The Upside Of Downton Abby

Like thousands of others, I've become hooked on the PBS series that takes place during the Edwardian era preceding and during World War I.  It is a soap to be sure, full of intrigue, risque relationships, marriages of convenience, ambition and betrayal.  Not unlike modern day life.

What they had then that is no longer the case is a sense of place.  You know, a place for everything and everything in its place.  With the war we witness the beginning of the end of that sense of place.  Aristocratic young ladies fall for the help  and vice versa, the help dares to question authority, ambitions are not only voiced but acted upon.

The aristocracy is struggling to remain relevant as old soldiers are put again into uniform as a morale booster rather than to fight.  The women left behind find strength within themselves they never knew they had nor thought they could put to practice no matter if they were the aristocrats or the under class. Society is changing dramatically.  It will never again be quite the same and if you don't go with the tide you'll end up being beached.

It reminds me of what is going on today in our political process, especially with the likes of Mr. Romney who can't seem to find his footing.  He was raised in a different time in a class that was segregated from the public as a whole and follows a faith which has values reflecting that time far more so than those of today.  A better time really, because there were values and they were adhered to.

Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry had the same problem.  Though they tried to be one of us, they weren't.  Though Kerry married into wealth and embraced it wholeheartedly, Gore and Romney grew up with it along with the freedoms and the constraints it provided.  It's who they are.  Just like the old aristocracy.  They could no more fit in with the common man than these men of today.

My thought is they shouldn't try.  I don't particularly want a person in the Presidency because he's like me.  What a disaster in the making!  I haven't the intellect, the experience nor the chutzpa to pull it off! I could care less whether or not we ever share a beer. I don't necessarily want a person as President who is all personality either.  Too many of them are trying to be what they are not and doing a mighty poor job of it.

Mr. Romney is who he is. As James Carville said, he comes across as a detached dofus.  Indeed he does.  But that's his personality and the more he tries to be something other than that the more he falls prey to it. He needs to go for thought out substance and leave the personality to those who have one.  Enough of them have little substance.

Just like Downton Abby, the residents are caught up in the times.  They've already had to suffer through marrying American women in order to fund their vast land holdings.  As the under class gets bolder, however, I hope they cling to their own standards of being as to dress and manner and respect for the order under which they flourish.  They have their own aristocracy if you will.  If they abandon that to the lowest possible denominator they'll end up with the body pierced, tattooed, ball capped, muscle shirted society who swaggers around today thinking they've flummoxed the elitists and are winning the class war.

My generation worries they may have.  If so they will get the country they deserve.  It takes only so long for when we who are fading away become the exception rather than the rule.  Becoming the norm is next.

So to those like Mr. Romney.  Don't  try to be 'ordinary'.  Be yourself, tout the successes you've earned by using your own abilities.  Be proud.  And as John Wayne would say, "Never apologize.  It's a sign of weakness."

Hear that Mr. President?

The Fat Lady Has A Long Wait In The Wings

Mitt Romney wiped the Floridian floor with Newt.  So what does he do to celebrate?  He steps in a brand new mess of his own making.

One of these days I'm going to develop a sense of humor about all this.  So what did he do now?  He structured one sentence that was ripe for taking out of context.  He's not worried about the 'very poor'.  Well, of course he is.  All the candidates are.  They just have to be more cognizant of the 'gotchas'.

In context he cited the very poor have safety nets that can be repaired if necessary and that the very rich can fend for themselves.  It's the middle class that is the most vulnerable.

It emphasizes one area where Newt has a point.  The media loves 'gotcha' questions.  That leaves the responsibility of digging deeper to the voters and my guess is most are uninclined to do so.  It's so much easier to latch on to a twisted phrase and run with it, especially if it tends toward what you want to believe.  For Romney haters it shows one more rich guy looking down his nose at the poor. I can already imagine both the Gingrich and Obama campaigns using it!

We owe it to ourselves to do that digging because if left to the media there will be much that's not picked up.  Take, for instance, this excerpt from Newt's non-concession speech,

So designing and putting together a people's campaign, not a Republican campaign, not an establishment campaign, not a Wall Street campaign, a people's campaign, and saying to every American of every background and every ethnic group and every community: We have a better future for you and your family...This is a future we ask you to join us in imposing on the establishment in Washington and imposing it on both parties.

It jumped out at me the moment I heard it. It sounds to me like Newt is asking us to  join with him to impose his vision on the country, not necessarily our own nor a conservative one and certainly not a Republican vision.

I could assume I'm reading too much into this because the media hasn't said one word about it.  On the other hand maybe I'm not reading enough into it for the same reason!

I make a point of this because a mere three years ago many of us fell for an empty suit with an unarticulated vision other than the innocuous hope and change. We envisioned what we wanted to with nothing to confirm it from the candidate.  Every word that is uttered on the campaign trail has a purpose.  Some candidates do it better than others.  We owe it to them and as I said above, to ourselves, to make sure we know exactly what those words are intended to mean.

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.