Monday, January 30, 2012

What's In A Name?

What do Herman Cain, Fred Thompson, Michael Reagan, Rick Perry. Chuck Norris, Todd Palin and to a great extent Sarah Palin have in common?  They have all come out in support of Newt Gingrich.  Why does that not comfort me?

I would think Herman Cain, the alleged annoyer of women, would have stayed at arms length from an actual endorsement  because of their mutual problems with women. Some will say birds of a feather.

Fred Thompson.  Former Senator, presidential candidate, actor and currently hustler of reverse  mortgages. Not unlike Perry, he was nearly sainted but fell flat.  He was a lazy campaigner and wasn't around long enough for many to even remember.

Mike Reagan. This is strictly personal opinion to be sure but I've watched Mr. Reagan for a long time and see him as an opportunistic man riding on the fame of the name of the man who adopted him.  Ronald.  My guess is Gingrich got his nod on the toss of a coin or the promise of a job.

Rick Perry was quick to endorse Newt as he departed the campaign.  For a man who couldn't get his ideas straight while he was campaigning I'm not sure his thoughts on anyone else are worth much.

Chuck Norris.  You are probably close to my age to remember him in his heyday as a martial arts superman.  Unless you equate the roles he played with political savvy is their any reason to listen to him?  Yes, he supported Huckabee but does that give him conservative bona fides or just one more photo op for an over the hill actor?

Todd Palin? Sequestered away in Alaska I'd guess his knowledge of Newt's history is about as accurate as his wife's. They are both past history and should stay that way.  Sarah's recent comments were so far from making sense it makes me wonder if the radiation from the recent surge of northern lights has affected her ability to reason.  Not that I ever thought she could in the first place.

To be fair I should get into the people who have endorsed Romney too.  Maybe another day because they aren't all peaches and cream either.  Nor is he; Romneycare will be his Waterloo if he can't overcome it as his greatest negative.

Somehow, though, this 'liar liar pants on fire' mantra of Newt's without enlightening us to what the lies are and what the truth really is makes me wonder if he has any credibility at all.

We're told we need a visionary to lead us out of our quandary but if it's along the line of putting a base on the moon within eight years I cannot help but wonder just what the illusionary drug of choice is. We can't even get a load of supplies to the space station at this point.

For an endorsement to mean something to me it must come from someone who understands where we are and what must be done to move us forward in a way that's actually doable and explain to me, in a meaningful way, why someone is the best person to get it done.  Glorious pasts are great but that's all they are - past.  Including the Reagan era.  It's over, past.  Times and needs are different now.  And that is no lie.






4 comments:

Margie's Musings said...

I couldn't agree with you more. I would be tempted to vote Republican if they just had a candidate. No one is discussing issues so what DO they believe?

Betty said...

Our local newspaper runs Michael Reagan's column once a week. The man's an idiot. I emailed our publisher and asked him if he couln't find a Republican with a little intelligence and run his column instead. He didn't respond. Surprise! lol

Al said...

Where is this kind of open, direct and honest reporting found in the media today? Rather than glorifying the race for ratings, sake, etc. Why aren't they asking these same relevant questions? <=== just thinking aloud...

Cannot believe I get to read these informative and interesting posts for free. Please keep 'em coming.

Word Tosser said...

the endorsements, could they be the ANY BUT MITT, type?
They rather get behind a bad Republican than a Democrat??
Not that we see a lot of that either.