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.