Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:42PM If I only showered between debates, homeless bums would start avoiding me.
OK, commenters: all comments to this post have to be in the formulation "If I only [did x] between debates, [this] would happen.
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:30PM Yeah, baby, that giant popping sound you hear is the big fat Higher Education-Government Sponsored Student Loans Axis of Evil bubble bursting. Yeeee-haw! Whoa, that Ivory Tower be comin' down! Look out below! Gideon, gitcher trumpets! Cue the music!
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:24PM Of course, you have to love anyone whose name is "brewer." But this quip from the Capitol Steps is excellent:
Gov. Jan Brewer's finger now trails Mitt Romney by only 2% in Florida primary. GOP loved her show of strength. Newt Gingrich responds by saying, "you like fingers? Check this one out."
If her finger makes it to the primaries in Texas, it will have my vote. But I think Newt's appendages have done enough damage.
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 07:13PM On the recommendation of a friend, I have invested in a shipment of Stash tea. Certain loved ones (the decaffeinated loved ones) are fond of decaf Early Grey. I am a caffeine lover myself, but in the cool winter evenings I dig a warm cuppa that is sans, so I opted for the Vielle de Noël, Christmas Eve tea, which is a minty thing. And, because it was on sale, I bought some (high-test) Christmas Morning tea which smells divine. It is a black tea, and as is completely appropriate, is just tea. Just the tea, ma'am, no mint, no fruit, no flowers.
Plus, it's economical. All in, the bags were about the same in price as the H-E-B brand (no-name, store brand floor sweepings) and the loose tea was even less expensive. Both are much better quality than the run-of-the-mill.
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 11:16AM ...why can't we send all of them? So goes the old joke, but seriously folks, why don't we just send one man and call it a day?
And now, a pause to ask the obvious question: Mr. Gingrich, what plans to you have to put the United States on a sound financial footing? To strengthen our economy? [crickets.]
Unveiled: the Newt Gingrich Theme Song!
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 01:23PM I have been a very luke-warm, OK-I-guess-I'll-have-to-vote-for-Mitt kinda gal for a while now. Not that I wasn't more in tune philosophically with other candidates, but they either were not ready for primetime (Michelle Bachmann) or they didn't have staying power (Tim Pawlenty) or they seemed like such long shots that it was pointless to think about them (Santorum).
Mitt, from my point of view, has serious flaws as a candidate, but he had a couple of advantages. He has perserverance and he has executive experience- varied, high-responsibility, successful executive experience. Not to be sneezed at. His short-comings are well-documented, and go to the question of consistent conservative leadership. He doesn't appear to have a philosophy of leadership except to "do what seems like what everyone wants to do". This isn't bad if you think that you can get a strong, conservative legislative body in place. It stinks if you want an executive who will hold the line on Congressional self-dealing.
Newt, on the other hand, has only one acheivement in leadership, and that was to overturn the Democratic dominance of Congress. Not to be sneezed at, either. Unfortunately, he was a revolutionary, not a governor. By all accounts, he couldn't stay focussed, he couldn't best Bill Clinton, he knee-capped his allies, he brought shame on himself and his party (and nearly lost the majority) because of his ethics violations and his personal conduct. In the 18 intervening years, he has shamelessly lobbied for ethanol subsidies (and plumped for the Global Warming agenda) and for Freddie Mac, and been very well paid for his efforts. And let's not forget Medicare Part D. Basically, he was the "conservative" who could be counted on to wring the last vestige of his prestige for engineering the Republican majority in the service of the highest (Left-wing) bidder.
Rick Santorum was correct to point out that Newt's success in the 1994 elections was based on back-bencher work in exposing the banking scandal. We should also point out that Newt himself was less than eager for that to come to a head because he was also kiting checks.
Now, we should be so worldly as to understand that politics involves compromise, fudging on promises, breaking promises, and making bad choices about who to support in the next election (Arlen...). So, there's corruption. But then there's corruption. When Newt actually held elective office, he was corrupt. He was kiting checks, he was violating ethics rules (for personal gain, not just some technicality), and he was schtupping his staffer while still married to someone else.
The only reason he isn't "corrupt" now, technically, is that he's out of office and he's "a grandfather", code I suppose for something I don't really care to think about in the context of the man or woman I'm choosing for President.
On top of everything else, he appears to be really disliked by most of the voters in this country, particularly independents. Not that electability should count for anything.
On top of that, he doesn't seem very committed to free enterprise. Not that that should influence anyone. Contrast to...
On top of that, he has no commitment to reducing entitlements. Contrast to...
On top of that, none of his so-called "big ideas" involves reducing the size and scope of government. Quite the opposite, in fact. Contrast to...
My greatest concern about the events of the last week in particular is this: in what should have been a very, very easy opening for Mitt Romney to respond to the so-called "vulture capitalism" shots, he sounded very weak and flustered. He compounded this in the debate, "I'm not used to having my integrity questioned." I'm sure that's true, but haven't we all had enough of Mr. Thin Skin? For G*d's sake, Mitt, you've been running for nearly six years, why the [expletive] can't you stick up for yourself? If Mitt can punch back, not through surrogates and not [just] through nasty ads, he has a chance. If he can't, he will lose because the base apparently wants a fighter and they don't much care about beliefs. The Christine O'Donnell wing of the party is ruling the day: it doesn't matter what the candidate really is, as long as he's takin' it to the RINO.
P.S. If the Tea Party were really serious about getting a fiscal conservative to the nomination, they'd be organizing right now to draft someone. But they're not: they're settling for an abominable hack. They're not serious. They're not logical. They aren't principled. They want to stick it to the "elites" and not be told who to vote for. But they were oh-so picky at the beginning of this process and are now left with the guy with the most disgusting record of any of the candidates to pin their hopes on. He makes no sense on policy, he's betrayed more conservative principles than Mitt Romney, and he has a proven incapacity for leadership. If he's the nominee, he will LOSE our chances for taking the Senate.
And for those of you on First Lady watch: if you thought Michelle O treats that position like one long episode of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous", wait until the woman who needed a half-million dollar line of credit at Tiffany's gets there.
Thinking about this makes me ill.
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 05:20PM Are both right today. Buy your lotto tickets.
And MoDo (h/t Legal Insurrection)
The Obamas, especially Michelle, have radiated the sense that Americans do not appreciate what they sacrifice by living in a gilded cage. They’ve forgotten Rule No. 1 of politics: No one sheds tears for anyone lucky enough to live at the White House. And after four or eight years of public service, you are assured membership in the 1 percent club.
The Obamas truly feel like victims. But Newt Gingrich, who campaigns by attacking the culture of victimization, plays one on stage. He soared at the Charleston CNN debate by brazenly proclaiming himself the victim of “the elite media protecting Barack Obama” (the same Obama who told Time he was victimized by the press). Newt’s gambit was a calculated way of deflecting attention from a charge by his second wife, Marianne, that the family values he preaches are hypocritical platitudes, given his cheating ways with two wives he divorced when they were ill.
Could 2012, remarkably, be a race between two powerful victims yearning to be lonely at the top?
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 09:39AM So say the people of South Carolina.
All comments to this post must include the phrase "Bless [his, her, their] heart[s], etc."