Chesswiz77's Point of View

With Osama Dead, Time To Exit Afghanistan

2011-05-04T11:14:00.000-07:00

It's been a few days since the great news of Osama Bin Laden being killed by our wonderful Navy Seals. In those few days Obama's poll numbers have gone up, as they should. Don't get me wrong I'm still opposed to the President on many issues. It's just, in the words of Joe Biden, "a big F'n deal". Any President who can say, "We got him" when refering to OBL deserves credit. And he has received it as his poll numbers have gone up 9 points, from 47% to 56%. However with that being said I have a suggestion that could help the President even more.

President Obama should, in the wake of OBL's death, declare victory in Afghanistan and pull our troops out now. Imo, OBL's death has given the U.S. an opportunity to leave that God-forsaken country while being able to hold our collective heads up high. We won the war. We accomplished what we set out to do, get Bin Laden. It may have taken us nearly a decade to accomplish, as well as cost us a lot in the ways of blood and treasure, but we did it. Historians in 50 years may not look at our war in Afghanistan as much of a victory, but in the here and now it will feel much more like a victory than the wars in Vietnam and Korea could ever hope to.

Where as I think this is the right thing to do, the main reason Obama will likely consider doing this is that it will help him politically. It helps him politically because it would not only boost his numbers within his own base but will help him with other Americans as well. America has become very weary of our involvement in Afghanistan. Because of this, if Obama were to declare victory and announce our immediate withdrawal I'd be willing to bet his approval numbers would shoot up into the high 60's. Now as much as oppose this President on most issues I'm willing to submit this idea to him because I like most Americans want out troops home. Our military has become stretched too thin. At the rate we are going in our continuing intervening of countries like Libya, we will either have to cut our losses and leave places like Iraq and Afghanistan or we'll have to bring back the draft. I'd prefer the former rather than the latter. But that's just me.

Hopefully, the President and other elected officials might consider this. The sooner the better. After all if we don't get out now,having declared victory with OBL's death, then what would be our best case scenario as far as an exit strategy goes. Just something to think about.

Until next time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Wrestlemania 27 = 1 million PPV Buys

2011-04-29T17:40:00.000-07:00

Today it was reported that WWE Wrestlemania 27 received 1 million buys. That is up from 885,000 buys from last year, and 960,000 buys from the year before. I'm sure Vince McMahon is extremely happy that all his maneuvers paid off. But why is it that wrestling only gets exciting during the first 3 months(the road to Wrestlemania) and then dies off for the rest of the year? Why can't WWE or TNA for that matter make pro-wrestling that exciting 24/7?

Well there are two different reasons for both companies. Let's start with TNA: TNA wants to be exactly like WWE. Every time you turn around they do something out of the WWE's playbook. It's riddiculous. I first noticed this back in 2004, when TNA moved to monthly pay-per-views. I thought to myself,"why are they trying to follow WWE's PPV model? Especially at a time when WWE was expanding theirs". If WWE was going to water down their product, TNA should have done the opposite and gone to a 4-6 PPVs a year model. This way TNA can make everyone of their PPVs seem special, seem like Wreslemania. But TNA has always clung to WWE's tail, and always will unfortunately. Then there's the fact that TNA has a lot of the people who ran WCW into the ground running the show. And based on the number rehashed storylines, I wouldn't be surprised if Hulk Hogan and company ran TNA into the ground either.

Now onto WWE: As I mentioned above WWE has severely watered down their product. It is oversaturated in every way possible. 13 PPVs a year a number that was said to be, by an executive within the company, the minimum amount of PPVs a year. Then you've got all sorts of television, Raw, Smackdown, Raw Am, Tough Enough. That doesn't include tv shows that have recently been either cancelled, ECW, relegated to WWE.com, NXT and Superstars, or the occasional special, Saturday Nights Main Event. There is so much overexposure that hardly anything feels special anymore. The reason the Road to Wrestlemania feels special is because that's the one event they actually try to build-up to months in advance. Compare that to say Hell in a Cell, a PPV that occurs two-weeks after Night of Champions. TWO-WEEKS!!! I say. How the hell can you make a PPV feel special in those circumstances? You can't. All you can do is offer rematches from the last PPV, which makes all those people who ordered the previous PPV very upset. Now most PPVs have more than two weeks, this was a worse case scenario obviously, but the thing is WWE doesn't use all that tv time wisely. One of the worst PPV builds last year,imo, was Fatal Four Way. Why? Because the Raw prior to the PPV we only had 4 matches announced. Four. They didn't care about it, so I didn't order it. And judging by the buyrates for it neither did anyone else.

Now the reason I'm giving WWE an even harder time on this than TNA is because they should know better. They've been around over half a century while TNA isn't even 10 yet. Because they're still young compared to WWE, I'm willing to cut TNA some slack. But not enough to abstain them from any wrong doings they've done.

The fact that pro-wrestling is doing poorly is not due to the fans turning their backs on it, it's because there is too much mediocrity and not enough big moments. Moments that transcend the test of time. So while I'm happy Wrestlemania 27 did a good buyrate, I just wish every show had the feel of a Wrestlemania. I'm sure I'm not alone in that sentiment.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out

The American President (Obama)

2011-04-28T01:22:00.000-07:00

Well, Well...Apparently the news of the day is that President Obama is an American. Who Knew? Well fewer and fewer as time went by, that's who. That's because President Obama has been letting this issue linger on for the past 3 years. In that 3 year span he could have produced this birth certificate at any time but didn't. Why? Well it seems the consensus from the Main-Stream-Media is that it's because he wanted to make his opponents look foolish. If that's the case, then why release the birth certificate now?

My theory is that Obama released it due to the number of people believing the birther issue was important was going up. In a recent CNN poll, 24% of Americans believed the birther issue was an important issue. Meaning they either thought he wasn't a legitimate President or was starting to have doubts. Compare this to just two years ago when he first took office where less than 10% believed he wasn't born here. These numbers have gone up steadily in just two short years. And remember that a new President is given a honeymoon period at the start of their term, so the fact the number of people who believe there's credence to the birther issue has gone to 1 in 4 has to be startling to this administration to say the least.

And it would of have gotten worse if Obama let this issue remain just that an issue. How you ask? Well I've found that as a President gets more and more unpopular the more people start to believe the worst in them. Take Bush for example, even now he gets blamed for all sorts of things a clear headed person knows to be false(ie BP Oil disaster). And so I believe Obama released the certificate to save himself from this potentially damaging issue next year. If 1-in-4 believed it now with Obama's approval at 41% then where would it be this time next year, 1-in-3, 2-in-5,etc. He pre-emptively took this issue off the table once and for all. Some of the die-hard birthers will still refuse to believe he's American but those who were beginning to lean a little have one less grievance with this President than they did the day before. So the President's strategy here worked.

However, I must say that Donald Trump is also a winner in this whole mess. Because he managed to get Obama to reveal something that the Clintons weren't able to. And he took away Obama's original intent in the whole lingering of the birth certificate. Now the GOP nominee, whether it's Trump or not, can focus on the real issues when running against Obama in 2012. And that is a very good thing.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

(Scott) WALKER WISCONSIN RANGER

2011-03-09T22:51:00.000-08:00

Today is a good day for those of us who believe Unions have gotten away with too much, and too big for their britches. The reason it's good is due to the Republicans being able to get around the foolish behavior of 14 crybabies and passing a bill that would limit the unions ability in regards to collective bargaining. Now that it's passed those 14 obstructionist(yes I called them what they called Republicans the last 2 years, except the Republicans actually showed up!)can return to work, if they even know how to do this. Then Governor Walker and the Democrats can get back to doing the people of Wisconsin's business. All is right with the world, right? Well knowing Democrats the way I do they just can't let it go at that. They have to threaten recalls for the Governor and his fellow Republicans.

So let me see if I've got the Democratic playbook correct: 1)Tuck your tail between your leg and runaway to another state, 2)If that doesn't work bring in your astroturf movement(ie out of state unions)to intimidate the Republicans, and 3)If that to fails and you lose the battle and the vote, then start pouting and begin a recall effort. Did I get it right? I think so. See in their mind it's their way or the highway. That's how the first two-years of Obama went. At least Governor Walker and the Republicans gave the Democrats more time to discuss this issue than they themselves were given two-years ago when the Democrats passed a massive Billion dollar tax hike in a 24 hour period with no public input. But you can't blame the Democrats for going ballistic over this issue when you consider the fact that unions are their biggest contributors. They can't stand the thought of a diminished Sugar Daddy(unions). They couldn't care a lick about the middle class, it's all about the money for them plain and simple.

Governor Walker, or as I call him (Scott) Walker Wisconsin Ranger, should be applauded for his determination to balance the budget while giving the people in public unions the ability to decide where their money goes and who represents them. And for those on the far-left, who look to create even more chaos through these recall efforts, know that this is only the beginning. No more business as usual. We've got serious issues to tackle, and if you're not part of the solution then get the hell out of the way! Change at last has come!!! America will take it's place once again as that Shining City on a Hill that will be the inspiration and triumph of the World.

Just my 2 cents on this issue.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Wisconsin 14 - Thuganomics 101

2011-03-03T20:31:00.000-08:00

This blogs intent is to put forth my feelings on this whole debacle going on in the state of Wisconsin.

In the 10 years I've paid attention to the political scene, I've never witnessed such cowardice as we've witnessed from these 14 Democratic state senators. I guess their motto is, when the going gets tough runaway. Imagine if every state had representatives who did that. Nothing would get done. If Republicans were obstructionist for using the filibuster the last two years, then what does that make these Democrats. For me I'd say they were being derelict. And it pleases me that a resolution was just passed that calls for their arrest. In my op ion, these men and women have no place serving in government(local,state, or federal). Hopefully with passage of this resolution the 14 will be arrested shortly and this whole mess can be put behind us with Governor Walker's Budget Bill passing.

Now onto the protesters themselves. In the words of Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, these protesters are what I'd called AstroTurf. This is a organized movement set up by the major players, ie SEIU, and AFL-CIO. They do not represent the majority of Americans. The only reason that it seems they do is because the Lame Stream Media is in bed with them. And I can back that claim to be sure. Just look at the difference between the media's coverage of the Tea Party and the thugs up in Madison, Wisconsin. With the Tea Party the media had to seek out the few nutty people with inappropriate signs and then tried to tarnish the entire group because those few nuts. Compare that to the union thugs in Wisconsin, it doesn't take very long to find the nuts and the inappropriate signs. And you know why? Because they're everywhere. It doesn't matter what network you watch(ABC,NBC,CBS,Fox News, CNN). It just doesn't matter because the union protesters are made up of mostly nutty people. Nutty people who compare the Governor to Hitler and Mubarak, who surround law makers and bring live ammo to the state capital. Yet it's the Tea Partiers who are dangerous? Imagine if we lived in a world where the media still had journalistic standards and integrity how this whole mess might have been averted. Alas we don't live in such a world. And as a result we have whining children running away from their responsibilities and thugs trying to intimidate those we elected democratically from putting our house in order. Shame on all of them.

One last thing, in the fall of 2009 I remember the Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi giving a press conference. In this press conference I saw her crying while telling a story about how the rhetoric of the Tea Party reminded her a lot of the violence that came about from the 60's. Now here is what I'd like to know. Where is she now? Where is Nancy Pelosi, when there is actual evidence of violent rhetoric and actions coming from these union thugs. Where? Oh never mind, I think I can answer my own question. The reason she is no where to be found is because she too is in bed with the unions. She receives a lot of campaign money from them. Therefore she won't bite the hand that feeds her. But even if she wasn't I find it hard to believe she'd come out against them. She has to uphold the traditional Double Standards the Democratic Party and Lame Stream Media cherish.

So a special shame on her for Nancy "I still wish I was Speaker" Pelosi.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Wrestlemania XXVII 3D

2011-02-24T00:00:00.000-08:00

It's being reported that Vince McMahon wants Wrestlemania XXVIIto break One Million PPV buys. Now looking at how Wrestlemania is currently shaping up I'd say it probably won't happen. That's due to a couple different factors, one of which is the lack of star power wrestling at the event. But I can think of a couple of things that might help his cause a bit.

The first is in the title of this blog. I heard rumors a month or two ago that WWE was considering showing Wrestlemania in theatres, and that it might be shown in 3D. IMO, I think this would be a good idea for a couple of reasons.1)3D is an on-going craze right now, the WWE might want to take advantage of it while they can; and 2)It would give those who attend the feeling that they're at the show itself, which would make for an exciting experience.

The second and most important is to pay the Rock what ever he wants to get him to wrestle John Cena. As much as I love the back and forth between the two on the mic, it would ultimately be wasted if it didn't result in a match between the two. Some have suggested that this match be saved for Wrestlemania XXVIII, which will take place in Rock's hometown of Miami. I don't have a problem with that at all. However, if Vince wants this year's Mania to break a million buys this would be the match do it. Undertaker/HHH is an alright match, but unlike Rock/Cena it's been done before. Think of this it's been 7 years since the Rock had his last match, so obviously there would be a lot of anticipation if Rock were to have a farewell match against WWE's Golden boy John Cena. Compare that to the top Mania matches thus far Undertaker/HHH, Cena/Miz, and Edge/Alberto Del Rios. None of those even comes close to bringing the spectacle to Wrestlemania that Rock/Cena would. Remember Wrestlemania XVIII, the main-event was HHH/Jericho yet that Mania will always be remembered for Hogan/Rock. The same could happen this year if Vince could only get Rock on board with it. If the Rock truly loved WWE and it's fans he would do this. If not then I guess Cena was right about Rock all along. That he never loved WWE and only used it as a stepping stone to become a Hollywood movie star.

So in summary, if WWE wants a million buys(+) they should do Rock/Cena and show Wrestlemania XXVII in select theatres in 3D. Both those would build Wrestlemania up as a can't miss event. Of course having a decent undercard wouldn't hurt either. As of right now with the way things stand I'm not sure if I'll be ordering this year's Wrestlemania. And I've ordered Mania every year since my first Mania in 2000. Hopefully WWE can turn things around and make it worth ordering. Time will tell.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

TNA Lockdown 2011 PPV...How I would book it.

2011-02-13T23:07:00.000-08:00

With Against All Odds in the books, TNA is officially on the Road To Lockdown. This blog will cover how I'd book it, and the Impacts leading to it. I'm going to lay out the matches and explain the storyline to them and then afterwards explain how to build to the show.

My TNA Lockdown 2011 PPV Card:

Main Event: 60-minute Iron Man TNA World Championship Steel Cage Match- Jeff Hardy(c)vs. Rob Van Dam (This match up makes sense when you consider that storyline wise it was Jeff who had Abyss take RVD out, and cost him his title. TNA has been teasing this match the last couple months. I think they would be well served to hold off on it until Lockdown. And then to ensure that you blow feud off in a big way, it needs to have a stipulation like the one I chose)

Semi-Main Event: Lethal Lockdown Steel Cage Match(5 on 5)Team Immortal-Matt Hardy/Rob Terry/Jeff Jarrett/Abyss/and Hulk Hogan vs. Team Fortune- AJ Styles/Kurt Angle/Robert Roode/James Storm/ and Ric Flair- Hogan and Flair's involvement would be minimal, but seeing as how these two groups split it would make sense they'd be involved. And I'd much rather them be in the actual match then have them(TNA)do what they did in last year's Lethal Lockdown match(at Lockdown not BFG). As for the match up it makes a lot of sense based on the recent revelation of "They".

# 1 Contender's Steel Cage Match for the TNA World Title at Sacrifice: Samoa Joe vs. The Pope vs. Mr. Anderson- The purpose of this match is to indicate to the fans that the main event match between RVD and Jeff Hardy will not get a rematch. TNA really needs to sell that point. That way more fans might order this PPV, instead of believing oh well I'll wait for the rematch on Impact or the next PPV.

TNA Knockouts Championship I Quit Steel Cage Match: Madison Rayne(c) vs. Mickie James-These are the two biggest knockouts going in TNA right now. With Lockdown just around the corner I can't see them bringing in another babyface to face Madison at Lockdown. So it's either this or a multiple knockout match of some kind.

Vacated TNA X Division Championship Fatal Fourway Steel Cage Match: Alex Shelly vs. Chris Sabin vs. Max Buck vs. Jeremy Buck-With Immortal and Fortune facing each other in Lethal Lockdown I think Team Immortal should take out Kazarian and as a result the X Division title is held up. TNA then conducts a March Madness kind of tournament is done with the final four facing off at Lockdown. This would mean TNA would need to bring in some wrestlers from New Japan,AAA,etc. That would get fans ready for a rumored X Division only Destination X PPV in July.

Steel Cage Grudge Match: Bully Ray vs. Brother Devon-The way this feud has gone it is only logical that TNA would want to blow it off at Lockdown. But whoever said TNA was logical. And this match should be on the pre-show. To get the fans in the arena pumped.

Who gains the one man advantage in Lethal Lockdown Steel Cage Match:(I think TNA should let the fans choose who represents Team Immortal and Team Fortune) My Picks- Team Immortal Pick: Jeff Jarrett vs. Team Fortune Pick: Kurt Angle-What better way to blow off Jarrett/Angle then having them face off twice. Once in the opener and the second in the semi-mainevent.

That's my Lockdown card. How TNA needs to build to it is simple. The first impact after Victory Road(TNA's next PPV) they should announce the Double Main Event matches and have Immortal take out Kazarian. After the first impact you need to start the march madness style tournament that will introduce talent from other promotions like New Japan. Also you need RVD and Jeff Hardy come to an agreement on the stipulation and that no matter what the outcome is at Lockdown there will not be a rematch. This leads to a contract signing the next week,impact # 3. After the signing we get interrupted by Samoa Joe, by Mr. Anderson, and by The Pope. They all say they will face the winner of the match. This leads to Bischoff announcing a #1 contender's triple threat steel cage match at Lockdown. TNA also should announce Bully Ray vs. Devon and Madison Rayne vs. Mickie James will both take place at Lockdown. That way you'll have two impacts to complete the tournament and build the matches properly. The only other match left to announce is one that the TNA fans will vote on. That should be announced on the go home show as to give the fans something left over to get exited about going into Lockdown. It is my belief that PPVs that do well are ones where the matches are announced early so they can then be built as being PPV worthy. However added a match at the last moment isn't a bad thing either. Sometimes a last minute addition can get a leaner(someone who hasn't decided for or against ordering the PPV)to purchase the event.

Anyway that's my booking of TNA Lockdown 2011.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

A Rendezvous with Destiny: And Who will Take us There?

2011-02-05T22:43:00.000-08:00

Today marks the 100th birthday of our 40th President Ronald Reagan. All this past week I've been watching memorable stories about the man and what it was that made him one of our greatest Presidents of the last century. Here was a man who saw the best in his country, that believed in the hand of providence and that America had a larger calling in the world. Due to these beliefs he helped propel the Soviet Union into a spiral that ultimately lead to their collapse. And America was for a brief period of time seen as that Shining City on a Hill. But as most of us know things have changed a lot since Reagan left office. America has lost a lot of respect around the world, and some in this country have nothing but disdain for what it represents. It's in this time of great uncertainty and turmoil that America now looks for leadership. The kind of leadership that inspires and restores confidence in the American way. In a nutshell they're looking for the next Ronald Reagan.

In 2008, nearly 70 million Americans believed that was to be Barrack Obama with his "Yes We Can" and "Change we can believe in" slogans. But 2-years later and we find ourselves in the same sticky predicament. So the question is if not Obama, then who. Who can America turn to that sees the best in us, can inspire us to be more than what we are, and can fully restore America to that shining city on a hill who has a rendezvous with destiny that Reagan envisioned? Is it Palin, Romney, Huckabee, or maybe even Hillary Clinton? While I respect each and everyone of those I mentioned, yes even Hillary, I believe the next Reagan will emerge from the local level.That person will be like Rep. Gabrielle Gifford(D-Az), who from what I've gathered during all the news coverage was someone who didn't shy away from her constituents. And based on the testimony of her colleagues was someone who got along with everybody, Republicans and Democrats. Doesn't that sound like someone all Americans could get behind? I think so.

This is something we as Americans need to think about, because you know how the 20th century is known as our greatest century. Well if we don't turn things around and soon, the 21st will be our last century.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

P.S. Happy 100th Birthday President Reagan, your legacy will live on.

What TNA needs to do about PPVs and Impact.

2011-02-04T22:42:00.000-08:00

The year 2008 was the year TNA(Total Nonstop Action wrestling) ran 8 of their 12 monthly pay-per-view events on the road. This was a sign that TNA was looking to branch out from their base of operations, The Impact Zone at Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida, and reach out to more wrestling fans who haven't heard of TNA before. Unfortunately for TNA, and for those of us who wanted TNA to do more PPVs and even do Impacts on the road, the attendance numbers for these 8 PPVs weren't that good. So much so that in 2009 they only ran 4 PPVs out of Orlando, and by 2010 they only did 2 PPVs outside of the Impact Zone. Obviously whatever TNA was doing didn't work.

That brings me to my idea on how TNA could possibly start taking all their PPVs on the road and even start doing Live Impacts on the road. My idea is a simple one. When TNA announces ticket sales for the PPV they need to add a little incentive for fans who might waiver on whether or not to buy tickets to the event. The incentive is if you buy the ticket not only do you get to see the 3-hour extravaganza in it's entirety but if you bring the ticket back the next night you get to see the Live Impact on Spike TV for free. That's right 2 shows for the price of one. And to ensure that people don't wait to see if you give the tickets away for free, TNA needs to convey(w/o saying it in words)that they won't be giving away PPV tickets for free anymore. Hopefully by doing that you get fans to order right away and for anyone who thought you were kidding,about not giving tickets away, will learn a lesson by missing out and having to hearing from their friends about the awesome event they missed.

Another bonus to my idea is that at least once a month TNA fans will get to see Impact go head to head with Monday Night Raw, which will allow TNA to measure where they stand in that arena. IMO, running a Live Impact the night after a PPV is a brilliant idea due to the fact that most post PPV shows get some sort of bounce in the ratings due to peaked interest about the PPV. Because of this peaked interest I can't see Impact's rating being hurt too badly by Raw. And like I said it's only once a month and it would give TNA an opportunity to test the proverbial waters.

Anyway that's just one fans opinion. I'd love to get some feedback on this idea.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

My Royal Rumble 2011 preview and more.

2011-01-29T21:00:00.000-08:00

I decided a few weeks ago to expand this blog. Expand it to include my other passion, which is wrestling. So from here on in my blog will encompass politics and wrestling, two things that often feel alike.

Royal Rumble 2011 predictions: I have to admit that this year's Rumble PPV looks lackluster. Having the Rumble go from 30-men to 40 is all right, although it strikes of desperation from a creative standpoint. But my main gripe is with the under card. Now first let me say that the PPV is mainly sold on the Rumble match itself and so the under card isn't as big a deal for this PPV than the others. However, when you look at what we could of had just a few weeks ago compared to what we are getting you can see why I am not overly excited for this PPV. A few weeks ago it look as though we'd get The Miz vs. John Morrison for the WWE Title and now it's Miz vs. Orton. Now don't get me wrong Miz/Orton should be good but seeing as how WWE knows that this PPV is sold on the Rumble itself this would have been a good chance for them to measure Morrison as a main-eventer. Hell if Hardcore Holly could get a WWE Title shot at Royal Rumble '04 why not Morrison. And seeing as how the Smackdown World Title match is Edge vs. Ziggler it seems that their "youth movement" would work better if it crossed over to Raw as well.

Another downgrade to the PPV is Natalya vs. Laycool for the Divas Championship. A few weeks ago they turned Melina heel as she'd just become #1 contender for the championship. And so I was like "yes finally women who can actually wrestle headlining a PPV." But alas WWE decided that we the fans wanted Natalya/Laycool for a 5th straight PPV. That's right 5th straight! Who the hell thinks this will encourage buys for one of their big four PPVs? I ask you?

As for Edge/Ziggler, that's the only undercard match I'm interested in. That's in of itself is a sad statement for a fan to make. But it's the truth.

So in a span of a few weeks WWE went from a 40-man Rumble, Miz/Morrison, Edge/Ziggler, and Natalya/Melina to 40-man Rumble, Miz/Orton, Edge/Ziggler and Natalya/Laycool. I ask you to tell me which one look(ed/s) better?

And More: My Wrestlemania XXVII(27) card, and what WWE will likely give us.

My card:

Main Event- WWE Championship No Holds Bared Match: John Cena(c) vs. CM Punk(Royal Rumble Winner)

World Heavyweight Championship: Edge(c)w/ Vickie Guerrero vs. Christian

Grudge Match: The Undertaker(18-0) vs. Sheamus

Triple H vs. Wade Barrett (Have HHH go to Smackdown when he returns and have The Corre target him with a beatdown)

Wargames Match:(This match replaces MITB due to the July PPV being based around it)
The Corre(minus Barrett) vs. The New Nexus(minus Punk)

US Title Match: Daniel Bryan(c) vs. Evan Bourne

IC Title Match: Kofi Kingston(c) vs. Alberto Del Rio

HOFamer's One last match: Shawn Michaels vs. John Morrison(The HBK of the past vs. the HBK of the future)

Interpromotional Tag Match: Jack Swagger/The Miz vs. Rey Mysterio/Randy Orton (The team that wins faces their respective brands world champions at Extreme Rules, ie Orton vs. winner of Cena/Punk and Mysterio vs. winner of Edge/Christian should their team win and vice versa)

Here's what I think WWE will do:
WWE Championship match:Sheamus(c)who'll win the Elimination Chamber vs. HHH
World Title match:Edge(c) vs. Randy Orton(winner of Royal Rumble)
The Undertaker/Kane vs. Ezekiel Jackson/Wade Barrett- They'll reunite the brothers of destruction shortly after the Rumble and the intrigue will be if Kane will play straight or if he'll try and screw his brother, costing him his streak.
MITB match: John Morrison vs. Daniel Bryan vs. Alberto Del Rio vs. Rey Mysterio vs. Evan Bourne vs. Dolph Ziggler vs. R-Truth vs. The Big Show
WWE Tag Title Match: The New Nexus(Mcgillcutty/Harris)(c) vs. The Corre(Slater/Gabriel)
No Holds Bared match: John Cena vs. CM Punk
Divas Championship match: Beth Phoenix(c) vs. Awesome Kong(or whatever her name will be)
WWE will try and get HBK vs. Sting for the show and it all depends on what Sting decides. If this falls through though look for an IC Title match: Kofi Kingston(c) vs. Jack Swagger

That's my card vs. what I think is going to be their card. Which card do you think is better? Let me know.

Until next time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

MSNBC...or is it BSNBC? The place for B.S.

2011-01-08T21:49:00.000-08:00

In the wake of a tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona where 6 people have died(one of which was a Federal Judge)and a Congresswoman lay in critical condition we're not even a day removed yet already the loony left are laying the blame on the Tea Party. Besides watching the NFL playoffs I tuned into CNN, FOX NEWS and MSNBC to get updates on what was going on with Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford. And what do I get on MSNBC,or as I call it BSNBC, is Keith Olbermann laying the blame of this horrific event squarely on the shoulders of the Tea Party. You know the Tea Party that kicked his parties butt in the November Mid-Terms. His hatred for anyone who dares disagree with his politics has reached a new low.

It's one thing to use your prime time so-called cable news show to attack the following: Fox News, Conservatives, Republicans, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and any Democrat that does anything to go against progressivism; it's another to try and politicize a tragedy like this. We don't know all the details, yet Keith you've called out the Tea Party and Sarah Palin based on what? It's based on a hatred that both you and your pal Ed Shultz share for group I listed above. It's a hatred that hopefully will no be around much longer. With Comcast taking over NBC and it's news division hopefully you and Ed will be given a long, long, long holiday from which you won't return and America will be better off for it.

I know that some will say the solution to the garbage BSNBC spews is more speech not less. And I generally agree with that. Just not in this case and here's why. It seems that whenever there's a shooting or tragedy like this they tend to find a way to link it to someone on the Right. They say "look how the Right has caused this with there rhetoric and loud opposition". Yet they don't seem to care how out of control their rhetoric is or if someone acts on it. And because of that it's better they're fired before their hatred finally manifests into violence.

I think I speak for the majority when I say enough is enough. No more violence. No more. No more. It's time we as Americans come together the way we did following September 11th. It's the only way we can move forward as a nation.

For those affected by the tragic event in Tucson today. You have my thought and prayers. God bless you and your families, and may he see you through this tough and difficult time. Amen.

Reading the Constitution

2011-01-07T01:18:00.000-08:00

While some in the Media and some Democrats might think yesterday's reading of the constitution was pointless, I would beg to differ. A few things came out of this exercise: 1) It reminds us all of who we as a people were/are. 2) Reminds us that it's We The People who rule and not Congress or The President. If we don't like something, ie Obamacare, then you better not shove the thing down our collective throats and expect us not to do anything about it. And 3) It proves that our elected representatives can actually... READ! Who knew? After all the belly aching that went on when people demanded the congress read the bills they pass. I began to think we had a bunch of illiterate people working for us in D.C.. Of course the ousting of 69 House and Senate Democrats last November didn't hurt that cause either. Just Sayin'.

Until Next time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress: What's the point of it?

2010-12-21T23:10:00.000-08:00

Well since November 2nd, when America re soundly rejected the policies of the Obama/Pelosi agenda it has been very busy up in ole' D.C.. We're in what is called a lame duck session of congress, which got me thinking. Why is there such a thing as a lame duck session of congress anyway? I can understand why a President enters into lame duck status. It's because the transition of power process takes time. And when America swears in a new President we need them to be ready to lead on day one. It makes sense that the President-Elect be given ample time to put together his team in a thorough manner and not in haste.

But Congress, which rarely works anyway, why do they need time for transition? It seems to me that all a lame duck session of Congress is good for is for a majority-party who lost one or both houses of Congress(this case being the former rather than the latter) to put the screws to America one last time. Case in point, why are we ratifying a treaty with Russia at this time. You would think a treaty of this significance would be better served an up or down vote from a Congress that isn't a lame duck. Of course there are other examples: like the Dream Act, which is nothing more than amnesty. Or the piling of a 1.1 Trillion dollar omnibus spending bill onto the deficit.

It seems to me that America would be better served if there wasn't a lame duck session of congress. What I think should happen is that once an election is certified and there are no legal challenges, the person who won should be sworn in no more than a week after certification. And if there are any legal challenges to a seat then that seat's current holder(unless he/she is apart of the contested election)shall hold onto that seat until the official start of the new session of Congress January 5th. During that stretch the holder's voting ability won't be recognized by the new congress. And of course once January 5th comes the seat, unless the contested election is settled, will be vacated. If the current holder is apart of the contested election then the seat shall be vacated immediately until it's settled.

I think giving someone like Nancy Pelosi one more opportunity to put forth her deeply misguided and overly rejected policies into place in such a way is bad for America. That's why I hope States take an active role in the elimination of the lame duck session of Congress by requiring their U.S. Senators and Representatives be sworn in November instead of January. This way the election would be the final word. That once a party is rejected the way the Democrats were this year and the way Republicans were in '06 and '08, there would be no opportunity to turn the screws on America one last time.

Until next time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Is Obama going Clinton on us?

2010-12-06T16:49:00.000-08:00

Monday, December 6th 2010 could be a very significant date for the Obama Presidency. It's the day Obama started making the move to the center, much like former President Bill Clinton did following his midterm disaster in '94. He has agreed in terms with the Republicans, who won back the house a month ago,to extend the Bush era Tax cuts in their entirety while getting unemployment benefits extended in the process. He also found agreement with Republicans on other tax issues such as Social Security, Estate tax, Earned Income tax and Child tax credits. Much of what was offered pleased the Republicans and upset Democrats. This looks to be a signal that Obama will be more realistic like Clinton than stubborn as a mule like former President Jimmy Carter was. However this is but one day. One day. As good a day as it was for those of us who understand that taxing anyone at this time is crazy, it needs to be more than a gesture on Obama's part. He needs to come before the American people and acknowledge that his policies weren't unpopular because he didn't communicate properly but because they were too far to the left. Then in order to assure us that the government will function properly for the next two years he needs to put the Democratic leadership in both houses in line. Meaning: No more secret closed-door meetings. When you ask Republicans to come to the table and put forth their input on tv you follow through on it when you're not. If Obama does all this then maybe, just maybe he might salvage the rest of his Presidency and be re-elected just like Clinton.

Until next time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits extensions: A compromise

2010-12-01T15:34:00.000-08:00

I'm a simple man with a simple dream. The dream that sees a full restoration of our American greatness on the world stage. To be the envy of the world. To inspire other great nations to be that shining city on a hill that lights the way to hope, freedom, and prosperity. It is due in part to this dream I've decided to dedicate my blog in coming up with solutions to the problems we Americans face. I don't know how they may stack up to those who hold the power in Washington, but it seems that the time has come for the people of this Country to take a more active role in shaping our great nation. Today's blog is about one thing: Compromise. It's about how compromise is a lost art in today's political environment. If we as a free society intend to survive and thrive as a world power we need to remember the art of the compromise.

I have two compromises in which I think both Republicans and Democrats could get on board with. The first deals with the extension of the Bush era Tax Cuts:

1) Tax Cuts Extension- My compromise would involve giving the top 2% the option of either having their taxes go back to the 39.6 % level they were under Clinton, or they could take 2.3% of their wealth(half of the 4.6% increase they could choose) and invest it in the free market system. I believe this would be a beneficial solution because it would give those rich people who think they aren't taxed enough the option of paying more. While it would also give those who think the opposite,including that the govt would waste the added revenue, the incentive of investing in the free market (which could potentially make them more money if they invest properly). If they choose to invest I believe this could help restore some confidence in our overall bleak economy. And if we incentivize them keeping their investment long-term, by lowering how much of it is taxed by how ever long it's kept in the free market, I believe we can get businesses to start hiring again. So you'd have more revenue coming in from those who think they're not taxed enough and you'd have a restoring of confidence in the free market from those who choose to invest instead. I think that would be a win win situation.

And the second deals with the jobless benefits that are to expire:

2) Today nearly 2 million Americans are about to lose their unemployment benefits. Washington doesn't seem to know what to do about it. On one side you have people like Nancy Pelosi who say they should be extended no matter the cost. Some would say that is an honorable position, how could anyone be opposed to that. Well then there is the Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats who say the extension needs to be paid for. I'd say that to is an honorable position when consider the dire shape we're in fiscally today. Here is my compromise. As a conservative it pains me to say this but for the time being it might be necessary to develop a new kind of entitlement, like unemployment checks. I call it underemployment checks. First let me just say this, one reason why people are still on unemployment is because the jobs available pay less than what unemployment does. Financially it doesn't make sense for a person, especially a person with a family,to take the job and lose money in the process. With rising prices and bills, ie grocery and utilities, it would be foolish. So the underemployment checks would come into existence for the purpose of making up the difference. For example,Let's say you make $400 a week on unemployment and you get a job offer for $300 a week. Well the underemployment check would cover the $100 difference. By doing this we'd be incentivizing people to take jobs they'd ordinarily wouldn't take. You know the sorta like the jobs we need illegals to work. Also it would reduce the unemployment rate and thus we'd save money. In the scenario I gave you above, we'd only be paying out $100 to that person instead of $400. I'd say that was progress. Of course there are those out there you aren't staying on unemployment for fiscal reasons. Instead they're lazy. Well how do we sort them out. Simple. The moment you approve these underemployment checks, in which the govt will make up the difference, you make a deadline for 1 year for which a person on unemployment can take the govt on this offer. After the year is over anyone who has been on unemployment for more than two years will no longer be eligible for this offer and will simultaneously be kicked off unemployment. Meaning if or when they do get a job the govt won't make up their difference like they will for those who got a job during that 1 year offer period. And the way this would work in the future would be that if you're fired you'll have 1 year to get a job and be able to have the govt make up the difference, if your unemployment goes past a year you'll have one more year to get a job before you lose unemployment entirely. I think this would be the fairest thing to do given our current economic situation.

What do you all think? Are either of these two compromises something Washington might want to consider? Or just simple ideas from a simple man? I'd like your input.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Social Security Proposal

2010-11-15T23:33:00.000-08:00

The Bowles/Simpson Deficit panel released their recommendations on what needs to be addressed to lower the deficit; one of which was Social Security. I have an idea that I think should be explored as hopefully a way to fix it for the short term. The idea is a simple one, which is perfect since I'm a simple man. It is a 2-part solution. It involves raising the retirement age to 70, while allowing people who reach 65 the opportunity to reap some early benefits. Let me explain.

People are living longer than they did when FDR first passed Social Security. Because of that fact people are on Social Security a lot longer than was anticipated. Back in the day, you were lucky if you even saw a Social Security check. Now with live expectancy going up that means more and more people are receiving these checks. And with the Baby Boomers fixing to retire we've got to address this problem now. So my suggestion is, first raise the retirement age to 70. This would allow the U.S. government a chance to refill the coffers of the Social Security Lock box(that Presidents dip into even though they say they won't)with people allowed to work longer. However, I acknowledge that this will cause some inconvenience from those counting on the benefits at 65. So my second step would be to allow those born before the year 1990 the option of taking 3/4 of the benefits at 65 if they so choose, or they can wait and get full benefits at age 70.

The genius of this idea imho, is that either way the government would be able to refill the coffers and make Social Security solvent again. At least for the short term. I would love to hear your thoughts on this suggestion. Tell me what you like, dislike or how you might fix this problem. After all the only way we'll survive as a nation is if we put partisanship aside and work together.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Top 5 things the GOP need to do.

2010-11-09T22:18:00.000-08:00

This blog comes a week after an historic election. This election saw a party(the GOP)who was written off as dead two years ago emerge as the new majority in the house of representatives. And not only that but they cut into the democrats huge majority in the senate and won back several key governorships. Despite this huge wave in favor of the GOP, I must concur with several pundits out there who say that this wasn't a vote of support for Republicans but a vote against Obama and Pelosi's Liberal agenda.
Because this wasn't a vote of support for the GOP they will be walking a thin line the next two years. If they stray even a little from their principles this time they'll be done for good. So having said all that I have some suggestions, a list of the top 5 things the Republicans should do come January:

1) Put a freeze on spending immediately. Cut congressional salaries, and do away with all earmarks.

2) Pass a bill that requires no bill to exceed 100 pages if it is to be brought before the floor for passage. Also require that each bill must have a window before passage of at least 5 days so that everyone(congressman or citizen)will have time to read it before hand. Which would give time for feedback from anyone who doesn't like what's in the bill.

3) Pass congressional term limits for all incoming freshman Representatives and Senators from this point forward. This would allow for new blood and fresh ideas.

4) Audit the Fed. Need I say more.

5) Commit to Bipartisan spending cuts. For the GOP: look to cut NPR's funding, overhaul Obamacare, and cutting the federal government payroll in terms of the growing number of federal jobs. For the Dems: Get us out of the Afghan war.

These suggestions would be a good place to start for the GOP. It would show that they really have learned there lesson and will not abandon their principles again.

That's all for now. Until next time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Enough of the Blame Bush rhetoric.

2010-06-17T01:16:00.000-07:00

I've got a beef. And that beef is about a symptom that is running rampant with-in far-left circles. It's called Bush-Derangement-Syndrome. It's a hatred for our 43rd President George W. Bush that goes above and beyond the capacity for any rational thought and/or discussion. And if you follow the news like I do, you can't help but see this BDS being spewed all over the Lame Stream Media. A couple of examples in recent days are 1)blaming Bush over Obama for the current crisis in the gulf, and 2)blaming Bush for Al and Tipper Gore's divorce(if you can believe that).

I guess you can't blame the Lame Stream Media when they take their cue from the Obama Administration. How many times can President Obama continue to point the blame to his predecessor. When will he adhere to President Truman's "The Buck stops here" motto? To answer my own question: I guess times will have to be good in order for Obama to stop his own BDS. Then he can reap all the glory for himself, which is what your typical politician does all the time. Take all the credit and none of the blame, right Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd?

Of course I forgot Obama pledged he was going to transcend politics. He's not going to be the same ol' same ol'. He's going to be different. I think that pledge lasted about as long as Speaker Pelosi's pledge to be fiscally responsible when the Democrats took back Congress 3 1/2 years ago. The President is failing to show the kind of leadership we Americans need now more than ever. Why is he failing? Good Question. I don't know why. Maybe what was said about him in the campaign was true afterall, he didn't have enough or any (executive) experience.

But whatever the reason for his failings or shortcomings it seems he always has the same response: Well I inherited(insert whatever's pulling the President's poll numbers down at the time) it from my predecessor. It's all his fault. I'm blameless. I can't be blamed when I'm giving a speech. That's my solution to everything. Give a speech and let the Lame Stream Media defend me. Whether it's by accusing those criticizing me(ie Tea Party)as being simply racist, uneducated,or just extremist. And that's what you get day-in and day-out from places like MSNBC and the Huffington Post. It must be grand to be President and know that in the eyes of the media you're perfect. That any imperfection that touches you is automatically Bush's fault. But why is anyone surprised by that, afterall in their minds he's the devil. It doesn't matter to them if Bush responded quicker to Katrina(yet was heavily criticized) than Obama had to this Oil spill(and is just now being criticized a little). It just doesn't matter. There is a double standard no doubt.

One of those double standards I noticed just the other day. It came from Ed Schultz. And I know you probably don't know who that is. He's got a low rated cable news show on MSNBC(or as I call it BSNBC). Well anyway, apparantly he's one of those far-left loons who believe Bush was trampling the U.S. Constitution with such things as the Patriot Act, etc. Yet the other day he said on his show that he wanted Obama to be like a Dictator when it came to BP and this oil spill. Can you imagine anyone of Schultz's ilk coming out and saying the same thing only this time with Bush. No. No you can't. It all ties in with their BDS. And I don't know about the rest of you but I'm getting sick and tired of it. Whether it comes from the media or Washington, enough is enough!

The honeymoon is over! From this point foward it's Obama's economy, and it's Obama's government. Any and all fault from this point onward can only be attributed to either this President or this Congress. No more blaming Bush!

Until Next Time
I'm Out.

P.S. How much do you wanna bet that if Obama's Presidency fails you'll see the far-left blame that on Bush as well. I can see it now. "Well if Bush hadn't been such a lousy President, we never would have been desperate enough to elect a man with no experience and who had based his entire campaign on one catchy catch phrase, Yes We Can."

The Passion of the Palin

2008-09-18T22:02:00.001-07:00

Hey everybody, it's me Chesswiz77. This weeks blog is an observation of how Sarah Palin has been treated by both the media and the far left. I told you in my blog, McCain's Brilliant VP pick, and how it will lead to victory, that Palin's role in this election is to energize the base. Well the base is energized. And it will continue to be energized if she continues to be unfairly attacked by the Obama campaign as well as the mainstream media. And in case there's any doubt left in your mind that this is happening, let me give you some examples.

The moment Palin was announced she was viewed as a threat. A threat to not only Obama but to the far left. So they began their crusade to discredit her. It began with the blogs, who fabricated the story that Sarah's down syndrome baby, Trigg, was really Bristol's. Now even though it forced the hand of the Palin's to come clean with news of their 17-year old daughters pregnancy, the blog went ahead with this with no evidence to support their claim. But the left basically ignoresd it, and justified it b/c Bristol happened to be pregnant at that excact moment. And even when someone from the left did acknowledge it they swept it away saying that the blogger didn't speak for Obama or the left. My response would be, "Then who does he/she speak for". But this wasn't nothing compared to what would come.

In the coming weeks Sarah Palin had people from the left:

1) Lie about her record. Hillary Rosen(an Obama supporter) claimed that Palin cut special needs funding by 60%, and was later corrected by Wolf Blitzer who said it actually tripled under Palin.

2)Call her a backwards step for women b/c she chose(as in pro-choice) to be a conservative and not liberal like them. Apparently, at least according to the left, all that women seem to care about when it comes to elections is abortion. And b/c Palin is Pro-Life, no woman in their right mind could vote for her. Again this is according to those far-left fanantics like Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Roseanne and others.

3)Mock her for her beliefs. We had that SNL parody that featured Tina Fey as Palin, and she portrayed her as a moron(But what are we to expect from a show that hasn't been funny in years, give me Mad TV instead). We also had Gina Gershon(who apparently still acts) do her Palin impersonation in a video where she put down everything that Palin stood for. And of course who could forget all those pictures of Palin circling the internet that found her head photo-shopped on racy photos.

4)Trying to create a Rev. Wright where one doesn't exist. One of the things they hate is the fact she is religious. Despite having President's like Lincoln, JFK , Roosevelt, and Reagan envoke God's name the far-left can't stand the fact Sarah does the same thing when talking about issues like Iraq. They say it's scary. That's there excuse for being ignorant. And b/c they don't understand Penecostals or Christianity in general they(the media) tried to create a Rev. Wright for Palin. Thankfully the people saw right passed this and the media backed off.

5)NBC- Need I say more. Hey Keith and Chris, don't give up your day jobs.

and

6)Dismiss her experience as a Mayor and Governor. In all the years, I have never seen such hypocrisy as I've seen from the left in the last 3-weeks. The far-left have a problem with Palin being a heart beat away from the presidencey b/c they deem her too inexperience, yet they nominate a guy who has even less experience than the Republicans VP candidate. How do they justify this? Well according to Paul Begala of CNN, Obama is acceptable b/c he received 18 million votes in the primaries/caucuses. So does that mean Palin would've been more acceptable to the left if she had won the Republican nomination? Would they not be saying she's too inexperienced then? Probably not. You know the left, they say one thing today and another thing tomorrow. But what gets me is how Obama and his campaign look past her being Governor(which is an executive position that requires more than just voting present)and how they mock her for having been a Mayor. Obama said that his running a presidential campaign makes him more qualified to be President then Palin's years as Mayor. That b/c he has more employees and a bigger budget than that of a small town mayor, his 19-month campaign gives him more experience than Palin. Which is absolutely absurd! But the far-left eats it up, and the mainstream media don't question it but except it as gospel.

And so despite all that she has been objected to in such a short amount of time, she continues to perservere. So win or lose come Nov. 4th, Sarah Palin has done a great service for our country in exposing the far-left vitrial as well as the media bias to millions of Americans who may have missed all of it in the past. And for this I say God Bless Sarah Palin!!! You go girl!!! Despite what Ms. Behar may say, if you win.... not only will you be breaking that glass ceiling, but you will be taking a big step forward for the women of this country. So here's hoping.

Until next time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Where will the Dems go if Obama looses?

2008-09-10T22:27:00.000-07:00

Hi everybody, it's Chesswiz77 again. In this weeks blog, I'm taking aim at the potential Presidential loss of Barrack Obama and to a larger degree the Democratic Party. The question I seek is, where will the Democrats go if Obama looses?

Now a few months ago, the thought of Obama losing would be unthinkable. He was looked upon as The Agent of Change. And change was the only thing we could all agree was needed in Washington. If Obama was the agent of change, then McCain was labeled more of the same. Basically, McCain = Bush. Despite all this, the experts expected a close race. Close because McCain(who's not really Bush) is at heart a maverick. Someone who will go against anyone, no matter the party, to do the work of the people. B/c of that most figured the race would be close for most of the summer. But even then no one except the diehard Republicans figured McCain could win. How could he? With everything favoring the Democrats, there was no way he could win. Even as a geniune war hero, he just couldn't do that. Could he?

So it was expected from the left that once the conventions were over, Obama would start putting distance between himself and McCain. Of course we now know that didn't come to pass. And the reason it didn't is b/c of one woman .... Sarah Palin, the Governor of the great state of Alaska who McCain picked as his running-mate. With all the McCain = more of the same rhetoric going on, McCain sure went against what was expected. One could argue he brought a bit of change with his pick, unlike Obama who chose Biden. And with this somewhat controversial pick came two things, 1)an energized conservative base, and 2)unfair attacks, from the Obama campaign and his media pals, that were designed to destroy Palin. Since then McCain's numbers have steadily gone up while Obama's have steadily gone down. And now for the first time in this election we have seem McCain take the national lead in many polls. So naturally those who are supporting Obama must be getting nervous. And with good reason. In a year where the Republican brand is so badly damaged, Obama is doing worse than a Democrat should be doing. Which says a lot about Obama.

So with all that on the table, I can't help but wonder where the Democrats will go if Obama should happen to lose this election. An election, BTW, that is just eyeing for a Democrat to win. Well I think I know the answer to that. Instead of learning from their mistake, they'll look for the easy fix. The Democrats will suggest the reason they lost(if they do go on to lose) is b/c Obama wasn't experienced enough for the majority of the country, which is a correct observation. But not the real reason for his loss, which I'll get to in a bit. From there the Democrats will give the nomination to Hillary Clinton in 2012. Yes give.... as in a coronation, which Hillary had expected earlier in the year. The logic being that Hillary was the candidate who got a way, so to speak. That she was the one they should have nominated as opposed to Obama. And once they correct that, all will be right with the world. The Democrats will retake the White House. Right?

Only there's a slight problem with this quick fix. It ignores the real reason Obama would have lost the election. It would'nt be because he's too inexperienced, which he is, but b/c this is a center-right country. That's right a center-right country. Something the left can't fathom to any degree. B/C we're center-right, we are hesitant when it comes to socialist agendas and cut-and-run tactics. Both of which Obama is a proponent of. And now that he's trailing in the polls for the first time, we finally get to see the real Barrack Obama. He's not really a new politician but as he would say, the same old same old. He's more John Kerry, than John Kennedy. All that is why he'll lose the election. So if Obama loses b/c of his liberal views and b/c he represents the same old same old, then what possible chance does Hillary have? None. But just you wait. If Obama loses, don't expect a long primary from the Democrats in 2012. You can be sure Hillary will be the nominee.

Now if it were up to me I'd look to the '06 midterms as a blueprint to winning future elections. As you know the Democrats took back the House and the Senate from the Republicans. The entire election was billed as a referendum on Bush and the Iraq war. However, if you looked closer at each race you would have noticed that most of the races were within 5 pts. This tells me that it wasn't so much a referendum on Bush and the war but on the Republican Congress that didn't do anything. If it were really a referendum on Bush and the war, then Democrats would have won the races by 20-30 points easily. But even with it being a referendum on the Republican Congress do-nothingness the races for the most part were much closer than you'd thought possible. But again, we're a center-right country. And for a change the Democrats seemed to realize this, b/c they had several Moderate-Democratic candidates run for the House and Senate and won. In fact you could argue that had they been Liberal-Democrats instead they would have lost. Instead of a 1-5 pt victory it would have been a 1-5 pt defeat.

So having looked at that success, maybe the Democrats would be better off nominating a Moderate-Democrat in 2012 instead of Hillary Clinton. Until this nation becomes a center-left country(if that even happens) they'd be better off with that kind of candidate than the typical left-leaning liberal one.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

McCain's Brilliant VP pick, and how it'll lead him to victory.

2008-09-04T21:51:00.000-07:00

It has been one week since my last blog. In that week, we have been introduced to the Republicans new superstar... Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. A lot of us including myself wondered, who? Well in one weeks time I went from who, to who'd a thought McCain's VP pick will lead him to victory on November 4th. Now you're probably wondering how I came to that conclusion in one weeks time. Well it's simple.

When McCain clinched the GOP nomination unofficially back in Feburary, one of the main criticisms that the media addressed was that he had trouble among the conservative base. That he had won the nomination by default. And they were right he did win by default, and had a lot of work ahead of him to energize the base in time for the general election. Of course his main goal was to reach out to the independants and undecided's. Both of which will ultimately decide the election. So it was important for him to do so. And you've got to remember that back then Hillary Clinton was the presumed Democratic nominee in the mind of a lot of Conservative/Republicans. Had she been the nominee she would have single handedly energized the base for McCain. So at the time it made since for McCain to look to the independants and undecided's.

But along the way something happened. Obama, not Clinton, became the nominee. Obama's entire success in defeating Clinton was that of hope/change he promised, the optimism he portrayed, and his great communication skills that would rival that of Reagan and JFK. McCain was now faced with arguably a bigger challenge. He had an opponent who wasn't nearly as polarizing as Clinton, which meant McCain would have to find a way to energize the conservative base himself. Of course Obama didn't have that problem, his base was plenty energized. And to put salt into McCain's wound, Obama was also very appealing to the independants and undecided's, a base McCain thought he had a lock on. So as you could see McCain was in trouble.

But then again something happened. On the way to becoming the Democratic nominee, Obama couldn't finish the job on his own. He needed help from the supper-delegates to seal the deal. This created a rift among the Hillary supporters. Supporters who recognized the sexism that the Obama campaign had used along the way. Supporters who saw the Obama campaign completely overlook Hillary in the VP selection process. Instead of doing what was smart in unifying the party by selecting Hillary, as most political analyst would have done, he gave us Biden!? This along with the associations we found out he had with Rev. Wright, William Ayers, and Tony Rezko; gave McCain an opening.

But then the question came, how do we take advantage of this opening? When it came to the associations, McCain knew that talk radio and the 527s were all over that. But McCain knew that he could take advantage of Obama's poor VP selection himself, by taking a risk on his own VP pick. And so on August 29th, the day after Obama's acceptance speech, McCain selected Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. It was one of the few surprises you see today in today's 24/7 news cycle. The Palin pick captured the spotlight that would have normally been Obama's. Most folks like myself who had never heard of her before were intrigued, and wanted to find out more about her. And on the Right, you saw absolute excitement in the pick. For the first time since McCain had secured the nomination, you saw the base energized.

Obama and his surrogates in the media must of picked up on that. Because it didn't take too long for them to attack Governor Palin. Whether what they said was true or not, they needed to stop this new found base energizer named Sarah Palin. When I saw this for myself I knew McCain's VP pick was absolutely brilliant! Most analyst say McCain picked her for a couple of reasons, to energize the base(which is true) and to pander to the disenfranchised women voters out there that had supported Hillary(which isn't true, imo).

The real reasons McCain picked Palin is, 1) that he knew she could do what he couldn't. She could energize the base, which he'll need if he is to get elected. 2)McCain also knew that she could draw out from the far-left and from the Obama campaign the kind of vitriol we see her getting now. He knows that the more she is unfairly attacked the more the base is energized, and the more likely they'll come out to vote. That would allow McCain to continue his reach out efforts to the base he does best with, and that's the independants. That's the McCain strategy for victory come Novermber 4th. And as I look at it while looking at Obama's strategy, which is to make McCain into Bush, I see McCain's chances for victory going way up. Of course there's still two-months left until the election, so anything can happen. But you have to admit this race has gotten a lot more interesting due to McCain's pick of Sarah Palin.

Until next time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Why we should dissolve the two party system.

2008-08-28T23:23:00.000-07:00

Hey there it's Chesswiz77, coming to you with my latest blog. I want to thank those of you who took the time to read Politics and Professional Wrestling, I hope you found it an interesting read.

For today's topic I thought I could dwelve a little more into politics. It would be hard not to have a position, one way or another in this day an age. So I know it's on the mind of a lot of people. The thing I want to talk about is the two party system we have going on, and how you can attribute most negative things going on in this country to them.You'll find this blogger isn't a shill for either party. I think both are at fault in this.

When looking at today's politics you can't help but see partisan bickering from both parties. Think about it. If you support a woman's right to choose you're labeled baby killer, or if you support the military you're a warmonger. These are just a few things you hear from Democrats and Republicans, especially those on extreme fringes of the political spectrum. Which seems to be engulfing more and more of both parties. And due to this we (the people) are subjected to more and more of this pointless bickering. Bickering that only leads to division. And that division is what causes America to be weak, as it is today.

And there's no question we are a much weaker country today than we were a century ago. We have a Congress that have heated debates(if they even debate, today you never know), which is how it's always been but they don't respect each other. They don't acknowledge that they all are Americans who love their country, enough to go into public service, and want what's best for it. That has been lost over the years, and I believe it's b/c of the politicians putting their party over their country.

This is what our founding father George Washington warned us about all those years ago. He saw a party system becoming as divisive as it has now. So it turns out he was quite the Prophet as he was a President.

So the question becomes, what do we do now? On the one hand we could stay the course, which I doubt anyone wants. Or we could do something rather radical by dissolving this party system of ours. We could then open up the process to the people. We could embrace a variety of choices when it comes to electing officials to office. My idea is to take from American Idol, afterall we do live in an American Idol culture.

My idea at least for the Presidential race, would be to break it into two parts. Have a primary election and a general election. The primary would be open to as many participants that qualify. The way you qualify is to get 50,000 citizen signatures from each state, for a total of 2.5 million signatures. This gets you on the primary ballot. From there, depending on the number of qualified candidates, you have a set number of debates within a 4-month period(from January through April). After which we then hold the primary election. The top two vote getters would then move on to the general election. The general election, which should become a national holiday btw, would be held like always on the first Tuesday of November. And whomever got the most votes would become President. By doing this we allow new perspectives to be heard, something the two parties try their hardest to avoid.

Of course this is just my idea. I'm sure they're many others out there with their own suggestions. However I think we can all agree that there needs to be a change in this country. And I think the best way to bring about this change is to dissolve the two party system. Of course I could be wrong, but I'll let you be the judge of that.

Until next time,
Chesswiz77 is out.

Politics and Professional Wrestling.

2008-08-25T15:24:00.000-07:00

When looking at the political process, I can't help but see similarities between it and professional wrestling. Some of you are probably thinking, "What the hell? How could you possibly compare politics to professional wrestling?". My reply would be, how could you not see it? It's a very easy comparison, if you look for it. The key there is looking for it. Politics and wrestling have several points of comparison. Allow me to point them out:

1) Heels and Babyfaces- In the political realm we the people normally choose between two candidates. In wrestling most matches are one on one. In the match you would normally have a babyface( a good guy people cheer for) take on a heel( a villian people boo). In the match people will pull for the babyface to win. If they win the people cheer, if they lose the people get all kinds of upset. The same goes for a political race. We the people find a candidate to support, and in turn they become our babyface. And in turn their opponent becomes our heel in the race. If our candidates win we celebrate, but if they lose we tend to feel a little sad as if we had lost as well.

2)People get sucked in- When going to a wrestling event you can't help but see people get sucked in. If the wrestler is doing their job properly, they will get the fans to care about the going ons of the match as well as the outcome. Same as in politics. It's the politicians job to energize their base for the election so they get a big turnout. They want people to be sucked in to the process. If they are then they will probably vote. In wrestling they want people to be sucked in so they continue to buy tickets, ppvs, merchandice, etc. And if you've ever seen a fan whose been sucked in as well as voters whose been sucked in you would swear that they're one and the same in terms of their passion. Wrestling fans will shout and scream as if they are a part of the action. Voters will do the same thing. In both cases it's not always civil. That's how passionate both sides can get.

3)We want clean elections/matches but don't always get one- One of the biggest similarities is the fact we the people/fans want straight up clean elections/matches. However we don't always get them. In wrestling when a promoter wants to stretch out a feud they'll do screwy finishes. A screwy finish is one that includes, but not limited too, outside interference and use of an illegal object. Wrestlers(typically heels) will occasionally win a match based on this screwy finish. Which leads us fans to cry foul due to our not gettin the type of satisfaction we were craving. In politics we sometimes are subjected to gutter politics. This is where the candidates do whatever they need to do to get elected. There isn' t anything off limits in this type race. It's the kind of race that reminds of the phrase coined by the late Eddie Guerrero( a great wrestler), "If you're not cheating, you're not trying". That phrase epitomizes gutter politics. When we the voters get this type election we tend to punish the worst offender by voting against them, if we even vote at all.
This kind of politics is what demoralizes to voters. After awhile if things aren't fixed people tend to stay away from the process. The same is said for wrestling. If a company does too many screwy finishes they will start to see their fanbase shrink. In the past we've seen both occur. WWE has lost a lot of it's audience in the past ten years, and when it comes to elections we tend to celebrate when we get a fifty-percent turnout. However, in the last year things look like they may be changing. WWE's screwy finishes have gone down and while the fans they've lose haven't returned yet, there are positive signs. And in this current political season it looks as if we may get our biggest turnout ever.

and finally,

4) The art of the promo- All that a wrestler or politician needs to be successful, is to be good at making promos/speeches. If you're a good communicator then the world can be your oyster. Look at the Rock(a former wrestler), he wasn't the best wrestler in the world. Hell he wasn't the best wrestler of his era. However, when ever you talk to a wrestling fan and you ask then who there favoriter wrestlers are more often then not you'll hear the name The Rock. Now how can this be? If he isn't that great a wrestler, how can he be a favorite wrester for many people? It's quite easy actually. The Rock is, without a doubt, the greatest at delivering a promo. He was the great communicator of professional wrestling. He could sell his matches just by his promo. That's how good he was. He was so good at it, people looked passed his average wrestling ability. In politics it's exactly the same. You don't have to be the smartest person in the world to be a politician if you're a good communicator. Communication skills can more than make up for other short comings. President Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents, yet he didn't understand everything. He had his shortcomings. Yet because he was such a great communicator, which is his moniker(The Great Communicator), he exuded confidence in the America people. As with a wrestler it's the responsibility of the politician to sell his canidacy through his speeches. Even more so if they happen to have a shortcoming.

These are just a few ways that politics and wrestling are similar. I'm sure you could find more similarities if you look for them. Again, the key is to look for them. They are there.

That's all for now.

Chesswiz77 is out.