Sunday, September 03, 2006

Mac-Mac - nine days to a deserved obscurity

Larraine McNamara-McGraw's suggestion that maybe the police shot Candace Moss is irresponsible even by her standards. While I'd like to think it's just a manifestation of her special brand of silliness, I am not sure that she is really that dumb. It's hard not to see this as cynical race-baiting of the very worst sort. She would be, perhaps, the worst district attorney in the country. Good thing she has less chance of winning than I do of running a four minute mile.

She suggests that the Journal-Sentinel's report that the child was killed by errant bullets is an "insensitive article that is dividing our community." She apparently thinks it would be better to pretend that people in the central city are not at the mercy of lawless thugs. Hers would be a rather bloody sensitivity.


steveegg said...

You must be running 4:10 miles right now. This town has put up with McCan't for almost 40 years, and it did send Gwen "Crybaby" Moore to Congress overwhelmingly,

Dad29 said...

How in Hell did that creature obtain TWO college degrees?

Rick Esenberg said...

More like 10:00 and I think I'm closer than she is. But it would sure be entertaining if she won. Talk about bloggable riches.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rick:
1. Missed you at the Community Columnist bash :( :( :( :( . I brought stuff to make fresh Mojitos, wanted you to try the first one.

2. I was at the NAACP debate. (I am supporting Mac Mac, and I try to attend, in general, as many political debates of all kinds as possible. I am by no means in her inner circle). Her comment was more like her musing aloud, and it didn’t inflame the racially diverse crowd (more on what DID inflame the crowd below).
There are parts of this community that the threat or fear of police violence, or the possibility of an errant bullet from police exchanging gunfire, is very real. Her comments came off more like she was wondering aloud. Having grown up and lived in an extremely violent community, her musings, to me, were not shocking at all.

3. What did inflame (and that is a mild term) the audience, however, were two things that happened at the debate:
a. John Chisholm repeatedly claiming that he had
“ . . . saved lives. I have personally saved hundreds of lives”.
Yes, this is a quote. He repeated this several times within a short time frame (a minute or so). The hundreds of people whose lives he had “personally saved” were not at the debate. Or is he taking sole credit for what is supposed to be teamwork in the DA’s office? I think the audience was confused, we were not told that Superman would be making an appearance at the debate.
b. The second thing that happened REALLY riled up the audience. Chisholm got a HUGE response for his closing remarks, which were a shockingly bizarre, whiny tirade. I could only picture a little boy stomping his feet for not getting what he wants. He started off by attacking Mac Mac and Wasserman. That got the crowd buzzing a little, but he kept attacking and whining, not telling the audience why they should vote for him. The noise in the room got loud, so I didn’t get to hear all of it. He said something about being a pilot guiding a plane. At the end of this spectacle, the audience sat in stunned silence. The unflappable Wasserman spoke after him and in his soothing voice gave the best zinger: “you might be a pilot, but I’m an air traffic controller”. HA!

4. In sum, (and I am almost finished), I think that every voter should try and attend one debate. There is one candidate of the three who does not answer the questions directly and talks around the issues. That person is not hard to spot.

Take care,
Maria M. Flores

Anonymous said...

I really like your site. Excellent content. Please continue posting such profound cotent..