Paul As The Anti-Romney

Is it me or are all the candidates losing it?  It would seem Newt lost it yesterday, falling into the pit of tainted truths right along with Mitt.  Desperate measures by desperate men I guess.

Newt's accusation that Romney once eliminated serving kosher food to elderly Jewish residents of a nursing home is off the charts, even for Newt.  What happened was normal during a budget crunch.  What can be eliminated?  In this case it was whether or not to keep open a kosher kitchen for  8% of 200 residents.  Plans were also being looked at as to how to provide the meals by other means, ie; having them catered or brought in from a different facility.  The Jewish community objected to having the food brought in and requested additional state funding.  Romney vetoed it, the legislature overrode his veto, the  facilities kept their kosher kitchens and the anticipated savings were denied.

Ah, the devil is in the details.  Actually, the point here is whether this man, Newt, has the temperament to be president.  When things don't go his way he throws a tantrum and as do all of them, gets loose with the facts.

I listened to voters in Florida explain why they support him, the main reason being his 'vision' and willingness to stand up to 'them'.  There's nothing wrong with visions, but when they're hallucinogenic they aren't worth the time of day.

'Them', of course is Congress.  All of the promises made by the candidates are empty unless they can get Congress to go along.  Voters had best bear that in mind.  Who has the best chance?  Probably the candidate who's plans don't seem bold enough but may in fact be the most doable.

I think we're seeing the beginning of the end of Newt as a viable candidate.

Next comes Santorum.  While he's been off the trail spending time with his seriously ill child, surrogates have stepped forward to spread his gospel including a minister from Pompano Beach.  Unfortunately this minister is another shoot from the lip type who causes more trouble then he's worth.  We all know Santorum is against gay marriage but having a surrogate state that gays 'make God vomit' doesn't endear anyone! He's vociferously anti-Muslim and anti-Mormon and when speaking on behalf of a candidate, no matter how well meaning, that can be disastrous.

So that leaves Ron Paul.  Feisty Ron Paul just plodding along with his ever growing band of followers, addressing that which the others don't and won't.  If nothing more, it's an interesting dynamic.

We're going to get a bit of a respite after tonight.  It's time to see what's happening in the rest of the world?  Has Syria ousted Assad yet?  Does Iran have the bomb yet?  Has Europe sorted out it's fiscal problems yet?  Has Afghanistan imploded yet? I wonder if the candidates know.

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.

It's All In How They Speak And How They've Lived

So Mitt has a new debate coach!  It showed.  He was actually  animated and aggressive at times during last night's debate.

I watched more of it than I had intended and Romney's performance was the reason.  He still stammers over his points too much and sometimes that ever present benevolent smile gets under my skin, but it's nice to know he can muster some spunk with the proper tutelage.

Newt is another case and I've been waiting to see if it would ever happen.  He pouts when someone gets the best of him and he whines.  Can you imagine that demeanor when dealing with world leaders?  I'd much rather have a pleasant, smiling face representing us. Sincere or not is for them to figure out.

Then too there are the wives.  Both Mrs. Romney and the current Mrs. Gingrich have the worldliness to carry if off I expect.  Mrs. Gingrich has been around Washington forever and Mrs. Romney has been around Mitt.  I wouldn't anticipate either of them getting too familiar with the Queen nor asking the French to open a department store for a shopping spree.

Every election cycle I spend at least one post on the wives.  This might as well be it. I've often felt a pang of pain for the wives of politicians who stand by the side of a sinning spouse.  The pain is palpable.  I have never understood why they do it and I cheered when Jenny Sanford, wife of the former governor of South Carolina didn't.  If I remember correctly she had already taken the kids and moved out.  On the other hand I had little sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards because she was so wonderfully supportive of his presidential bid knowing full well of his infidelity.  I'm old fashioned that way, I'll admit.  Maybe it comes from being married for a very long time and having survived all the twists and turns along the way. And loving the man more today than yesterday because we did it together.

Now I look at the wives of the front runners and see two entirely different women.  Mrs. Romney strikes me as warm and friendly and strong.  One has to be if married to a politician and though he prefers to be called a 'businessman' he is a politician.  In my fantasy world Mitt would give her no reason to doubt his fidelity.

Mrs. Gingrich on the other hand is a different story.  Fidelity means nothing to her since she was involved with Newt when he asked his then wife for an open marriage.  She is always impeccably groomed yet their is a coldness about her.  I thought the same of Cindy McCain.  Neither are the type you would greet with a hug.  Something might get mussed.

The big thing that matters to me, though, is that fidelity issue.  You see,  the current Mrs. Gingrich brought just as much pain to the former Mrs. as did her husband.  Just looking at Newt, and he hasn't changed all that much over the years, I don't see her attraction to him as likely being of unquenchable passion as much as a relationship of notoriety, position and privilege.

I may be too harsh in my assessment.  That being said, all I see when I look at them is a pair of hypocrites when it comes to their faith and their marriage.  That being the case I'd rather not have them in my house.  It is mine you know - and yours.

The Face In The White House Is Ours

It's times like these that I really miss ole Bacchus and our daily walks.  It was during the quiet of the early morning and my mind was fresh.  I allowed it to wander along with the dog.  I had the time to sort through things that puzzled me or bothered me or just interested me.  I've been too long without.  That once luxurious time is gone now, put to other less compelling uses.  My ability to reason things through is more constrained now and I find myself more and more confounded.

For instance, today, as I brace myself for one more debate, I wonder what more can be said that hasn't already been hashed to death.  Will the two little boys once more take their balls and go home while the other two languish in obscurity?

Watching the Republicans implode has made me wonder just which is the face we want in the White House?  Which face would put the best face on the nation?  For that is exactly what the Occupy the White House movement is all about.  Us.  And what the world thinks of us.

Forget the President for the moment.  We already know what he is and what the world thinks of him and therefore us.  Let's think about those who would replace him, particularly the leaders at the moment.  Romney and Gingrich.

Neither are off to a very good start by virtue of the activities of their surrogates - the super pacs.  It seems a shame the candidates can't win the voters with solutions to our problems rather than having to diminish one another.  But diminish they do.  That tells me they don't have any solutions to begin with.  Just rhetoric.  Empty at that.

Beyond the questionable accuracy of the attack ads we have to sort through the padded resumes that are put before us.  Had any one of us in the real world padded our resumes like the candidates do we'd never have worked a day in our lives.  That is if a potential employer had the sense to see through our bloviating.

Why are we so gullible?  Why are we swayed by mean spirited half truths such as the ones continually coming from Gingrich?  Do we really want to sign off on these 'fundamental' changes he's so fond of touting?  If we do, can he deliver?  Is this personality of extremes in both ideas and temperament really representative of us?

Mr. Romney is another issue.  We're to believe that his 'experience' is the elixir of success.  In actuality his proposals differ little from what we already have. Tentative and vague.  This isn't the face of America of the past, though it seems common place now.

We tend to forget that none of the fixes proposed are going to happen over night and I don't think we're prepared for that truth. We seem to be drawn to the outrageous rather than the pragmatic.  We're in search of instant gratification where none exists. We're not listening to what the candidates are really saying nor are they listening to what we're asking of them.

The end result will boil down to the media.  They giveth and they taketh away.  They made Obama and as happens with all administrations, they are now reviled when they finally do their job.  Gingrich hasn't even waited to gain the office before he beginning his repudiation.

It makes me wonder if it matters at all who is elected.  People like me will continue to have blog fodder because promises are being ignored.  The whole process reminds me of any number of evening gab fests where the host and guests shout at one another incessantly, no one listens, no one hears and the segment is a total waste of time.

What can be done to change the tenor of the discussions so sorely needed?  I haven't a clue. Even if Bacchus were still here and we were still walking, I don't think we could go far enough to sort it out.

Newt and Barack - Brothers Under The Skin?

One is a shade taller and darker, one is quite a bit heavier but that's all superficial.  They have more in common than not.

Both love to hear themselves talk.  Both think they are far more brilliant than the rest of we mere mortals.  Both think it's their destiny to be President and have their way with us.  What a choice.

Obama will stake his claim tonight.  It will be political theater to be sure.  There will be applause lines, lines for which to cheer.  Hearty handshakes and hands being sat upon.  This of course will be the State of The Democratic Campaign speech.

Newt too needs this type adoration to flow his way.  He was in a snit today because the audience was asked to remain silent during last night's debate and did so.  Now Newt says he'll do no more if that is to be the rule.  Oh, my.

Bret Stephens asked in his Wall Street Journal column this morning  that if this election is as important as everyone is saying, where are the Republicans who could actually win it?  Could reluctant wives not be convinced the future of country is worth it?  I know how grueling the campaign can be.  Heck, we wallow in it or it wouldn't be such.  Still, the country needs better than it has or is being offered.

Michelle Obama has allegedly said that our country doesn't deserve her husband.  I actually agree with her but for the exact opposite reason than she intended.  I can say the same for Newt, Mitt, Rick and Ron, too.  We don't deserve them.  Or do we?  I'd like to think we deserve better but maybe we don't.

When even the top tier of individuals who could win with good reason refuse to step up to the plate, something is being said about the will of our country to regain it's stature in the world.

If leaders aren't willing to lead, who do we follow?  That which is left.  The Newt's and Mitt's and Obama's who's interest in the office is more for personal glorification than the forwarding of a nation.  One used to be a business man.  How does what he did at Bain work for the country?  How does a man who is reputed by people of his own party to not have the temperament nor ability to lead going to fix anything?  Especially when there are no applause lines.

Maybe, as Stephens suggests, the worst of all in this election scenario are those who could run and should run yet refuse to do so.

Is patriotism being redefined as well as the Constitution?

Does Ambition Trump Morality?

I have never witnessed anything quite as bazaar as this primary season!  It is driving home the idea that I am a dinosaur, my ideals belong to another era long gone.

Okay, Perry is gone.  Was he ever really there?  Who's left? Romney, Paul, Gingrich and Santorum.  Why is it I'm not feeling any better about the field?

I've been listening to the talking heads dissecting Marianne Gingrich's expose.  It really isn't news except for the details.  Everyone knows Newt is a philanderer.  It has always been part of his baggage.

So why is everyone so surprised that the former Mrs. has chosen this point in time to make an issue of it?  Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!  What I don't get is why the 'Christian Conservatives' who are so against abortion for any reason and gay marriage seem willing to give these politicians a pass on their personal morality?

I was astounded when I heard Dana Perino and Monica Crowley defending him to Megan Kelly today.  Crowley suggested it's not the scandal that's the issue but how the candidate handles it. Besides, they said, this happened long ago.  So did the alleged transgressions by Herman Cain yet they weren't as benevolent to him.  Is it that he denied it rather than admitting it?

Gringrich himself even said his infidelity at the time he was hammering Clinton on his wasn't the same because he didn't lie under oath.  Clinton did.  Back to the definitions I guess.  It depends on what the definition of infidelity is.  I didn't know there was more than one.

I guess I could say that to expect lies from politicians is a given.  That to expect many are less than morally unimpeachable is a given. Is it a given this is the new normal?  Or the long standing one for that matter.

I know I'm from the age of Ally Oop, the time traveling prehistoric from Moo, when I'm offended by a candidate that can look me in the eye and say, "So what? It's a given."

The moralists scream bloody murder when our Marines show the poor taste of urinating on the corpse of an enemy who moments before tried to kill them yet where are they when a serial adulterer and advocate of 'open marriage' wants to be President of our country?

Is there a high ground any more?  Or is it a given that there isn't?  These men running for President should be the ultimate role model.  Instead we are presented with liars and cheats.
It's no wonder so many unions, politicians, even clergy and police, let alone Hollywoodites and mega athletes behave with impunity.  The moral compass no longer exists.  Maybe it's back in Moo with Oop and me.

I Dreamed A Dream

I'm depressed.  I'll admit it.  As Newt Gingrich has crept to within two points of Mitt Romney in the polls, my depression deepens.  The best candidate is gone. Jon Huntsman.  He wasn't conservative enough.  Pragmatic didn't count nor did the most reasonable and doable tax plan nor a real foreign policy based on actual experience.

For a long time I thought it would be rather cool if we could take the best from each candidate and stitch them together into some sort of lovable one.  In reality, though, we'd still have gotten  the Frankenstein monster.  It depresses me.

I find myself a voter without a candidate.  I have doubt that Mitt Romney can beat Obama unless something catastrophic should happen that would finally persuade people enough is enough.  Turning down the pipeline to favor the environmentalists isn't going to do it. Even if Iran would be foolish enough to actually torpedo one of our aircraft carriers, as they're threatening, it would do nothing but start another war.  In our convoluted way of thinking we'd no doubt re-elect Obama to lead it - from behind of course.

The remaining Republicans, other than Ron Paul believe it or not, don't show me anything in the way of leadership or ideas that make sense if they even have any.  Their expertise seems to be in tearing one another down which does nothing more than plant more doubt.  Of course that's the intent, isn't it?  Mr. Paul, too, has weaknesses that shouldn't be overlooked.

I don't think any of the third party movements have a chance.  They'll pull voters away from the two parties; who they'll hurt the most depends on who they run.  But they will pull votes.

So what is a person like me to do?  I cannot vote for Obama.  I cannot vote for Gingrich or Santorum and would have to close my eyes and hope for the best if I went for Romney.  We still have no idea exactly who and what he is.  He just looks better than the others. I'm depressed.

I'm more than depressed.  I'm angry.  Michelle Obama has nothing on me.  I'm an angry white woman.  Angry that Congress still doesn't get it and doesn't care.  They mock us with their behavior.  The administration mocks us with their defiant trashing of the Constitution.  The media mocks our intelligence. Our enemies mock our very existence.

The election should be our out.  Unfortunately it won't be a mock election for even the candidates mock us with their exaggerations and half truths.

I dreamed a dream in time gone by, when hope was high and life worth living.               Les Mis

Whatever happened to those times gone by?

Boring As A Disqualifer?

Desperate times call for desperate measures.  The candidates will do anything to dissuade the electorate from selecting Romney as the Republican candidate.  Even to the extent of calling the kettle black when they're the pot!

Consider Rick Santorum calling him "bland and boring" , therefore we should not vote for him. After all, McCain and Gore were boring and they both lost!  Now there is sound reasoning.  This from Rick Santorum?  I hadn't noticed that he was Mr. Excitement.  Mr. Odd perhaps, but hardly Mr. Excitement.  Besides, what is more boring this day and age than a sweater vest?

On the other hand, Romney himself is caving to pressure on his impeccable three piece suit image.  He's taken to dressing in jeans and button downs for campaign appearances.  Is he defeating his own intent by wearing Tommy Bahama jeans rather than Wranglers?  I will certainly keep that in mind when I'm ready to pull the lever.

Newt isn't to be forgotten either.  His bone to pick as all else is failing is the idea that Romney  (gasp) speaks French!  Just like John Kerry, that Liberal elitist who also lost! Jon Huntsman speaks Mandarin.  What does that make him?  I stumble with high school Spanish - but then I'm not running for anything.

Santorum suggested Romney, with his perceived stand offishness, too resembles Obama to be electable.  Here I thought Obama was the epitome of hope and change and his following  was  cult like in its fervor.  Well, that may have been true during the campaign but since being in the White House his stand offishness is self evident.  It seems to me he's never really stopped stirring the pot in campaign mode.  If there's anything he's standoffish about it's governing.

There are reasons I'd prefer another candidate than those above.  As far as those are concerned, however, this man who seems bland and boring has been successful in business to the point where he can buy and sell most of us.  Forget, for a moment how that was achieved. That's another subject entirely.  This man who is bland and boring turned a failing Olympics into a dynamic success.  This man who is bland and boring has put together a political organization that is leaving the other candidates in the dust.

If this man who is bland and boring can put his nose to the grindstone and govern the country with a steady hand and a meaningful, if not perfect, agenda can he be all bad? Sorry Mr. Santorum and Gingrich,  there are scores of differences between Romney and Obama that are actually meaningful. Perhaps you'd be better served by pointing out the same about yourselves.

Politically Correct War

We've been at war in Afghanistan for better than ten years.  It has been brutal. The warfare unconventional.  Our military tested to the extreme by too many deployments without sufficient breaks.  Families torn apart because we've too few regular forces to get it done and have had to rely on reserves and national guard.  Equipment in many cases having to be jury-rigged by the soldiers.

We put in place that which is nor more than a puppet government yet it has been pulling our stings for years.  It negotiates with the enemy we are fighting.  It dictates where we can engage right down to the time of day and what equipment we can use.  They cannot account for millions of dollars.  Their police and military, which we have trained, kill our men.

They enslave their own people, deny them education, stone them to death, torture them if they refuse to become prostitutes.  They side with their neighbors against us to keep vital supplies from getting through to our troops. They scold us as if we were children.

When a small group of our Marines showed their contempt for them by urinating on their corpses,  once again we're the bad guys.  We didn't show them enough respect. In the name of whomever, they're the enemy!  Look at the numbers of our men and women they have slain or maimed for life!  Respect them? How can any sane person even ask that what's more expect it?  Don't look for it here!

What the Marines did show is exactly what we think of them.  They are not worth the death of one more soldier.  We cannot wage war and nation build at the same time. They are not compatible undertakings and should not, in any case, both be tried by the military.

The footprints won't even be filled with sand upon our departure before the Taliban is back in power and Karzai either in cushy exile somewhere or a safe haven provided by the Taliban for his help against us.  Bet on it. Living on monies he siphoned from us.

Now they're considering court martials against a handful of war weary Marines.  Nothing more should happen to them than being told that's not the way to behave, and for heavens sake don't post any thing like it to You Tube.  That's a no brainer unless you're just too exhausted to think straight.

What is it with these generals?  They become politicians  at some point rather than military men.  I wonder how politically correct they'd feel if they were in the field with their men, rather than sitting in their heavily protected headquarters.

I'm so sick of our namby-pamby ways, our bowing to the enemy, our allowing them to call the shots while we die for what is questionably called a country of questionably civilized people.

I don't particularly like the word 'pissed'.  But I can say I am 'pissed' off about the whole war and the way it has been managed by the civilians giving the orders.  Maybe the Marines chose the wrong target.

The Enigma That Is Ron Paul

A Young Ron Paul

If ever there was a human equivalent of the Energizer Bunny it certainly must be Ron Paul.  It seems like he has been around forever.

Nearly.  Close to 77, he's been around even longer than me!  For a man who has no chance of winning the Presidency, I find him intriguing.  I wonder if he looked more like himself during his Air Force days he'd be doing even better than he is.

I also find it interesting that I don't hear age as an issue nearly as much as I did with McCain.  Perhaps it's because he doesn't seem to reflect his age as did McCain. I was curious as to the ages of his most ardent supporters.  In 2008, which was all I could find, those 18 to 24 were by far the strongest demographic group followed by 35-44, 45-54 and over 65.  While the others fell below the median, not that far.

Next I went to his campaign website and had a good look at his stand on the issues.  In truth, I think he represents that for which a lot of us have been looking.  I don't agree with him on everything, I don't think he can accomplish a lot that he'd like because he has a legislature  with which to contend.  In general, however, his desire for less intrusive government, more frugal government, a reasonable tax structure and health care system, immigration and border security favoring legals rather than the illegals,  a military strong enough to insure our safety yet go to war if necessary, fewer if any wars to have to go to, investing our wealth in our country rather than the rest of the world and my favorite, reigning in and eventually eliminating the TSA, all have broad appeal.

Consider the young people who follow him.  No wars. How great would that be?  No matter how patriotic, no man or woman goes off to war wanting to die. Especially for causes as murky as some of our more recent ventures.

His view on tax reform certainly appeals to the next two demographic groups, those of an age to be starting up businesses or trying to make the ones they have succeed.

As for we who are his peers or close to it, want just to be left alone to live out our lives as freely and comfortably as possible.  We'd like to be able to sell our home and downsize without taking a huge financial hit.  We'd like to know that medical attention will be available when we need it without middle men deciding whether or not our ailments are worthy.

I could go on and on but see I've already done so.  I'll sum up by saying I think of all the candidates running,  Ron Paul best fits the "anyone but Mitt" role.  The others seem too sanctimonious, too ill tempered, mean spirited and short on substance.  Not that Paul hasn't had his moments to be sure.

He may not articulate some of his stands as clearly as he should, like his view on Iran, but dig a bit deeper and you see what he's saying.  Unfortunately that isn't good enough.

I expect he will continue to make a respectable showing in the primaries.  A vote for him is a statement saying we're sick of all of you.  Whether he can win or not, those who cast a vote for Ron Paul are acknowledging a man who cares deeply not only for America, but Americans and adds a pretty good dose of Constitutional common sense to the mix.

Jon Huntsman Is Right, You Know...

At least some people have come to their senses and are looking at Jon Huntsman.  At least enough to have him polling third in New Hampshire.  Now if only...

The pundits seem to enjoy telling us how this rough and tumble that's called primary season is good because the candidates get vetted.  Do they?  The only one who is focusing on policy is Huntsman.  The rest, including Romney, are focusing on destroying one another and in the process their party.

Take Gingrich.  Again.  Now that an angel has come out of Las Vegas with cash in hand for his super PAC he's doing his best to distort venture capitalism.  A venture capitalist, Romney, is not a corporate raider.  Actually their aim is to fix troubled companies.  As with any business venture, they are not always successful.  To do this, the capital for the venture (get it? venture capital) comes from investors who get a return on that investment only if the turn around is successful.  One hardly goes into it with the intent to kill business.  But then Newt marches to his own dictionary.

My issues with Paul remain the same.  His foreign policy is not realistic considering the conditions we face.  At least he had the good grace to ask that an ad by his PAC be withdrawn - one that called Huntsman a Manchurian candidate, focusing on his adopted daughters - one Chinese and one East Indian.

I don't care for Santorum's views on gays or abortion and, say what you will, the story of he and his wife taking their dead child home for their children to familiarize themselves with is unsettling.

Perry?  I haven't a clue what he's about.

I understand why people just can't get excited about Romney.  His policies aren't particularly innovative.  Too much like big government Republicanism versus big government Democratism.  He has devolved to the level of the others.  Demeaning Huntsman because he served as ambassador to China in the Obama administration is fool hardy.

Huntsman's claim that when one is called upon to serve by the President, it's not easy to refuse rings true.  He chose to do so for his country.  He cited as an example his two sons currently serving in the Navy.  It matters not to which party the commander-in-chief belongs, they are serving their country.

What ever happened to the idea that our goals for the nation, regardless of party,  should be the same.  The difference comes as to how to accomplish those goals.  The ideas can vary greatly and of course that's where compromise enters.  Or at least where it's supposed to enter.

For the moment I'm pretty disgusted with the way all of the candidates are conducting themselves, including the President.  It seems to me all the nation building going on is outside our borders instead of within.   Within it's ego building supported with delusion and falsehoods.  That isn't vetting by my definition. If it is to be the standard by which we choose, none deserve the job.

Newt Says "Nuts To The Country"

If there has ever been an action to illustrate how unsuitable a candidate is for President,  Newt Gingrich is showing us what it is.

He has proven what I've long thought - everything is about him and heaven help you if you cross him.  Forget the country.  Destroy the front runner because he didn't play nice.

You'd think anyone who has been in politics as long as Newt and carries his amount of baggage should have expected to be slammed at every juncture just as he was.  I thought his body language and facial expressions indicated he never expected it.  His ego is such.  He set the tone in the debates to go after Obama, not the other candidates.  Debates are one thing, an actual election or caucus is something else. He could be that naive but I doubt it.  It's ego.  Newt has spoken.  The others are expected to follow.

He could have taken the high road such as there is one in politics.  I guess that would be the equivalent of slinging mud at his opponents rather than dragging them through it.  Not much of a difference; still, a nuance.  But no.  He has lowered himself to the level he has accused Romney of holding.  He has vowed to destroy him by any means possible.  Ah, the sweet taste of revenge.

Will it work?  That remains to be seen.  If he does indeed pursue that goal he will certainly give both Santorum, his dear friend, and Perry a step up to being the Mitt alternative.  Vengeance may not sit as well with the electorate as it does with him.

Actually I think he is totally flummoxed.  He isn't thinking clearly.  He's still in the race.  Everyone is watching to see what he can do with his limited funds.  Ads, positive or negative, are expensive.  His staff is skeletal.   Is he still running for the nomination or not?  Is he just hell bent on revenge?

Romney is not the end all as a candidate.  His super PAC may have over stepped the bounds of propriety yet he's still the most likely of the Republican field to give Obama any sort of challenge.

Rick Santorum, like Newt is just another big government politician.  Look at his record.  He's also one more lawyer with no real world experience.  We've got one in office now.  If it comes down to the devil we know versus the devil we don't I'm willing to bet the electorate will vote for the one they know.  That means another term for Obama and the consequences thereof.

If that's the case, the blame will lay at Newt's feet.  If he spends the rest of his time as a candidate trying to ruin Romney, he's in essence saying nuts to the country.  His ego needs stroked more than the country needs to be rid of Obama.

If I were Santorum I'd keep the guy at arms length.  You never know what guilt by association might render. I don't think the country as a whole is looking for a Conservative, by his and Newt's definition, for President.  Even their own weren't interested in Michele Bachmann who is as conservative as they come.  They want more than that.  Things like a plan, experience and pragmatism - palpable substance.

If Newt wants to go after Romney, that's his prerogative.  If he does, I hope he takes it outside the campaign.  The party is divided enough as is. We don't need an egocentric wedge rendering it totally impotent.

Does The Biggest Bag Of Dirty Tricks Always Win?

Well, the time has come.  Politics will now consume the airwaves full time until next November.  It isn't going to be pretty.

I can't remember a time when I've heard so much complaining about negative ads this early.  Of course prior to this year it hadn't gotten started this early.  But this year it is going full bore thanks to the super pacs.

Of course in order to take advantage of them, you have to have the money to either produce them yourself or have a super pac behind you.  I get a kick out of Newt Gingrich doing so much complaining when the truth of the matter is if he could afford it he'd be doing it too.

Personally I hate negative advertising.  Somehow there seems to be something wrong with a process that depends on tearing your opponent down with half truths and sometime outright lies.  My, how proud the candidates must feel when their ads are successful!  Does it make you wonder about the mindset of these people we elect?  Does it make you wonder about our mindset knowing how well negative ads work?  It's a form of blood lust.  Thumbs up or thumbs down.

That's politics I'm told.  There's nothing that can be done about it.  It's the nature of the beast.  Do you suppose that's why there is nothing but partisanship in Congress?  They've gotten so used to lying to us or shading the truth that they no longer recognize it?

Is there a politician out there that recognizes his or her own hypocrisy?  Like President Obama bragging that he will raise a billion dollars for his campaign while the country and the people in it are staggering under its debt load? I can think of a lot better uses for that billion.  Are we really willing to contribute that amount?

I'm going to watch as the campaigns heat up.  I'm not going to like what I see.  It will begin in earnest Wednesday morning when the spin doctors for the various campaigns make known their rationale for losing or staying in the race when chances of success are nil.

Wishful thinking?  Hope springs eternal?  Or one more sign of hypocrisy.  I worry about the ability of a person to govern when they can't face their own truths.  Never-the-less, the show must go on. Soon enough it will be curtains for someone.  I just hope it isn't us.  Wishful thinking?  Yep.  Pessimism? Absolute.