An Anti-Newt Public Service Announcement

Newt Gingrich was all but dead in June. No one took his presidential candidacy seriously, and how could they? As one pundit said, he has more baggage than JFK -- not the person, but the airport.

Nonetheless, here we are a month away from the Iowa caucuses and he's leading in the polls, because evangelical conservatives are absolutely desperate to find an alternative to Mitt Romney.

You'd have to be desparate to go with Newt. There is no other explanation!

I agree with the women who said of Bill Clinton, another known scoundrel, "If his wife can't trust him, then neither can I."

I must have been dreaming about politics again, because I woke up with the realization that an Obama vs. Gingrich contest would be an extremely risky proposition for Republicans. Both are ideological with very little real-world, practical experience outside of politics. Neither one could make heads or tails of a complicated Excel spreadsheet, for example. They are both theoretical, relying on well-delivered rhetoric to dazzle and impress instead of actual accomplishments. Obama in this match up would actually have the edge in the ethics department, because he has given us no reason to believe that he is unfaithful to his wife. He has also never been forced to resign from a Congressional speakership for ethical violations, like Gingrich has. Next to Gingrich, Obama is as pure as the wind-driven snow.

We also have to consider candidates from the American Idol perspective. Having Obama and Gingrich side-by-side in a debate would be like having Kennedy and Nixon side-by-side -- no contest.

People who have thrown their support behind Newt Gingrich have appraently forgotten that the main issue is not who will put Obama is his place in a debate scenario, but who has the economic background to right the sinking ship of the U.S. economy? Who has turned around failing economic entities in the past and helped them thrive again? Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. Obama's economic experience cannot compare with Mitt Romney's, even after 3 1/2 years in the White House, and the biggest problems facing the United States at this time are economic. Right now, America does not need a historian or an orator or a theoretician. We need a do-er. We need a CEO.

Here are some quick facts about Newt Gingrich, which ought to be unsettling to the voting electorate in my book:

***Gingrich has been running for office since the early '70s! He was finally elected in 1978, then served 20 years in Congress before resigning soon after re-election under an ethical cloud. Since that time, he has amassed a personal fortune not by working in the private sector, but by selling his influence among government entities. He says he was never a lobbyist -- he was a strategic advisor. Whatever you want to call it.

***Gingrich violated federal tax law by misusing charitable donations, then, when confronted by members of his own party, lied about it. He faced 84 ethics charges in the House where he served as Speaker, and had to step down. He then resigned in disgrace. Now, 20 years later, he's back and half of the electorate has never heard of him. The other half have forgotten.

***Gingrich proposed to wives #2 and #3 while married to wives #1 and #2. Wives #1 and #2 were suffering from cancer and MS, respectively, when he left them. When asked recently to explain his serial infidelity, he said he had been working too hard for the country. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but I don't know who that explanation is going to fool - apparently only himself, because no one bought it.

***Gingrich is sometimes applauded for having a good relationship with his two daughters despite divorcing their mother. The daughters themselves should be given more than half the credit for this since they were able to forgive him for breaking up their family with his selfishness. Some of the credit for their good relationship also has to be given to the fact that they both work for him. The fact that Gingrich did not write his two daughters off as well as their mother is not a credit to him, in my opinion, though I suppose he could have completely abandoned them, and that would have been even worse.

***Gingrich "advised" Fanny and Freddie, making millions of dollars, until 2007, just before the bubble burst. What did he advise them? And did his advice do any good? For whom?

***Gingrich was denied tenure at the only college where he ever worked as a full-time professor, back before he was elected to Congress. Why was he denied tenure? (My working theories: affairs with students, disorganization, egomaniacal lectures.)

I know almost no one reads this blog, but it's cathartic to get these thoughts off my chest and into the atmosphere. I invite differing points of view. Please defend Newt, if you can.

Hey, Obama White House, Try Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance

I started elementary school at the tail end of the prayer in school era, but we did recite the Pledge of Allegiance at most of the elementary schools I attended. (We moved a lot. I probably averaged a new school almost every year.) I can still remember springing to my feet at the start of the school day, hand over heart, eyes on the American flag in the corner of the room. One teacher carefully explained the meaning of each word to give the daily recitation meaning, which I appreciated then and still appreciate now.

When I woke up this morning, still lying in bed, the Pledge of Allegiance was running through my mind for the first time in years. It had been so long, in fact, that I stumbled over the words -- was it one nation under government? No, of course not. But I actually wondered for one Orwellian second.

And because I was thinking about government, I wondered if the people who work in the White House start the day reciting the Pledge? Probably not, but maybe they should. I assume all of them have taken the Civil Service pledge, which I have also taken a couple of times. And of course President Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts - everyone witnessed that.

But as time passes it's easy to forget the words and the meaning of the words. The Pledge of Allegiance could serve as a good mission statement reminder to our leaders in Washington:

I pledge my allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

P.S. A lady I met a few years ago pointed out to a group of teenagers I was with that there is no comma after "one nation" - it is meant to be one phrase: "one nation under God," spoken without pausing.

P.P.S. Yes, I know, I know. "Under God" was added 12 years after the pledge was written. The words were taken from the last line of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which is worthy of a post of its own.

P.P.P.S. Ironically, the original Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist. I wonder how many socialists would take the pledge today?

Romney for President

I've written about politics from time to time on this blog going back to the last presidential primary in which my favorite candidate, Mitt Romney, was defeated by John McCain after some Huckabee-McCain shenanigans in South Carolina. I shook off defeat easily then, confident that Mitt would run again in 2012, when I felt certain his financial expertise would be in even greater demand. The disastrous outcome that November, of course, was the election of Barack Hussein Obama who has been a dismal failure in every respect, a few terrorist corpses notwithstanding. (Don't get me started!)

Now we are in primary season again and the choice for many people is not an obvious one. Pundits on television say the Republicans must put forth a Romney and an anti-Romney, because Romney is not conservative enough. Enough? Enough? Enough for whom?

I would describe myself as an arch-conservative - so conservative, in fact, that I do not want to do away with our entire monetary system in one fell swoop by eradicating the IRS and adopting Cain's 9-9-9 plan. If I favored such a move, I would call myself a radical, not a conservative.

Imagine the upheaval! 9-9-9 is not the price of a pizza, as Huntsman suggested, but a crapshoot with the American financial system on the line. Middle class Americans would not be able to deduct mortgage interest or charitable donations or receive child tax credits. The poor who are mercifully exempt from income taxation would suddenly have to pay as much as everyone else in relative terms, and many of them simply could not do it. They are barely getting by as it is.

I am conservative enough to say tweak the current system 59 ways (Romney's plan), but don't reinvent the wheel. And don't give Congress in perpetuity the new revenue stream of a federal sales tax. No one likes state and local sales taxes -- who would want a federal sales tax added to what we already pay for every purchase? What an awful, awful idea!!!

Like everyone else, I like Herman Cain. I think he's brilliant in many ways and refreshing in every way -- but this 9-9-9 plan is not a good idea.

There are things I like about all of the candidates, but Romney is clearly the best option.

Most people do not know much about him. Every media story about Romney is at least partially negative. Pundits even disparage his good looks, which he has never commented on in my recollection. As though being good looking were, in itself, elitist or a liability or an indication of one's depth.

Until recently, I had no idea a man could be jealous of another man's appearance. It's as if the talking heads on television will not accept a president who is better looking, effortlessly, than they are. In my view, Romney's good looks are simply God-given. He did not do anything to deserve them. They are neither a plus nor a minus. In choosing the leader of the free world, looks should not be a factor, but polls show they inevitably are because of people who focus on such things.

The anti-Romney media (and there are very few of any other kind) would have us see through a glass darkly when it comes to Mitt Romney. I consider it my civic duty to illuminate facts about Mitt Romney that many people do not know:

1. Mitt has led a conservative life. He married his wife Ann over 40 years ago and had a large family of boys, who have all married and had children of their own. There is nothing in Mitt's personal life that would be considered anything but conservative.

2. Mitt speaks French fluently, which is the language of diplomacy.

3. Mitt has experience living overseas. He lived in France for two years and was declared dead there following a traffic accident in which he was not at fault.

4. The media would have everyone believe that Mitt was born of blue blood parents with a silver spoon in his mouth, but that isn't true. His father was an apprenticed carpenter and lath worker who never graduated from college but worked his way up to the top of American Motors and then became governor of Michigan and a presidential candidate. For most of Mitt's life, they were well off, but he attended public schools until junior high. Romney did not inherit his wealth from his father - he earned it in the private sector working in multiple industries.

5. Mitt attended Stanford for one year, then served as a missionary in France, then graduated from Brigham Young University. He and his wife had their first child while living there in a basement apartment. Mitt received dual graduate degrees from Harvard -- an MBA and a law degree.

6. Life for the Romneys has not been perfectly easy despite financial success. Ann has suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years and recently had a bout with breast cancer. She is usually by Mitt's side on the campaign trail.

7. Romney has experience with homeland security issues, having led the Winter Olympics a few months after 9/11 followed by four years as governor of Massachusetts.

8. Romney received an Honorary Doctor of Public Service from the very conservative Hillsdale College in 2007.

9. Romney knows how companies work, what they need to succeed (and hire new people), and what dooms them to failure, necessitating layoffs. He helped to launch or rebuild hundreds of companies, including Staples, Domino's Pizzza, and The Sports Authority. No amount of education or government service can provide that kind of experience.

10. It is well known that Mitt Romney is a 6th generation Mormon. Some evangelical pastors do not consider Mormons to be Christians, but Mormons regard Jesus Christ as the head of their church and partake of the sacrament in the name of Jesus Christ each week. For Mormons, Jesus Christ is not a mere prophet. They revere Him as the Savior of mankind and the only begotten son of God. Jesus Christ himself gave the formula for identifying true Christians when he said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Also, Mormons celebrate traditional Christian holidays, including Christmas and Easter. (I added that last sentence because I heard a reluctant Romney supporter in the last election lamenting the fact that there would be no Easter egg roll at the White House if he were elected.)

11. Romney's detractors. including many whose opinions I had previously respected, choose to focus on what they call his flip-flops. They are leery about electing a man who previously seemed to compromise on issues such as abortion and gay rights. I would remind them that he was seeking public office in the most liberal state in the nation at the time. He would not have been elected to serve in any capacity if he had held a hard line on such issues. The farther he gets away from Massachusetts, the more conservative he becomes not because he is changing but because the electorate can accept his natural conservatism. Parallels with Ronald Reagan in this regard are remarkable.

12. Romney has turned around businesses, a collapsing Olympic effort, and one state. He will not require a team of economists to interpret financial information. He is uniquely qualified to turn around our current economic situation and help lead the world out of crisis.

I'm sure there are dozens of other points I could make if I had more time, but I keep thinking of Esther in the Old Testament and the phrase: "who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?"

Mitt Romney is a man for our time, and quite possibly for all time -- a man in the mold of our country's founders, who were accomplished in their own right before seeking public office.

Regarding President Obama's Planned Speech to America's School Children on Tuesday, Septmber 8th:

When the state reaches past me to my children directly, intentionally shutting me out and diminishing my role as parent and motivator-in-chief, I cry foul.

And, yes, trust is an issue here. I do not trust Barack Obama precisely because of the people he associates with and seeks advice from – to wit, the Reverend James Wright and a bevy of “special advisors” to the president who have recent, radical ties to communism and anarchy (such as Van Jones, the green jobs advisor, Ezekiel Emmanuel, the health care advisor…I could go on and on.)

I also do not trust Obama to be able to differentiate between topics which are and are not political in nature – topics which are and are not off limits. The doctrine of environmentalism, for example, has been taught to every child in every school in America, but global warming is not settled science. I will not burden my children with guilt that the planet warms and cools and animals are born and die and icebergs melt as part of the natural order of things.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but I also do not trust Obama and his team not to add subliminal messages during his address, either visually or verbally.

Being president of the United States does not entitle anyone to automatic trust. Trust must be earned, and so far Barack Obama has not earned it.

Some will accuse me of being a racist because I oppose virtually every item on Obama’s agenda. When a liberal accuses a conservative of being a racist because he or she opposes Obama’s goals, it’s like chalking up every contrary remark by a female to her menstrual cycle. I know my own mind.

Obama is presumably an example of academic excellence (I say ‘presumably’ because he will not release grades or papers from any of the institutions he attended), but why can’t he speak on academic excellence to children AND their parents at home? His team would say he can’t do that because they cannot trust parents to sit down with their children and watch it – they must rely on government employees (teachers) to make sure children hear the speech. Just one more example of how liberals do not trust the American people.

Which is preferable in a Republic – distrust of the government or distrust of the people?

At the very least, if I cannot preview the speech via You Tube or whitehouse.com, my children will be excused from school during the speech.

I hope this is not intended to become an annual event.

P.S. I recall Michelle Obama, herself very well educated, telling an audience of women on the campaign trail that they should not aspire to become doctors and lawyers but that they should aspire to low level service sector jobs – what kind of academic message is that?

P.S.S. I've never written a blog faster. I guess the whole idea of a (potentially) political speech aimed at children touched a nerve.

My Take on Sarah Palin, Part II

Last fall when John McCain, the maverick, announced his selection of running mate Sarah Palin, another maverick, I wrote a blog about it almost immediately, which captured my first blush reaction to his choice. She was fresh and interesting. I went on to enjoy her hard-hitting speech at the Republican convention and some of her interactions with the press, who were relentless in their attacks against her.

They attacked her for:

- being a mother of five children ranging in age from 19 to newborn.

- being a religious woman.

- living in a small town.

- giving her children unusual names.

- having graduated from Idaho State instead of Harvard.

- not having enough ink in her passport.

- being from Alaska.

- having an accent.

- knowing how to field dress a moose.

- having a 'sexy librarian' look.

- not aborting her child born with Downs Syndrome.

- having a promiscuous teenaged daughter.

- not having enough executive experience (though she had more than Obama).

- wearing clothes that were paid for by the GOP (Democrat candidates like Hillary Clinton, and even their wives, like Michelle Obama, receive free designer clothes. Who among normal women, even governors, has a wardrobe suitable for a Vice Presidential run?)

Maybe the attacks worked. Sarah Palin disappointed. She wasn't as prepared as I had hoped. She wasn't as steeped in issues as I would expect a candidate to be. Though fundamentally she had the intangible 'right stuff,' she wasn't quite poised enough. (Think: Margaret Thatcher.) She wasn't quite serious enough. Faced with the most hateful media barrage I have witnessed in my lifetime, she allowed herself to become offended. She was easily distracted.

But who could blame her? If a bully were picking on just one of my children at school, I would create a stir. If grown up media moguls and pundits were hurling insults at my entire family, I would have to speak up in their defense.

She was never my first choice, not even for V.P. - I am a self-confessed Mitt-en. But I still like Sarah Palin and I still hope for her future, which I think is a lot brighter than her recent past.

Would it be subversive...

to declare myself a one-woman tea party?

I've only failed one test in my life (a written Utah driver's license test -- after I'd been driving for five years on an Arizona license! -- and I cried), but the worst grade I ever received as a student was in Econ 100. I think I have pretty good economic instincts, but economic concepts themselves are difficult for me to grasp. (I take some comfort in the knowledge that many people have a hard time understanding the 'dismal science.')

So (especially in difficult economic times like these) I appreciate it when anyone can illuminate the dark recesses of my mind with a better understanding of economic principles.

Today I heard a self-proclaimed 'capitalist pig' explain what is fundamentally wrong with Obama's plan for the redistribution of wealth ('wealth' being a relative term -- ask Joe the Plumber.)

He said that when the government tells you that you will take care of your neighbor -- that you will not have a choice in the matter, but will pay for his doctor's visits, his groceries, his subsidized housing, his prescriptions, etc. -- you have surrendered your freedom. A part of you has become enslaved. You have become a cog in a machine. Your dreams as an individual are officially less important than the needs of the collective.

There have always been and there will always be individuals who have a legitimate claim on support. As a compassionate people, we ungrudgingly allocate part of our nation's wealth to meet their needs. But we are at the tipping point now in the United States where half the population receives some sort of government support. Now taxpayers are supporting investment firms and car companies, too, lest they fail. We need to return to basic principles of self-reliance.

I sometimes wonder if people were happier and more satisfied with life when they had to depend upon themselves, their loved ones, and their religious communities instead of the government.

Living History

Sometimes you have a sense that you're living history -- that you're progressing down one of those timelines you see published in textbooks demonstrating what happened when, giving the reader an understanding of cause and effect.

You're sitting in your high school economics classroom when President Reagan is shot. You're a newlywed, home alone, when the Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrates. You're balancing a mattress on top your van driving home from the furniture store when Diana is killed in Paris. You're getting the kids ready for school when the World Trade Center collapses.

Right now I have a sense that I am living through something vaguely familiar from another time and place -- that history is, at last, repeating itself, as it always does.

Maybe I've watched too many documentaries over my lifetime, but in my mind's eye I see sepia toned footage from the Weimar Republic, a woman pushing a wheelbarrow full of cash down the street to buy a loaf of bread. Is this the Bolshevik Revolution, with the government nationalizing banks and businesses, or the French Revolution, with peasants demanding that CEOs line up at guillotines?

But we have no czars and no aristocracy. We are all peasants! Every American is free to parlay his time and talents into money and position, if that is what he wants. And money and position are relative anyway. What it takes to make me happy is not what it takes to make anyone else happy.

Let me figure out what happiness means to me and how I can attain it. I'll let the government know if someone or something is standing in my way, blocking my path, but another person's success is not a threat to me, while government intervention is.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- those are proper government concerns, but they are not given to us by government -- they come from the creator, as Thomas Jefferson said. The government cannot give life, liberty, happiness or anything else -- it can only take. If it isn't taking from you, then it's taking from someone else.

We do not have reason to fear or despise a person who seems to have more than we do (and very often that is only an illusion). We do have reason to fear a government that is powerful enough to decide that we have too much and to take from us what we have earned.

Cue the Outrage

Cue the Outrage -- that would be the title of my book if I were inclined to write about media manipulation of public opinion. It's a great title, but I have no intention of writing such a book. I'll just sit here and shake my head at the waves of public outrage, which are no less predictable than the waves of the sea.

Personally, I rarely experience outrage of any kind, so I guess I have a pretty long fuse, which is a great blessing.

Partly, that's because of a Leo Tolstoy quote I have grappled with for many, many years: "To understand is to forgive everything." After mulling it over, I've concluded that Tolstoy's statement is not quite true. I would re-phrase it: "To understand is to forgive (almost) everything." [There are some actions that my finite mind, anyway, cannot accept.] In general, though, I do believe that if we truly understood why people do what they do or say what they say or think what they think, we would be more forgiving. A simple apology would be enough, and fewer people would have to check into rehab for off-the-cuff, insensitive remarks, etc.

I was a debater in high school and college, but rather than developing a zeal for argument, debate mellowed me. I learned to argue both sides of every issue. When I went to the final round of a tournament in Missouri, my teammates loaned me their enormous index card files -- huge metal drawers, some of which were empty -- to intimidate the competition. It looked like we had mountains of evidence, and it worked -- we won the tournament. (Who knows if all of those file drawers were a factor?) I don't remember if we were pro or con, but the point is, it didn't matter. Manipulating the judges was the point, swaying them. My partner and I were the wind that made the tall grass blow and it was exhilarating.

But today, unless it's an issue of physical or spiritual life and death, I rarely, if ever, argue with anyone. This isn't because I'm unsure of my position or unable to articulate it -- it's because I value peace...and because I've discovered for myself the futility of yelling into the wind...and because I approve of people holding opinions contrary to my own, allowing for the possibility that on some level we may both be right. Maybe the very existence of our two philosophies will create a harmonious balance, if we do not feel compelled to disturb the peace by hollering at each other.

(This is not to imply that I have become some sort of wussy moderate. The more life experience I have on Planet Earth, the more conservative I become. [I have evolved...I was actually a registered Democrat at 18! What was I thinking?] Maybe some day I will march on Washington or wear a sandwich board sign or engage in debate concerning some passionate cause, but for now, I'm just enjoying some peace.)

Sarah Palin at First Blush OR Washington: We've Found Authenticity

• I was a ‘Mitten,’ smitten with Mitt – not because he looks presidential with Reagan’s hair and chiseled jaw, but because he is a true leader, a conservative, a thinker, AND, more importantly, a doer. He remains by far the most qualified candidate for president or for any other office…but he will not be president this year, and now we know, sadly, he will not be vice president.
  
  I resigned myself to this probable reality last night before falling asleep, predicting that McCain would select the milquetoast Tim Pawlenty as his running mate.
  
  So imagine my surprise when I awoke at 5:45 and turned on the television to see if the press had figured it out yet. They were talking about Sarah Palin…Sarah Palin…governor of Alaska…oh, yeah, the woman who stepped forward this summer to complain when Nancy Pelosi shut down Congress before they could vote on drilling. Sarah Palin…Really? Tell me more.
  
  Facts began to emerge – rumors of midnight moose hunting, a weakness for ice fishing, the mother of five children, including a soldier deploying to Iraq and a newborn son with Downs Syndrome.
  
  By this time, I was picturing a rifle-toting woman in a bearskin coat.
  
  Before I had seen Sarah Palin or heard her speak, I learned that…
  ...she sold the gubernatorial jet on EBay.
  ...she dispensed with her state security detail saying she didn’t really need it – she could take care of herself.
  ...she sold the governor’s fleet of limousines and official sedans, choosing instead to drive herself around in her own Chevy Suburban and VW Jetta.
  ...she stood up to the head of Alaska’s Republican party, the man who held her political future in his hands, to accuse him of unethical conduct, then, when he was not relieved of his duties, she resigned her post. Her position was eventually vindicated when he was convicted of wrongdoing.
  ...she put the kibosh on the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere’
  ...she looked into the eyes of her special needs newborn and said that she saw ‘perfection.’
  
  Each fact was a revelation. Though her name had been politely included on several lists as if to pacify female voters, no one expected this. She was a complete unknown, a true dark horse candidate.
  
  I was intrigued, fascinated. She sounded like a cross between Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Davey Crocket. Her life story was great, but could she speak? Could she go ‘toe to toe’ with Joe Biden?
  
  Then I saw the press conference. After a lengthy introduction by John McCain, she came on stage with her family: husband Todd, daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper, and baby Trig. She proudly announced that her husband is a commercial fisherman, an oil worker, a member of the United Steel Workers Union, and a champion snowmachiner.

She was unapologetic for not attending Harvard – did not mention her academic credentials at all – but spoke instead about what she has DONE in her life, not what she thought about doing or wanted to do in the future. And she’s done it all: won a beauty pageant, had a family, owned a business, worked as a sportscaster, played and coached sports, volunteered in the community, run for several offices, sat on boards, served as mayor and governor, passed important legislation….

She wore eyeglasses and a dress, not a pantsuit. Her voice was strong, but not shrill. Her words were wise, but not flowery. She used 'whom' correctly in a sentence. She did not shy away from lauding McCain’s heroism in Vietnam, though he, unlike John Kerry, is usually too stoic to mention such accomplishments himself.

She will make a great running mate and a great Vice President...but then, Mitt would have, too.