Mr. 9/11 is speaking tonight at the convention, so I have a drinking game for all my readers.
Each time he mentions the war on terror: one drink.
Each time he mentions 9/11: Two drinks.
Please stock up on booze before his keynote.
Update 1: Torteya has informed me that Rudy is not speaking tonight. The New York Daily News is reporting that he might speak on Thursday. That’s two extra days to stock up people.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 am
Sadly, that might not happen.
We can still have a “maverick” and/or “war on terror” one, though. I’m down!
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Yeah – I think I wouldn’t get very far. Have you seen the Family Guy episode where Lois runs for office? And mentions 9/11 repeatedly?
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
This would be as disastrous a drinking game as when we drank every time Bush said something stupid in his 2002 State of the Union address.
Not that it wasn’t fun…
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I tell that story every time I talk you up Seth. Well, you and Mike. The patience that man had for us..
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Looks like a night of sobriety, Marty. No Rudy tonight. You get Laura Bush, President Bush via video remote, Fred Thompson, and Joe Lieberman as consolation prizes. I don’t know whether they bumped Rudy to tomorrow night or cut him entirely.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Rumor has it he will nominate McCain directly. As for Joe…..
Yeah, I’d rather read a Tale of Two Cities.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
True. I like Joe Lieberman a lot, but the only drinking game you need to play when he starts speaking is doing shots of espresso to stay awake. Not the most dynamic orator in the world.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
I have to ask why you like Lieberman.
He’s pro-choice and also a supporter of equal rights for all (including gay and lesbians). He typical votes with the democrats on social issues.
Plus, he’s also a supporter of affirmative action.
He’s just short of Jack Thompson in his anti-media stance. He supported the communications decency act.
I’m just curious about what you find so appealing about him. Personally, I find his paternalistic heavy-handed moralism offensive. But that is the same reason I dislike people like Dick Cheney (and more than a few democrats)
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
I’m in agreement with Itanya. While I appreciate his stances on choice and equal rights, I find his “moral voice” role to be nothing short of patriarchal nonsense. Furthermore, I think his stance on “security issues” to be quite out of sync with the party.
I also find his “sore loser” stance in regards to Ned Lamont to be absolutely ridiculous. Oh, and questioning Obama’s patriotism* is beyond the pale.
*saying he does not put country first is an attack on his devotion to the country, hence, an attack on his patriotism.