The U.S. House of Representatives voted today (263-171) for the $700 billion (probably more) bailout of their Wall Street buddies. They stuck it to us real good.
Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg voted Nay. Rehberg and U.S. Sen. Jon Tester got it right. Tester voted no earlier in the week. U.S. Sen. Max Baucus got it wrong when he voted for the bill. But, as a consolation prize, Baucus will still get thousands of dollars in campaign donations from his Wall Street buddies.
The bill was passed in just a few days because, according to the experts, the sky is falling. It was over 400 pages and loaded with crap. Nobody is really certain it will work.
Now, it’s vacation time for the House and the Senate. There will be plenty of money in the wallets of their friends now when they host fundraisers for members of Congress.
This November remember: $700 billion.
10/03/2008
10/02/2008
The VP Debate
This was a good one. It probably will change the polling some as Sarah Palin made Joe Biden look very old, entrenched in DC, and an elitist.
When Joe Biden walked on stage, he looked like he had just arrived from the set of the movie “Goodfellas” with his pin-striped suit and what hair he had greased back.
Palin was dressed in black business suit and looked very professional.
Biden seemed angry several times as Palin pushed his buttons. I even caught myself wishing I could reach out and slap the goofy smile off Biden’s face.
If anyone takes anything from this debate, it would be that Joe Biden has the Washington, D.C. view on things, and Sarah Palin gives us a view from Main Street USA.
I am more in line with Main Street. The Washington, D.C. view has not been working too well.
Governor Palin did just fine. There were no major mistakes and she brought a down-home style that was refreshing. Over the next few days, we’ll find out how many mistakes Biden made with all his “numbers.” They will be double digits.
Biden several times talked way too long and ran out of time. He stuttered and stammered many times, just like Obama did in his debate. With Biden’s egotistical view acting like “I am from DC and I’m here to help you” he came across as an elitist.
One time, that was particularly funny, was when Biden even “lowered” himself to say, “I admit I was the first one” about a policy or bill they were debating that he was for.
Gwen Ifill opened the debate by introducing Palin as, “Governor Sarah Palin” and when Biden stepped out, she introduced him as “Joe Biden.” They must be friends. Other than that, Ifill did OK but she should have not been the moderator since she has several thousands of dollars in book royalties riding on an Obama/Biden victory.
One area they did not cover was the second amendment, which Obama and Biden have a track record of wanting to infringe on that right.
All in all it was good debate. Since Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric had cast doubt in voter’s minds with their gotcha questions to Palin, I think we’ll see the polls start turning for McCain/Palin.
When Joe Biden walked on stage, he looked like he had just arrived from the set of the movie “Goodfellas” with his pin-striped suit and what hair he had greased back.
Palin was dressed in black business suit and looked very professional.
Biden seemed angry several times as Palin pushed his buttons. I even caught myself wishing I could reach out and slap the goofy smile off Biden’s face.
If anyone takes anything from this debate, it would be that Joe Biden has the Washington, D.C. view on things, and Sarah Palin gives us a view from Main Street USA.
I am more in line with Main Street. The Washington, D.C. view has not been working too well.
Governor Palin did just fine. There were no major mistakes and she brought a down-home style that was refreshing. Over the next few days, we’ll find out how many mistakes Biden made with all his “numbers.” They will be double digits.
Biden several times talked way too long and ran out of time. He stuttered and stammered many times, just like Obama did in his debate. With Biden’s egotistical view acting like “I am from DC and I’m here to help you” he came across as an elitist.
One time, that was particularly funny, was when Biden even “lowered” himself to say, “I admit I was the first one” about a policy or bill they were debating that he was for.
Gwen Ifill opened the debate by introducing Palin as, “Governor Sarah Palin” and when Biden stepped out, she introduced him as “Joe Biden.” They must be friends. Other than that, Ifill did OK but she should have not been the moderator since she has several thousands of dollars in book royalties riding on an Obama/Biden victory.
One area they did not cover was the second amendment, which Obama and Biden have a track record of wanting to infringe on that right.
All in all it was good debate. Since Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric had cast doubt in voter’s minds with their gotcha questions to Palin, I think we’ll see the polls start turning for McCain/Palin.
New Poll: MT President
Rasmussen Reports released a new poll that shows John McCain leads Barack Obama 52% to 44% in Montana.
Last month, McCain lead 53% to 42%.
Last month, McCain lead 53% to 42%.
New Poll: MT Governor
Rasmussen Reports has a new poll up this afternoon that shows Republican candidate Roy Brown has gained about nine points since July, but still trails Brian Schweitzer 56% to 41%.
In July, Schweitzer was up 56% to 32%.
In July, Schweitzer was up 56% to 32%.
Integrity
The Montana GOP has challenged the eligibility of about 6000 voters in seven counties across the state. These people may have changed addresses and all they need to do is verify their correct address. It’s very simple.
I would expect nothing less from the MT GOP since Governor Brian Schweitzer talked about turning some dials during the 2006 general election to help his friend, Jon Tester, win a U.S. Senate seat.
It’s completely legal to challenge these voters to provide correct addresses. If anyone does not like it, then they need only express their displeasure to Schweitzer who brought doubt into the voter’s minds when he bragged about tampering with the election during his speech this summer in Philadelphia.
I don’t want a repeat of 2006. I’d like to see the voters and the candidates actually get a fair election in 2008.
I would expect nothing less from the MT GOP since Governor Brian Schweitzer talked about turning some dials during the 2006 general election to help his friend, Jon Tester, win a U.S. Senate seat.
It’s completely legal to challenge these voters to provide correct addresses. If anyone does not like it, then they need only express their displeasure to Schweitzer who brought doubt into the voter’s minds when he bragged about tampering with the election during his speech this summer in Philadelphia.
I don’t want a repeat of 2006. I’d like to see the voters and the candidates actually get a fair election in 2008.
Your Money
It took a few days, but the Billings Gazette figured out why U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was working so hard on the bailout: Campaign donations.
Close to $210,000 in campaign donations have flowed into Baucus’ campaign coffers over the last few years. These donations were from the companies involved in the financial crisis.
It’s the same for other key people working on the frontlines of the bailout. People like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have received their share of the pie.
These donations have made them work just a little harder to bailout their friends.
Both U.S. Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) received donations, but these donations were negligible compared to what Max Baucus received.
Tester voted no on the bailout plan last night. Rehberg voted no on the House version Monday. These were correct votes.
Close to $210,000 in campaign donations have flowed into Baucus’ campaign coffers over the last few years. These donations were from the companies involved in the financial crisis.
It’s the same for other key people working on the frontlines of the bailout. People like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have received their share of the pie.
These donations have made them work just a little harder to bailout their friends.
Both U.S. Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) received donations, but these donations were negligible compared to what Max Baucus received.
Tester voted no on the bailout plan last night. Rehberg voted no on the House version Monday. These were correct votes.
10/01/2008
We're from the Government...
…and we’re here to help YOU.
UPDATE 10/01/08 (3:30 p.m): It is being reported that Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) will vote against the bailout. Good for him.
The Government is telling us that the world will end if we don’t give Wall Street a $700 billion bailout. So tonight the U.S. Senate will vote to spend our billions. By all accounts, it will probably pass by a wide margin.
Of course, if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gives a partisan speech blaming the Republicans for everything under the sun, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi did on Monday, it might not pass.
Montana’s U.S. Senator, Max Baucus (D-Mont.), says he will support it. Although it has not been disclosed, there’s no reason to believe that Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) will not follow Baucus, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer’s lead and support the bailout – and everything else they tell him to support.
I watched Baucus give a speech on the senate floor earlier today. He said taxpayers “may” get their money back. May?
Others say they don’t know for sure if this plan will work. Great.
Some others say the plan is not perfect. Wonderful.
Normally the U.S. Senate is very slow and deliberate in their work. Not now – there’s money to be spent, campaigning to do, junkets to take, and fundraising! Fundraising on Wall Street will look a little juicer since they’ll have a little more coin after this week. So, who has time for a perfect plan or one that has a better chance of working or even one that assures taxpayers get their money back?
Many elected officials say nobody likes the bill. Why vote for it then?
Others say the bill has gotten better since it has been a few days. Why not wait and make it even better?
Voters don’t quite understand the particulars of this mess. Does anyone? We, the voters, do understand a couple of things: $700 billion in taxpayer money. We understand bailout.
So by the end of the week, we’ll find out if the U.S. House follows the Senate and passes this version of the financial bailout.
Here’s an article about how our leaders got us into this mess.
UPDATE 10/01/08 (3:30 p.m): It is being reported that Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) will vote against the bailout. Good for him.
The Government is telling us that the world will end if we don’t give Wall Street a $700 billion bailout. So tonight the U.S. Senate will vote to spend our billions. By all accounts, it will probably pass by a wide margin.
Of course, if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gives a partisan speech blaming the Republicans for everything under the sun, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi did on Monday, it might not pass.
Montana’s U.S. Senator, Max Baucus (D-Mont.), says he will support it. Although it has not been disclosed, there’s no reason to believe that Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) will not follow Baucus, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer’s lead and support the bailout – and everything else they tell him to support.
I watched Baucus give a speech on the senate floor earlier today. He said taxpayers “may” get their money back. May?
Others say they don’t know for sure if this plan will work. Great.
Some others say the plan is not perfect. Wonderful.
Normally the U.S. Senate is very slow and deliberate in their work. Not now – there’s money to be spent, campaigning to do, junkets to take, and fundraising! Fundraising on Wall Street will look a little juicer since they’ll have a little more coin after this week. So, who has time for a perfect plan or one that has a better chance of working or even one that assures taxpayers get their money back?
Many elected officials say nobody likes the bill. Why vote for it then?
Others say the bill has gotten better since it has been a few days. Why not wait and make it even better?
Voters don’t quite understand the particulars of this mess. Does anyone? We, the voters, do understand a couple of things: $700 billion in taxpayer money. We understand bailout.
So by the end of the week, we’ll find out if the U.S. House follows the Senate and passes this version of the financial bailout.
Here’s an article about how our leaders got us into this mess.
The VP Debate
Get your bowl of popcorn and invite your friends over on Thursday night to watch the Biden/Palin debate.
The outcome of the Biden/Palin debate is already decided if you watch CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC or read many of the major newspapers. It’s over for Palin because the mainstream media (MSM) told us it was. They think Joe Biden will destroy her!
Why?
Joe Biden has 35 years of preparation! He’s a senator! He’s an attorney! He’s been to more foreign countries! He’s from the lower 48 states! My gosh, he even rides a train to work! He “knows” Washington! He has friends everywhere! Even the debate moderator (Gwen Ifill) appears to have a reason for Obama to win the election! To some, the biggest thing is that he’s a he.
How can a former mayor of a small town and governor of a sparsely populated state even be on the same stage with the “remarkable” Joe Biden, United States Senator from Delaware?
The MSM is agitated because Sarah Palin did not run to them as soon as she was selected with open arms. They wanted her NOW, not when the McCain campaign said they could have her. The MSM has spent millions of dollars traveling to and around Alaska to find dirt. When they have gotten their chance for an interview, their frustration showed. They want a gotcha moment that can be played over and over on YouTube and used by their main man, Barack Obama. Katie Couric of CBS got her shot this week. Her MSM friends cheered. Fortunately for McCain/Palin, hardly anyone watches perky Katie these days.
When Sarah Palin was first introduced as McCain’s running mate, I was pleased he had brought someone in from the outside, but I was nervous about her performance. After the first speech, I was relieved. After her speech at the convention, I was more relieved. Sure this debate is a big test, but it’s also a big test for the “remarkable” Joe Biden. This is not Palin’s first rodeo, although it is her biggest.
If I had been advising the McCain campaign I would have told them to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Having McCain and Palin campaign together for a week or so was a smart move, but then they should have let her go out and about. Give her a briefing book on the history of John McCain, his views, his votes, and the campaign strategy and send her out alone across the fruited plains to campaign. It’s not too late.
So yes, the MSM already decided that Sarah Palin won’t win the debate with Joe Biden. The fact is if the MSM spent about half the time watching and publicizing Joe Biden’s gaffes, Obama would have dropped him like a hot potato several weeks ago. He’s made more mistakes than Palin, but they were lightly reported because Biden is a good old boy they like.
During the debate we’ll probably hear some wild story from Joe Biden telling us that he saw combat for the first time in his life when his chopper was forced down by a Russian-made rocket in Afghanistan. He’ll hold the audience in the palm of his hand when he tells us how he picked up an M-16, clicked it to auto, and low-crawled to the perimeter to protect John Kerry. He may tell us how he used his $200 designer necktie as a tourniquet. Of course, the MSM will eat this up. MSNBC will do a reenactment of Biden’s brave actions over the weekend. We surely won’t hear a question about how Biden got out of serving in the Vietnam War or his plagiarism, will we?
Yes, the debate on Thursday night will be darned exciting. There will be some tall tales. There will be some mistakes. There’s just as much riding on this for Joe Biden as there is for Sarah Palin.
I wouldn’t count her out.
The outcome of the Biden/Palin debate is already decided if you watch CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC or read many of the major newspapers. It’s over for Palin because the mainstream media (MSM) told us it was. They think Joe Biden will destroy her!
Why?
Joe Biden has 35 years of preparation! He’s a senator! He’s an attorney! He’s been to more foreign countries! He’s from the lower 48 states! My gosh, he even rides a train to work! He “knows” Washington! He has friends everywhere! Even the debate moderator (Gwen Ifill) appears to have a reason for Obama to win the election! To some, the biggest thing is that he’s a he.
How can a former mayor of a small town and governor of a sparsely populated state even be on the same stage with the “remarkable” Joe Biden, United States Senator from Delaware?
The MSM is agitated because Sarah Palin did not run to them as soon as she was selected with open arms. They wanted her NOW, not when the McCain campaign said they could have her. The MSM has spent millions of dollars traveling to and around Alaska to find dirt. When they have gotten their chance for an interview, their frustration showed. They want a gotcha moment that can be played over and over on YouTube and used by their main man, Barack Obama. Katie Couric of CBS got her shot this week. Her MSM friends cheered. Fortunately for McCain/Palin, hardly anyone watches perky Katie these days.
When Sarah Palin was first introduced as McCain’s running mate, I was pleased he had brought someone in from the outside, but I was nervous about her performance. After the first speech, I was relieved. After her speech at the convention, I was more relieved. Sure this debate is a big test, but it’s also a big test for the “remarkable” Joe Biden. This is not Palin’s first rodeo, although it is her biggest.
If I had been advising the McCain campaign I would have told them to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Having McCain and Palin campaign together for a week or so was a smart move, but then they should have let her go out and about. Give her a briefing book on the history of John McCain, his views, his votes, and the campaign strategy and send her out alone across the fruited plains to campaign. It’s not too late.
So yes, the MSM already decided that Sarah Palin won’t win the debate with Joe Biden. The fact is if the MSM spent about half the time watching and publicizing Joe Biden’s gaffes, Obama would have dropped him like a hot potato several weeks ago. He’s made more mistakes than Palin, but they were lightly reported because Biden is a good old boy they like.
During the debate we’ll probably hear some wild story from Joe Biden telling us that he saw combat for the first time in his life when his chopper was forced down by a Russian-made rocket in Afghanistan. He’ll hold the audience in the palm of his hand when he tells us how he picked up an M-16, clicked it to auto, and low-crawled to the perimeter to protect John Kerry. He may tell us how he used his $200 designer necktie as a tourniquet. Of course, the MSM will eat this up. MSNBC will do a reenactment of Biden’s brave actions over the weekend. We surely won’t hear a question about how Biden got out of serving in the Vietnam War or his plagiarism, will we?
Yes, the debate on Thursday night will be darned exciting. There will be some tall tales. There will be some mistakes. There’s just as much riding on this for Joe Biden as there is for Sarah Palin.
I wouldn’t count her out.
9/30/2008
Politics and Religion
Many people cringe when either of these words are brought up in a conversation. “It’s personal.” “It’s my business, not yours,” people say or think as they change the subject. If we talk about both politics and religion at the same time, it’s like mixing oil and water. Maybe that’s the reason so many people break the ice with comments like, “Nice weather we’re having, huh?”
When people ask me for my political or religious views, I normally give them. I don’t feel threatened if someone has an opposing view or supports a candidate I don’t. I feel secure in my religious beliefs just like I do in my political beliefs. If they are willing to chat about it, I am willing to chat back. I like to debate the issues. I don’t normally debate about which religion is best, as I believe each person should have a relationship with God they are comfortable with. Besides, in the end, each of us will find out if we were right or wrong, correct?
When I learn that a candidate is running for public office, I will often check the candidate’s religious views before most of his/her other views including to which party they belong. Do they attend church regularly? Which one? What does their church believe? Basically, I want to know if they believe the same as I do on moral and religious issues.
Faith must be important to other people too, as most bios about a candidate lists his/her faith. When I learned about Barack Obama’s faith, I checked on it. Same with John McCain.
Other people may feel the same about a candidate’s environmental views or their views on guns or other issues.
This brings me to an article that was recently published in the Washington Post called, “33 Pastors Flout Tax Law With Political Sermons.”
These pastors have decided to test the law, passed in 1954, that prohibits them from endorsing political candidates from their churches. It deals with non-profits and taxes and that “deep” stuff. I don’t believe there have been many prosecutions since this law was enacted – maybe just a handful.
So, on Sunday, these pastors talked about the candidates for President. Good for them.
Personally I think it is fine for a pastor to give his/her opinion about a candidate from the pulpit. They are the leaders of the church, and I’m sure some folks would welcome it. As with any church congregation, there are others who probably dislike it.
I would gladly welcome my pastor’s view on the candidates from the pulpit. I’d like to hear where my pastor feels candidate “A” differs from candidate “B” in regards to the teachings of the Bible, and what my church believes compared to what the candidate believes.
On the other hand, I don’t think passing the bucket to collect money for a candidate would be prudent, nor do I think the church giving campaign funds to a candidate or running an ad in the local newspaper would be the right thing to do.
Most people attend a certain church because they like the church’s doctrine, the pastor or pastors, the music, the services the church offers, the activities happening at the church, the location, the size of the church congregation, the community outreach from the church, etc.
We’ve all seen churches change much in the past 30 years. Some people are not happy with the direction of churches today. People want things fast today, like a fast food drive-in or stopping at a convenience store – in and out in a flash and more churches are accommodating the fast-food crowd these days. Some churches are changing with the times. Now, just maybe, the times demand we talk about the candidates and politics in church.
Here’s a clue – many in the congregation are already talking about the candidates.
Of course if the pastor decides to speak about a candidate, they are giving their viewpoint and their opinion on what they believe. Although some of my friends may disagree, isn’t that what they are doing when they preach any way?
We’ll see how far this issue gets. It won’t be decided any time soon, but these pastors made a good first step in bringing it to the forefront.
There’s also another side to this issue, so click HERE to read about it.
When people ask me for my political or religious views, I normally give them. I don’t feel threatened if someone has an opposing view or supports a candidate I don’t. I feel secure in my religious beliefs just like I do in my political beliefs. If they are willing to chat about it, I am willing to chat back. I like to debate the issues. I don’t normally debate about which religion is best, as I believe each person should have a relationship with God they are comfortable with. Besides, in the end, each of us will find out if we were right or wrong, correct?
When I learn that a candidate is running for public office, I will often check the candidate’s religious views before most of his/her other views including to which party they belong. Do they attend church regularly? Which one? What does their church believe? Basically, I want to know if they believe the same as I do on moral and religious issues.
Faith must be important to other people too, as most bios about a candidate lists his/her faith. When I learned about Barack Obama’s faith, I checked on it. Same with John McCain.
Other people may feel the same about a candidate’s environmental views or their views on guns or other issues.
This brings me to an article that was recently published in the Washington Post called, “33 Pastors Flout Tax Law With Political Sermons.”
These pastors have decided to test the law, passed in 1954, that prohibits them from endorsing political candidates from their churches. It deals with non-profits and taxes and that “deep” stuff. I don’t believe there have been many prosecutions since this law was enacted – maybe just a handful.
So, on Sunday, these pastors talked about the candidates for President. Good for them.
Personally I think it is fine for a pastor to give his/her opinion about a candidate from the pulpit. They are the leaders of the church, and I’m sure some folks would welcome it. As with any church congregation, there are others who probably dislike it.
I would gladly welcome my pastor’s view on the candidates from the pulpit. I’d like to hear where my pastor feels candidate “A” differs from candidate “B” in regards to the teachings of the Bible, and what my church believes compared to what the candidate believes.
On the other hand, I don’t think passing the bucket to collect money for a candidate would be prudent, nor do I think the church giving campaign funds to a candidate or running an ad in the local newspaper would be the right thing to do.
Most people attend a certain church because they like the church’s doctrine, the pastor or pastors, the music, the services the church offers, the activities happening at the church, the location, the size of the church congregation, the community outreach from the church, etc.
We’ve all seen churches change much in the past 30 years. Some people are not happy with the direction of churches today. People want things fast today, like a fast food drive-in or stopping at a convenience store – in and out in a flash and more churches are accommodating the fast-food crowd these days. Some churches are changing with the times. Now, just maybe, the times demand we talk about the candidates and politics in church.
Here’s a clue – many in the congregation are already talking about the candidates.
Of course if the pastor decides to speak about a candidate, they are giving their viewpoint and their opinion on what they believe. Although some of my friends may disagree, isn’t that what they are doing when they preach any way?
We’ll see how far this issue gets. It won’t be decided any time soon, but these pastors made a good first step in bringing it to the forefront.
There’s also another side to this issue, so click HERE to read about it.
9/29/2008
Do we get a kiss with this bailout?
UPDATE: The bailout failed in the U.S. House of Representatives - Yea: 205 Nay: 228. 95 Democrats voted Nay, 133 Republicans voted Nay. Rehberg votes Nay.
Here it is, the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008." Members of Congress worked on this all weekend.
The democrats have the votes to pass this, because they control the majority in Congress. It appears they lack the leadership qualities to want to go it a lone although they seem to believe in this bailout with all their hearts. If it is so right, who cares if it does not get many votes from the GOP?
I do not support this plan. First, I don't like the amount ($700 billion), which will add to our already deep national debt. Supporters say it will be paid back. Sure it will. Second, I'm afraid it will create a slippery slope and every time there's a chance of a failure, the leaders of the organization will go back to Congress for another bailout. Third, it goes against the principle of capitalism and the free market.
It may be time to buy some fruit jars and bury our money in the backyard.
Just vote "Nay."
Here it is, the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008." Members of Congress worked on this all weekend.
The democrats have the votes to pass this, because they control the majority in Congress. It appears they lack the leadership qualities to want to go it a lone although they seem to believe in this bailout with all their hearts. If it is so right, who cares if it does not get many votes from the GOP?
I do not support this plan. First, I don't like the amount ($700 billion), which will add to our already deep national debt. Supporters say it will be paid back. Sure it will. Second, I'm afraid it will create a slippery slope and every time there's a chance of a failure, the leaders of the organization will go back to Congress for another bailout. Third, it goes against the principle of capitalism and the free market.
It may be time to buy some fruit jars and bury our money in the backyard.
Just vote "Nay."
9/28/2008
Whoa
The 3-0 Denver Broncos visited the 0-3 Kansas City Chiefs today. Arrowhead Stadium! 78,000 fans. Barbecue! Tailgating! Some of the best fans in the NFL! It was the 143rd consecutive sellout.
I was not there. Sadness fills my heart, but it was on TV in Montana! There’s nothing better than a Chiefs home game. Fans show up early and stay late.
Everyone picked the Broncos to win this one – and win it very easy. I picked em. The Chiefs had lost 12 in a row. They had not had the lead in a game this year.
Chiefs 33, Broncos 19.
There’s life in the Chiefs – at least for one week. Rebuilding is tough, but the Chiefs have some young fellows who in a year or two will make the team better.
Larry Johnson had 198 yards and he was the key player in the game. Tony Gonzalez (the best tight end in football) had a TD (his 68th of his career) and is just a few yards short of Shannon Sharpe’s yardage record for tight ends. Gonzalez has caught at least one pass in 119 straight games.
For at least a week the Chiefs are winners. It’s been a long time. Too bad there’s not a bye week for the Chiefs next week. Victories have been hard to come by and this one needs some savoring.
The Bronco fans have something to look forward to - Kansas City travels to your house in December.
I was not there. Sadness fills my heart, but it was on TV in Montana! There’s nothing better than a Chiefs home game. Fans show up early and stay late.
Everyone picked the Broncos to win this one – and win it very easy. I picked em. The Chiefs had lost 12 in a row. They had not had the lead in a game this year.
Chiefs 33, Broncos 19.
There’s life in the Chiefs – at least for one week. Rebuilding is tough, but the Chiefs have some young fellows who in a year or two will make the team better.
Larry Johnson had 198 yards and he was the key player in the game. Tony Gonzalez (the best tight end in football) had a TD (his 68th of his career) and is just a few yards short of Shannon Sharpe’s yardage record for tight ends. Gonzalez has caught at least one pass in 119 straight games.
For at least a week the Chiefs are winners. It’s been a long time. Too bad there’s not a bye week for the Chiefs next week. Victories have been hard to come by and this one needs some savoring.
The Bronco fans have something to look forward to - Kansas City travels to your house in December.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)