Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Gingrich Lost

There's a difference between candidates.

They aren't all bad.

Last month, taking my car in for a new top, I had the chance to spend the day with my mom. Mater was, as always, looking forward to her time with me, since I'm the only one of my siblings who has an ounce of sense. She wanted to talk about Romney. I didn't talk to her about my reservations, since contradiction tends to diminish openness. She talked. I listened.

She liked Romney. She liked his family values. We aren't Mormons. Not even close. The Mormon Church is an adversary in many regards, like ownership of farm lands. It's a lot easier to make money farming when you don't have to pay property tax.

But she liked Romney, and his belief, and the Mormon Church's belief, in the sanctity of the family.

It struck a note.

Catholics like talking about things like family, Catholics don't like being described by others--Protestants--as a cult. I have a better sense about Catholics, and that is, that there is a certain sophistication that Catholics are blessed with, that Mormons aren't. Like most things, when end points are concerned, I like to view process versus product.

The product, faith in family, the sanctity of human life, political and economic liberty, all these are part of faith, for Catholics, Mormons and Christians.

But it also applies to anyone of any type of faith, even that of a mustard seed, that there are going to be disagreements over what is the appropriate article of faith for each specified belief system. And, while we're worrying about internecine squabbles, the battle is being lost due to triviality. Who the *8ck cares whether you're a Mormon, Catholic or Christian? If you were Jewish and running for President, would you worry about whether, or not,  you attended a reformed synagogue?  You know how many Americans know about the divisions that exist within the Jewish faith? And trust me, you don't know about the divisions within the People of Israel.

But, yet, and wait for it...tonight Speaker Gingrich lost me.

Here's the difference between Republican sects: some actually have experience in the real world, where paychecks are signed, people are hired and fired; and those who have  not and don't.

Professor Gingrich was revealed tonight. And a lot of tumblers clicked, when listening to him on Greta's show. Romney's take on hiring and firing is more in line with my day-to-day experience; I rely upon my service to others for my paycheck. Trust me, if I fail, I lose and account. They are hard to re-gain. Getting fired is a big deal. That's why I'd rather not be hired for a bad client. If I cannot meet or exceed the requirements of my "new" account, I'm better off not asking for his business. It's better for both of us. Likewise, if I hire you, you better meet or exceed my expectations. If you don't, guess what happens?

You're fired.

Newt's reaction tonight to Greta's questions was appalling. The old college prof shown through. Sure, he's glib. Yes, he's bright. But he don't know s*it. Would you hire this guy to run your business?

Would you hire Mitt?


UPDATE: Transcript of interview here.


innominatus said...

I'd hire Mitt. I've even been warming (slightly) to the idea. Still not jazzed about it.

If our system were set up where the veep had more authority, he'd be ideal. Put some charismatic Idea Guy at the top of the ticket and let Mitt pull the levers and push the buttons that make those ideas happen.

I know, I'm wishing in one hand and ...

g said...

Whoever throws Bernanke out has my vote.

Ron Paul will do that.
And I'm about as Catholic as they come.

That being said, if Mitt gets the nomination, I'm a hunnert percent behind him.

Very well written article btw.

Ten Mile Island said...


You know I don't rise to bait, normally, but thanks. (Are you a K of C?) (Dint think so.)(By the way, did you hear about Jimmy V's back getting screwed up? And mechanics are hard to find.)

Anywhoo, teh Bernank is gone under any R. As will soon be teh Geithner. You know the difference, since their terms are different.

This recent kerfluffle about firing people has been the most illuminating moment of the current campaign. If I hire you to do a job and you fail, hell yeah, I'm firing your ass. And I know you, too, believe this. That's why when trumped up accusations pile-on, defending yourself can be such a bitch.

Voters can get all side-ways with elected politicians, even when there's been no harm, and fire them. Hell, here in Clatsop county, it's become a ritual; fire the guys who are looking out for you! Because it feels right.

Talk about stupid.

Anyway, the year was new on the first, so Happy Used Year. (Once you drive it off the lot, it's used.)

Ten Mile Island said...


If I can find a clip of Gretta's talk with Newt...I think you'll clearly see the difference. You know my heart has never held Mitt in it. I'm a clear Sarah guy, then Herm. And I've been teetering on Rick and Rick.

But Mitt's statements about the role of the markets, versus theirs, are at a 180 degree shift. It's the difference that comes from actually doing, or merely talking about, a thing.

Will something else come up? Perhaps. But this was the moment I've been waiting for. A clear distinction.

MAX Redline said...

Someone like Sarah is clearly what's needed, which is why the media demonized her so often and so thoroughly. They had plenty of time to market her as a bozo, and they threw in everything they had to push that image.

Initially, I liked Cain. But it's best that he caved when he did; it saved us unpleasant surprises down the road.

I have never been a Mitt fan - he's been running for years, he's spent millions doing so, and he's still unimpressive. Moreover, the media's been pushing him along toward the nomination, which is never an item for the plus column.

Of the current choices, Rick Perry is most likely to get some governmental shrinkage accomplished, but he needs to surround himself with better people than he has thus far.

As for Newt - not. Not now, not ever.

Oh, there's no denying that he's smart. Just as there's no denying that he's a weasel. And trust me on this: there are few things more dangerous than a really smart predator.

If push comes to shove and Mitt ends up as the nominee, I suppose I'll vote for him, as even he may be able to beat the Commie-In-Chief.

Ten Mile Island said...


T.D. has a Palin vid posted over at his place. It's worth watching. Several things struck me, but the most important is, look at what an election process is; the winnowing of candidates. Don't set out to exclude any candidate because of your bias. They all have important messages to share. It isn't the "electability" of the candidate that's important at this time.

Do I shudder at the thought of a Santorum freeze in an Obama/Santorum debate? 'Member Dan Quayle? Smart guy. Really smart. But he just had that look on his face. So, not voting for Santorum because I fear he may freeze int he future?

I think Palin's point is, don't worry about it. Instead, listen to the candidates. Listen to the good ideas and the bad ideas, and make decisions based upon how the process affects the candidates.

Primaries are warm-ups to general elections. At this point, all of our candidates are getting better. And some, in my opinion, are dis-qualifying themselves from my support.

But, I think Governor Palin is correct in her admonishment; take the time to listen.

MAX Redline said...


listen to the candidates

Ya, I do - but I also look at the media spin, so Romney, having support of media, gets a checkmark negative on my list.

Newt: not in my lifetime. I've heard about all I need to hear from the professor.

Cain: not only froze like a deer in the headlights, got run over.

Paul has some good ideas, then goes all stupid. My dog could beat him in an election.

Perry: good man, but crappy at selecting a support team.

Santorum: sounds smart, big on government - which means he's really stupid, but masks it well. Put him in and watch government continue to expand.

Obama: should listen to others in his party, who believe that he should yield candidacy to Hillary. He won't, because he's the Narcissist-In-Chief. And he has dreams of dictatorship.

all of our candidates are getting better. And some, in my opinion, are dis-qualifying themselves from my support.

Then clearly they aren't all getting better.

Newt sure isn't: he's nuked himself - and justifiably so.

Cain packed up his ball and went home.

Santorum doesn't have a chance, nor does Perry.

At this point, there's nothing to listen to: it's all static.

g said...

K of C.
Need to practice what I'm part of though. This job in the Couve keeps me away too much.

CC - Cannibals. A community that eats its young. Glad I'm out. Followed Tim Robbins out the sewer but haven't yet arrived on that white sand beach.

WHO is Jimmy V?

Ten Mile Island said...


There is another dynamic in play.

We don't want to admit it, but the "social media" trap is there, and we're all falling into it. It isn't just guys like me and you, blogging, twittering or facebooking. Would it were. There is still the indefinable faces of television. Cable. On-air networks. There is a joyeux that exists, a certain non chalance, that taking a breath is hard, if it is to be taken, unaffected. There are times when I feel we're replaying Les Parapluies de Cherbourg.

This combination of periodicals, local, regional and national newspapers, cable and network television all harken us to one distinction; Republicans are confused, stupid and corrupt. So, any whiff of confused, stupid or corrupt gains extra traction. Most of the giant media sources fall into this trap. Even FOX, I find, falls into this trap regularly, as they attempt to define themselves as relevant. You cannot be relevant if you disregard your critics. So, at some point, you become the capture of your critics.

Except, upon occasion, you watch Greta. Somehow, she has escaped capture. I think it is her training in law. In law, language is important, and understanding the difference of a verb and an adverb can win you a case. Anyone can find a great, extraordinary, exciting adverb. A great lawyer will relate that an adverb only modifies a verb. An adverb doesn't change a verb.

Our general malaise is more an incumbency upon the mediocrity of the sources we rely upon for feedback. Which is why you find yourself on the intertubes, night after night. You know that you will not find any kind of sounding board that resounds with the tonality of your thinking elsewhere.

But you and I have found this place. We are the minority. 92 percent of all Americans still listen to radio each week. Radio still reaches more people on a daily or weekly basis, than does any other media. But radio is hamstrung. Since the 1930's, radio has been the creature of Congress, and the puppet of the FCC. While radio reaches most Americans, radio doesn't have a 1st Amendment Right to freedom of speech. And the FCC is devising ways to further tamp down the reach of radio. The rules aren't apparent. Simple rules, like how and who you hire are levers of abuse, costing broadcasters tens of thousands of dollars. You won't hear about it, because the avenues of information are blocked by the FCC, and such blockage is supported by newspapers. Radio is losing, and there are no advocates, since advocacy by itself may expose a broadcasting company to threats that no one knew about.

You know that on the First of January, 40-thousand new laws went into affect around the country.

40-thousand. Incomprehensible. And yet, law-makers expect us to know what it is they expect of us.

We can't know what to expect from our government, since all these people are doing "good" in our names.

And anyone who works against "good" is suspect. No one wants to be labeled as non-good. So, we too, fall into the trap.

How does one break out of the trap?

Ten Mile Island said...

Best comment of the year.

"Who is Jimmy V?"

MAX Redline said...

I'm aware of a few of the issues facing radio, though by no means all. And I'm very aware that the FCC and Big Sis's DHS would dearly love to tamp down the intertubes. In fact, Sis has acknowledged that they're already "monitoring" news aggregators such as Drudge - and blogs.

I expect the hammer to drop at any time.