Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Kwame loves Jerome

As host of the Super Bowl, shouldn't Detroit be the eqivalent of Switzerland? A neutral observer? Host with the most? You would think we would show our love to both Pittsburgh and Seattle. So what in the Hell is Kwame Kilpatrick thinking?

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is considering declaring next week Jerome Bettis week in honor of the hometown hero, who’s Pittsburgh Steelers will be playing in next week’s Super Bowl for the first time in a decade.

I like Jerome Bettis as much as the next guy. He's a great ambassador for the area and will be the MSM focal point in the week leading up to the game. Pittsburgh is a kindred rust belt city. But why does the D want to show favoritism, or even the appearance of it, in honoring Bettis before the game? What are Seattle and their fans going to think? Couldn't this wait? Is it even necessary? It reeks of mayoral grandstanding. Then again, should we have expected anything better from Kwame?


  1. I agree that Kwame is riding Bettis's coattails to make himself look better. If Lofa Tatupu was a Detroiter instead, it'd be "Love Lofa" week around here.

    However, I'm not so sure embracing the Steelers is a bad move on Kwame's part, considering Detroit will probably become Pittsburgh West over the next 10 days.

    If Kwame's really smart, he'll have all those Iron City visitors fill out some census forms.

  2. I think having the Bettis angle is perfect for the city, I mean, it definitely will help boast more positives than the negatives we all know are coming!

    However, don't piss off Seattle anymore and make next week "The Bus" week, damn, wait until after the Super Bowl. But, then again, no one ever said Kwame was bright... why the hell is he mayor still?

  3. Because the media was Kwame Hatin'!

  4. Because the media was Kwame hatin'! LOL!

    Well, at least we know that Jerome, is he gives into the dark side of Kwame, will get a Navigator (on the cities tab) for his special week as well as a nice stripper party or two, at the taxpayers expense.