Max

The elites are pushing for Chris Christie again, the bestest governor ever - he'll yell at everyone and America will fix itself.

Those hoping Christie will run for president in 2012 are going to be sorely disappointed: he's made a political calculation to sit this election out (realizing that Obama is going to be difficult to beat) and to wait for 2016. At this point in time, I am shocked that so many still cling to this hope.

While Christie is far from the "bestest governor ever," he is easily superior to his crap Democratic predecessors, James McGreevey and Jon Corzine. Additionally, while liberals trashed Christie for using the state helicopter for personal use, they were completely silent when Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York (who, like Christie, ran as a reformer willing to take on the unions and government employees) later did the same thing.

Anyway, that's my post for this year. :-) Good to see everyone again... hello... Things are well here. Hi Adam! I see you standing over there... Alpha, hi! I feel compelled to rip Max but I won't because he's typically the lone non-liberal in the room... LOL!

Hi, Brian! I hope everything is well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, as I always enjoy reading your well-reasoned posts. And you are entitled to criticize me as much as you want, so please don't hold back in the future!

In the latest political news, Perry finishes a distant second to Cain in a Florida GOP straw poll:

http://politicaltick...poll/?hpt=hp_t1

This is a humilating defeat for Perry, as he was expected to win the straw poll. But, this is good news for the Republicans--and the country as a whole--since perhaps there now is a glimer of hope for a Romney or Huntsman nomination.

Seeing AMC's end just reminds me again of how little anyone at P&G or CBS gave a damn about the end of ATWT. I get very annoyed when I think about that damn cast photo which was chopped together and poor Kathleen Widdoes wasn't even in. You could sense some of the sadness and anger from Don Hastings in that Mental Floss article.

Carl, it is so sad to watch how Don Hastings and Kathryn Hays are feeling in the following interview, which was conducted by a Dutch news organization:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x9ez4GvopGg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

OLTL_fan, thank you for answering my question.

Although I'm really enjoying this show, I do wonder how realistic of a portrayl it is. Are the rich who live in the Hamptons really this shallow and status conscious?

The thing I always wonder about is this... conservatives complain over and over that they don't want to pay high taxes and have of their money redistributed to the poor, but I very rarely hear complaints from conservatives about military spending.

Quite frankly, conservatives are complete hypocrities when they rally against government spending (except for military spending) but then spend huge amounts of money on defense (some years even giving the Pentagon more funding than they requested in the first place). The only GOP presidential candidate to point out this hypocrisy is Ron Paul. (Although I don't support Paul and some of his positions, I do find it refreshing that he is willing to say very unpopular things in front of partisan audiences.)

I am curious as to where this show is filmed. I assume it is in California, but given that it takes places in the Hamptons, I was wondering if it is actually filmed in New York.

Regarding the whole tax debate, I just wanted to add that it is nearly impossible to reconcile the conservative and liberal viewpoints on the matter, because both sides have a completely different definition of what "fairness" is. Conservatives don't like the progressive income tax scales we have in this country (where those earning higher salaries are taxed at a higer rates), because they think the "fair" thing to do would be to tax all people at an equal rate. Liberals believe that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate because the "fair" thing to do is for them to give (more of their income) back to the less fortunate.

While this may sound stupid, neither side is "right" or "wrong" on this matter; it's just that different people view things differently. What upsets me is when each side mocks and distors the other side's views: most conservatives don't want to piss on the poor, and most liberals don't want to punish success and turn America into a socialist state. It would be nice if all the ridicule would stop, but that never will happen due to the "blood sport" nature of politics (whereby one party has to lose whenever the other party wins).

According to an Associated Press article, millionaires are (on average) actually taxed at higher rates than the middle and working classes:

http://news.yahoo.co...-070642868.html

This was a surprise to me, because when Warren Buffett earlier stated that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, most took that to mean that the rich (in general) were taxed at a higher rate than the middle class. In Buffett's case, he pays such a low tax rate because so much of his income comes from capital gains (as opposed to salary), which are taxed at a much lower rate; the article above indiciates that this is not the case for most of the wealthy (and that is why they are taxed at a higher rate than the middle class). The other major reason why some (albeit a minority) of rich pay at a lower rate than the middle class is because they know how to take advantage of all of tax deductions and other loopholes in the system.

The fairest thing to do (in terms of taxation) is to have one flat tax that is equal for capital gains and salaried income (and applies to all people of all wealth levels); this is a conservative idea. However, the loopholes and generous tax deductions should also be eliminated as well (and this is a liberal idea).

VW looks absolutely stunning.

I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but there's no doubt that the major reason why the Bauers were decimated was because they were considered too "old" and "boring" for the youth demo P&G and CBS so desperately wanted to attract. (Of course, the idiots in charge failed to realize that GL was never a soap designed to attract young people in the first place.) While everybody knows that GH was the hottest soap among young people in the early-80's, some of you may not know that the much lower-rated EON charged more for an ad than did GL (because EON had a younger audience); I'm sure that this fact alone factored big into P&G's decision to get rid of the Bauers. (I remember reading on a message board that a commercial on EON cost more than one on GL back in the early-80's, and was shocked to find that out.)

There's no reason why under better hands Search couldn't have run for 10-15 more years.

Sadly, even with the most talented writers and producers, SFT would still have been doomed on NBC due to the fact that many of that network's affiliates either did not air the soap at all, or refused to air it in the proper timeslot (12:30 P.M. Eastern). Also, by the mid-80's, P&G seemed to lose all interest in this classic soap.

Even if SFT had never been cancelled by CBS in 1982, network executives would have gladly canned this soap (barring a major ratings boost from where it was in 1981) for the almighty Bill Bell's B&B (in 1987). (And if SFT had stayed, then GL or ATWT would have been axed to make room for B&B.) The only silver lining is that had SFT remained on CBS, the ratings (and perhaps the quality as well) would not have fallen nearly as much as they did on NBC.

Those June 1986 McCleary ads (which I have seen before) are beyond insulting to the viewers' intelligence. A couple years ago, a similar television ad was done for OLTL, asking viewers to watch because the Ford brothers are so sexy.

In answer to Carl's question, the McClearys were quite unpopular, because they hogged up all the air time from the characters who were at the heart of SFT; in this respect, it was very similar to the way the Ford brothers hogged up screen time on OLTL. The interesting coincidence is that the head of NBC daytime (back when SFT became all about the McClearys) was none other than Brian Frons, so he should have known better than to have shoved the Fords down viewers throats. (Of course, blaming Frons for the Fords in no way should let RC & FV off the hook for pimping them; however, that topic was previously discussed in a thread I created.)

Really, the major difference between the McCleary and Ford brothers was that the portrayers of the former could actually act.

Perry to me is not electable, and if he is... the American society is in more trouble than we all have feared. Obama is so beatable right now and as an outsider I want him gone myself, but the only thing that will keep him in office is a weak candidate on the right. All of them currently fit that bill. Romney is the most "electable" yes, but is he that likable? I don't think so. Obama the campaigner will use his charisma to his advantage out on the trails.

Really... as I've said before.... someone should seriously break protocol and mount a challenge to Obama within the Democratic Party. They may get blackballed, they may not.... but from what I gather there are just as many democrats for this man as there are against.

I think he's the worst US President probably since Carter for leadership.

One of the saddest truths in politics is that those who win campaigns (especially at the presidential level) are the most charismatic and "likeable" candidates (as opposed to the most qualified candidates). Thus, it is for this reason, Adam, that I agree with you that the incompetent Obama has a very good chance of getting re-elected should Romney be his opponent.

The Democrats should indeed nominate somebody other than Obama in 2012. (Were this to happen, either Perry or Romney would get crushed.) However, there are two things that are scaring off potential challengers: the first is that any primary challenger to Obama will be "blackballed" by being called a "racist" (in much the same way as Hillary was back in 2008), and the second reason is that it is extremely hard to defeat an incumbent president in a primary election.

If the general election ends up being Obama versus Perry (as it certainly looks that way), I really hope a viable independent candidate enters the race, because both of these people are completely unacceptable. Although a lot of Democrats despise this man, I would really support an independent candidacy of Rudy Giuliani. Despite exploiting 9/11 in a very distasteful manner, the fact is that he was one of the best ever NYC mayors (the way he reduced crime was nothing short of a miracle), and I think he would make a great president. (It is just such a shame that he can never win a GOP presidential nomination because of his liberal social views.)

You know, Max... I agree with you that Rick Perry is just DISMAL. He's totally cut his own throat with that Social Security thing. We have this contingent of people that seem to think ANY government program is SOCIALISM. Social Security has worked just fine for people for 75 years, yes... it may have trouble in the future, but you just MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, how hard is that? Also, part of the problem that nobody against SS EVER works into their stats is the fact that the baby boomers are causing a temporary bottleneck in the system. And, due to advancement in medical technology, we are living longer today, so you just raise the reterement age one year at a time, once overy 2 or 3 years until the finances are put back in line again, how hard is that? It's like sending your car to the junkyard because it needs new tires. Same with the postal service. The internet has done damage to something that has workd well for well over 100 years, it doesn't mean it's BAD. If thye need more money, congress needs to get off their butts and raise postage to 50 cents, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they got rid of Saturday delivery.

Alphanguy, your solutions to the above problems are very good and sensible ones. Unfortunately, anytime (in the past) a politician has suggested raising the retirement age (before one can collect Social Security), that politician was subjected to scare tactics and accused of "throwing Granny under the bus." It is beyond tragic that such hysteria is commonplace in our political system (and both parties use it very effectively).

After taking a brief hiatus, I'll try to resume talking politics. Hopefully, I will do so in a much more civil fashion; once again, I am so sorry for the horrible way I treated Qfan.

Despite the fact that it is a heavily Democratic district, I was not surprised that Republican Bob Turner defeated Democrat David Weprin in last night's special election to replace the disgraced Anthony Weiner (who represented parts of Brooklyn and Queens in the House). There are two reasons for this: first is the fact that Weprin (despite being a really nice guy) is a piss poor politician; the second reason is that Weiner's district (despite being very Democratic) is still the least Democratic district in all of NYC outside of Staten Island (due to the fact it contains a very high population of white ethnics, and a smaller than city-wide average number of blacks and hispanics).

I am not going to gloat about Turner's victory the way most Democrats gloated about a special election victory (earlier this year) in which a Democrat pulled off an upset victory in a Republican Congressional district in upstate New York (to replace Chris Lee, who--like Weiner--was also disgraced in an online sex scandal). The fact of the matter is that special elections--the majority of the time--are not barometers of the national mood, but are rather decided based on the quality (i.e., political skills) of those participating in those races. When all is said and done, nobody doubts that Obama will win Weiner's former district (as well as New York State as a whole) and lose Lee's former district.

Unfortunately (for myself), the GOP primary race has taken a turn for the worse with Perry in it. I would put his chances at winning the nomination at 80%, yet he is completely unelectable (in a general election) due to his comment that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. (This comment will scare seniors like hell, and will make it impossible for Perry to win Florida, which is a state that a Republican must win in order to capture the White House.)

Despite having many flaws, Romney would be favored to beat Obama in a general election (if the economy's just as bad a year from now as it is today). There's do doubt that Romney is a complete phony, who flip-flops his positions to whatever his audience wants to hear. However, the truth of the matter is that Obama is also a phony, given that he campaigned as somebody who would end politics as usual (not to mention the fact that he completely flip-flopped on the issue of closing Gitmo). (Thus, when faced with the choice of a Republican phony or a Democratic phony, I'll take the former.) As I've stated before, my first choice for president is Huntsman; unfortunately he is running such a dismal campaign (for instance, he rarely goes on the attack; as a result of this, he is stuck at 1% in the polls) that I am seriously considering voting for Romney instead.

Obviously, a Romney victory (in the GOP primary) will be extremely hard to pull off. Although his phoniness and flip-flopping turn off a lot of people, the sad fact of the matter is that what is hurting him the most is that he is a Mormon. Because of his religion, he has zero chance of winning a primary in a southern state with the possible exception of Florida. In order for him to pull off a miracle and win the nomination, Romney will need to win just about every state in the northeast, midwest, and west. (Although it should be stated that Romney will be unable to win any state that has a caucus instead of a primary--such as Iowa--because caucuses are dominated by those on the far-right or far-left.)

This was brought up in another thread, but I have long felt that I was among the very few who enjoyed the Doc Reese storyline. (I mostly enjoyed it because I never saw coming the plot twist of Jessica sleeping with Doc.) Did everyone else here hate it?

Thanks so much again for that history lesson saynotoursoap! Thanks Max as well for sharing hat clip video link. I remember it on the defunct WOST site.

Soapfan770, I appreciate your kind words.

Jeanne Cooper looks like a different person prior to her 1984 (?) plastic surgery. Honestly, I am not a fan of her current, artificial face.

There is something I wanted to add to my above thought: despite being displeased with how she currently looks on the outside, Jeanne Cooper is extremely beautiful on the inside.

Saynotoursoap, thank you so much for sharing your treasure trove of knowledge in regards to the Dr. Bob and Dr. John rivalry. I learned a whole lot.

I'm still going to refrain from talking about politics for awhile (though I will eventually come back), but I just wanted to express my desire to have Qfan return to this thread ASAP. (This thread is certainly not the same without him.) I completely overreacted in my above posting, and had no intention to push him away from this thread. I am sincerely sorry that my statements caused him to refrain from posting here.

Qfan has never been rude to me personally. (Shamefully, I cannot make the same claim with regards to the way I have treated him.) However, I was just really upset that he feels all Republicans are evil. (If he stated that most Republicans were evil, I would not have been upset.) That being said, Qfan has every right to feel the way he does and to express such opinions. Rather than having reacted in such an immature way (as I did), I should have been able to have gotten over my stupid hang-ups.

I consider the rivalry between Dr. Bob and Dr. John to be the greatest professional rivalry in soap history. How did the two of them meet, and what started their rivalry?

I'm sure that you have all seen this promo regarding ATWT's upcoming 60-minute expansion:

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gy9SiZHvrE8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

However, can anybody please provide the context of that particular scene?

Jeanne Cooper looks like a different person prior to her 1984 (?) plastic surgery. Honestly, I am not a fan of her current, artificial face.

Any word to the contrary is subterfuge, deciept and an attempt to make you think modern republicanism is something other than a cult that worships money fueled by distrust of anyone who isn't some fundie hatemonger out to attack the gays and blacks. And soon I imagine someone will come along and tell me my comment is beyond the pale, and yet incapable of offering up a single name of any republican politician anywhere who does not subscribe to "trickle down" (read: piss on) economics.

Qfan, please allow me to prove once again that your hate-filled comments are total bulls#it: Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has gone on record stating that tax increases are necessary in order to erase our deficit. Additionally, as governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee (according to Wikipedia--a site that you have used to defend one of the arguments you previously made) "signed into law increases in cigarette and tobacco taxes as well as a three percent income tax surcharge."

Your vile and disgusting comment was way out of line, but it is no surprise given your track record. The following two quotes are perhaps the very worst things you have said:

On how you feel regarding each and every Republican as well as anybody who has ever voted for one:

It's truly a party of evil. On the one hand they want tax cuts for the rich and create the debt from Clinton surpluses, and on the other they complain and want the poor to pay more to finance their tax cuts and debt which was created from their tax cuts and wars of choice based on lies. It's sickening, they are sickening, and anyone who votes for them is sickening too.

The following comment that you made in regards to Gabby Giffords' shooter, which turned out to be completely off the mark:

Five gets you fifty the shooter is some deranged, right wing, the government wants to kill me nutjob who watches Glen Beck.

I will no longer be talking politics with you, because your tone is that of first-grader who cannot be reasoned with. (In fact, I intend to give this entire thread a rest for a while.) It is truly beyond my comprehension on how you came to be so preoccupied with hatred towards each and every Republican. While there is a welcome diversity of political viewpoints here at SON, nobody else here is closed-minded and spiteful in their thinking the way you are.

Regarding the AW spin-offs, am I correct in stating that the general consensus is that Texas was considered far superior to Somerset?

Sadly, I spent the first eighteen years of my life being a non-soap viewer. (Since none of my friends or family liked soaps, I never tried watching them; it wasn't until I went off to college in 1998--and got hooked on the soon-to-be-cancelled AW--that I fell in love with soaps.) Nevertheless, I have done an extensive amount of viewing of vintage clips and other research to the point where I know quite a bit about the golden eras of ATWT, AW, and GL.

While I know far less about GH's history (compared to the above P&G soaps), it has always been my impression that Alan and Monica have been such a crucial tentpole couple for this soap (much in the same way as Bob and Kim Hughes). And although this happened only a couple of years ago, I view the decision of killing off Alan--during a "sweeps" month stunt--to have been such a dagger in the heart to the very core of GH. I would not be surprised if this decision played a big role in the huge ratings freefall GH experienced over the last few years.

Although I feel bad for having almost nothing to offer, I realized that GH was the only "current" soap (until now) that does not have a thread that can be used for discussing classic storylines, posting articles, etc. While never a personal favorite of mine, I do consider GH to be the second-most important soap in the genre's history (with ATWT ranking as the most important soap), given the fact that it was largely responsible for shifting the genre's direction away from the "traditional"/P&G method of storytelling to campy plots that were written in an attempt to capture the popularity of young America. (To be fair, Y&R was the first soap designed to blatantly appeal to youth. However, nobody was better at doing this--or was more copied than--GH was back in its 80's heyday.)

To get things started, here is a 1963 (partial) promo for the "new" soap:

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QrCHlvQrnrs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's a 1963 opening (in poor video quality), with a very beautiful theme:

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xGoM9CP1p2w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The iconic opening sequence that ran from the 1975 until 1993 had two themes (the first of which lasted just a year), as shown below:

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qe8ZYMK1SiA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jSPVL8HkPfk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>