, and Ernie Johnson--I came across this bit:
Tonight's first game is the Chicago Bulls vs. the Cleveland LeBrons, and it's ugly from the get-go. Charles gives up about three minutes in and makes a phone call. "Hey, Barack," he says. "Charles Barkley here. Hey, congratulations, man! We did good. I'm so excited. We swept those assholes out of town." (This is November 9, two days after the election.) "Listen, man," he goes on, "I was just in Vegas with Tiger for the fight. It was a lot of fun. He's in Asia now, playing for the next couple of weeks, but when he gets back, I gotta get y'all together. He's finally at the point in his life where he can think about something other than golf. He's ready to become more political. You'd be a great place for him to start. When he gets back, let's get y'all together." [Emphasis added.]"
How great would it be if Tiger and Obama had had each other on their speed dial!
|
|
Well, some are right to sound a note of caution here.
Especially after the campaign of Swann.
BUT, it should be noted that Swann ran in a strongly leaning blue state, in THE roughest election cycle for Republicans since Watergate.
The damage the Bush administration has done to the GOP made sure that NO Republican could win the Pennsylvania Governorship this year.
And that's why Swannie didn't even bother campaigning. He quickly saw the polling, the dreadful polling, and realized there was no sense pouring his own dollars into a foregone loss.
And when I speak of damage that Bush has done to the party, I'm not speaking of Iraq, because it transcends that.
I don't want to go on about that though........ |
|
|
|
|
|
If I had influence with Tiger, my advice would be this: do not soil yourself by cavorting with politicians.
Professional golf is an arena of honor. It is a place where pros freely self-report violations of the rules to maintain the integrity of the pro game. It is a place where players freely ask for rulings from course officials before playing the next shot. It is a place where an ostensible Masters champion lost the championship because of a mistake on his scorecard, and honorably accepted the outcome rather than whine like a crybaby.
Politics is an area best known for treachery, narcisism, whining, and massive self-absorption. And politicians are -- for the most part -- not worthy of the esteem in which we hold them.
Tiger, don't go there. I'm begging you.
---Tom Nally, New Orleans
|
|
|
What are the latest polls? I noticed that real clear politics summary has not changed much (I think there is only one new poll since the CPAC). Giuliani still holding a commanding lead with McCain and Romney virtually unchanged. Are there any new polls indicating any trends on this? |
|
|
He brings something else to the conversation besides grace, humility, poise, and smarts. Hubba-hubba! |
|
|
Lord knows we always need another politician-athlete (or is that athlete-politician) like Steve Largent. |
|
I think it's a tad early to be discussing Tiger's political future. A lot can happen(good & bad) over a twenty year period. Give the man some time.
Earl Woods-
Earl was a GREAT AMERICAN. He served multiple tours in Vietnam and did become a Green Beret.
He was also the Jackie Robinson of the Big Seven(now Big Twelve) college baseball conference, becoming the first black athlete to play ball in the conference. |
|
|
Perhaps Plato is right about democracy after all. |
|
I know his father earned his Special Forces badges, but I'm not sure which particular unit he was assigned to. A fella can get his Ranger badge, his airborne wings, but not be assigned to an actual Ranger battalion or an airborne unit.
But I think his father WAS a Green Beret.
His father taught him mental toughness, and as you can all see, his father taught him well.
When he first came up, I didn't like him, because of the hype, or what I deemed overhype.
But he proved me wrong, and he won me over.
And I'm not a man easily won over.
JAMESB suggests that I live in what he deems a "Fox News-Cartoon World."
The growth of trivializing mockery, particularly amongst the left, is one of the most troubling signs of social and individual decay out there.
Men engage on the merits. That was one of the foremost characteristics of the American West.
And that's still a defining trait of the American people.
I know that some, lost, purblind post-moderns enjoy dismissing that aspect of the American character, they prefer to mock, to trivialize.
But America's character isn't something to be mocked, to be dismissed, to be trivialized, it isn't something to be discussed with the style of a gossip columnist.
It isn't subject to the railings of some post-modern effeminate.
Fact stands, Tiger's choices indicate the man he is, and the man he's likely to become.
And some already know that about him, and some are ALREADY made uncomfortable by his old-school character.
Truth hurts.
Truth hurts.
I thought I would end with a cliche, it seemed so fitting for one dismissed as living in a "Fox News-Cartoon World."
|
|
|
Wasn't Tiger's dad in Special Forces? |
|
A year or so ago, Tiger took off some time and spent two weeks with our Special Forces, at Fort Bragg.
Now just think about that.
Guy could be out carousing, sampling the ladies along the Riviera, but instead, he prefers to don camo and spend it training with our best and bravest.
OF COURSE THE GUY'S REPUBLICAN.
|
|
|
Tiger may be opening up the first lunar golf club by then. A nice prediction on the Tiger political juggernaut, but how about a decent candidate winning in 2008! |
|
|
|