Let's Set The Record Straight About My WWE Tweets

I recently tweeted to John Layfield that it is hard to take him seriously on a FoxNews program because he is also a ringside announcer on WWE and appears to represent that fake wrestling is legitimate.  There is no issue with him appearing on both programs, but you have to admit a former WWE star who is now a ringside announcer is hard to take seriously on a legitimate FoxNews program.

Layfield tweeted that he was proud of Fred Rosser, known as Darren Young in the ring, for coming out as the first openly gay "professional" wrestler.  I agree with Layfield with respect to Rosser.  Whether, or not you are gay, or homophobic you have to admit, Rosser's admission was courageous.  Besides, I like anyone who likes Cocoa Pebbles and Rosser likes Cocoa Pebbles.

My tweet dealt with Layfield being taken seriously as a FoxNews analyst while also being a WWE ring announcer.  Layfield quickly tweeted back to me that wrestling is scripted, then referred to me as a kid (I am 63) and blocked me on Twitter.  I truly believe he blocked me to make his response to my tweet go away before fans of WWE could see him admit WWE is fake.  How will I ever survive?


In the interest of full disclosure, I admit when flipping through the channels I sometimes watch fake wrestling events.  I find them entertaining.  There is no question that the men and women who act on the WWE programs are great stunt people, although most of them are terrible actors.  In my opinion John Layfield was a good stuntman when he was in the ring, and he was entertaining. 

Why is it important to WWE actors that we believe WWE events are real?  About three years ago I was at an event where Randy Orton , WWE performer, was a guest.  The subject of wrestling came up.  I made the comment that I believe it is entertaining, even though it is fake.  Randy quickly challenged me to get into the ring with him to prove professional wrestling is fake.  I was born at night, but not last night.  There is no question in my mind that Randy Orton could have taken apart a 60 year old, out of shape man (me).  Needless to say, I declined, so I am still here to write this blog.

As I mentioned, I find WWE events entertaining, but I do have an issue with WWE.  Many of the people who wrestle appear to be on steroids (some admit they are), which sets a bad example for young people who see wrestlers as role models.  Let's be totally honest; many of the stunt people on WWE hold themselves up as role models for young people, at least while they are playing the part of the "good guys".

I do not know John Layfield's position on steroid use, but would like to believe he is against the use of steroids.  He has a great platform to speak out against steroids in his work with young kids in Bermuda.  Do we really need steroids in a scripted, fake wrestling event where the outcome is predetermined?


If you are one who needs proof that professional wrestling is anything more than scripted entertainment, walk into any legal betting establishment in Vegas and try to place a bet on a WWE event.  You cannot do it because Vegas cannot legally accept bets on events that have a predetermined outcome.

Make no mistake about it; those who perform in the WWE know the outcome of every match before they enter the ring.  In the weeks leading up to pay per view events, the "stars" who stand in the ring and claim they will demolish their opponents on the pay per view event know who is scripted to win the event at the time they making their claims that they will win the event.

The ringside announcers, including John Layfield, most likely know the predetermined outcomes of events too. None of the ringside announcers are doing anything wrong.  It is just hard for me to view John Layfield as a credible FoxNews commentator after listening to him as a ring announcer for WWE.

The fact that Layfield took exception to my comment on Twitter indicates to me that I am not the only one who has offered the same opinion.  He was far too defensive about it.  The man could not have responded then run away any faster.  He could not block me fast enough.  Blocking me took away his admission that WWE is scripted.  He retracted his admission as quick as he made it.

Questions of credibility of those in WWE seem to be the norm.  For example, Linda McMahon, wife of WWE Chairman Vince McMahon has run for political office twice, and lost twice.  Why?  If you believe many who voted against her, it is because she wanted to be seen as a credible politician, but refused to stand up and say professional wrestling is fake.

She came close to an admission once when she said WWE is entertainment, but stopped short of admitting it is totally scripted.  A professional football game is also entertainment, but the outcome of the game is not predetermined.  Linda just could not bring herself to admit the truth and I believe that cost her enough votes to lose two elections.

Why should voters believe Linda McMahon will represent them honestly in politics when she is not honest enough to admit that her husband's business is nothing more than fake wrestling?  His business is not illegal, but denying it is fake wrestling no doubt cost Linda two elections.  It is a credibility issue.

Linda and I both paid a price for our stands with respect to WWE.  Linda lost two elections because she could not admit the truth.  She clearly paid a larger price than I paid.  I was only blocked on Twitter by one of her husbands properties, John Layfield.  He called me a kid, then went running for the hills via the "block" button.  I will try to go on.

I think I'll just have a bowl of Cocoa Pebbles cereal in honor of Fred Rosser's courage, wish John Layfield the very best and tweet on.  Someone has to be the adult here.

Reince Priebus Has His Foot In His Mouth

Every time I here the name Reince Priebus I think about David Letterman's list of the top ten ways to mispronounce his name.  My personal favorite was "Rented Prius".

Reince Priebus was RNC chairman when Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama, but Reince now has the way to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign.  Never mind that Hillary Clinton has not announced her candidacy yet and never mind that the republications have not nominated an opponent to tun against whomever the democrats nominate.  Priebus has put his foot in his mouth.  Unfortunately he has also put his foot in his party's mouth and the mouth of the party's candidate in 2016.

Reince Priebus is running scared of a potential candidate.  He has taken the stand that his party will not participate in presidential debates aired on CBS and CNN if those networks air a miniseries about Hillary Clinton.  Perhaps he should wait to see who the 2016 democratic nominee for president is before he formulates a strategy to avoid debating the nominee?  Right now, he just looks like he is afraid to have his candidate debate anyone on CBS or CNN.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have no idea who I will vote for in the 2016 presidential election, for a very good reason.  I have no idea who is running yet!  With respect to Hillary Clinton, I am not her most avid supporter, but let's give the lady her due.  She was First Lady, Senator from New York, Presidential Candidate and Secretary of State.  My resume is not that impressive and neither is the resume of Reince Priebus.

Maybe he is just upset because he does not have a resume worthy of a miniseries about him, unless his top ten list on The David Letterman Show qualifies him for a miniseries.  Of course, his current whining sessions will probably make it to the miniseries.  That will be an "ah shit" moment for the RNC and the Republican Party.  Reince clearly does not think before he opens his mouth.

Reince was on Fox News, The Sean Hannity Show, whining about the proposed miniseries.  Reince definitely picked the right venue for whining.  Sean Hannity is as far to the right as Chris Matthews is to the left.  Sean was happy to give Reince time to air a "bitch-fest" about Fox News competitors.  

Reince announced the republicans will not participate in presidential debates on CBS and CNN in 2016 if those networks air a miniseries about Hillary Clinton.  If CBS and CNN do not play by his rules, he will not play the game?  What if the eventual republican nominee disagrees with Reince's position regarding the debates?  How does Reince manage to remove his foot from his mouth then?

Right now he just looks like a man who is running afraid of Hillary Clinton, but there may be more to it than that.  He may just be using that as an excuse to get his candidate out of debating.  If his candidate does not agree with him in 2016, Reince may be the man whose party's nominee will not even listen to him.  Perhaps Reince Priebus should work on a campaign strategy that does not include running from debates.

There is no question that some of the 2012 debates were biased, in favor of democrats.  Reince does have a point with respect to having some say in picking the moderators for 2016.  However, I believe the moderators for 2012 debates were all approved by republicans.  Did he play any role in approving those moderators?  If so, should republicans question his judgement as their chairman?

Reince has a platform to discuss the issues now, such as the economy, jobs, the debt ceiling, etc.  I guess those things are not as important to him as a miniseries about a person who has not yet announced that she is a candidate for president in 2016.  Reince, if you do not have a plan that reaches beyond whining, bitching and moaning about a miniseries, do your party a favor and use the time to come up with more ways to mispronounce your name.  Letterman will be happy to air them.