The Two-Bit-Kid vs. The Come-Back-Kid: Which do you want for your candidate?

Entering the Florida primary-of-the-moment race  are ‘The Two-Bit-Kid‘ (Mitt Romney) versus the ‘Come-Back-Kid‘ (Newt Gingrich).  Clearly, Newt has earned the title the Come-Back-Kid, as he has been counted out at least three times in the recent months by many pundits on the left and right. I have called Mitt the Two-Bit-Kid for his inability to gain or stay above 25% in the polls for more than just short period. Often, he has risen above this apparent wall only when others implode, sometimes on their own, and then sometimes with a little help from his friends.

Is it just me, or if you’ re a Californian doesn’t Herman Cain remind you of Willy Brown? Or Marion Berry if you’ re from DC?

The Republican race thus far has not been an awe inspiring process has it?  If we were to take a path along the lines of creating the next “Steve Austin” we clearly could have combined the candidates into our own “One Billion Dollar Elephant Man.”  We could have taken Newt Gingrich’s brain and policy experience (Newt is consistently one of the smartest guys in the room–and he knows how to nail those that the people want nailed!), Hermancain’s simple 999 style(I say Hermancain because, I have never heard any other name for him.  I can’t even tell if this is his first or last namecan you?) Let’s add in some of Rick Perry’s reversion-airy ideas on converting our professional political class back to part-time citizen politicians (something that is definitely needed). How about some of John Huntsman’s ability to speak Chinese (he could tell Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao the inside dirty jokes or tell them where the best Chinese food is in Washington, DC–who would know?) Let’s take some of Ron Paul’s views on the Federal Reserve (and their big bank cohorts)  and their complicity and obfuscation in the current financial crisis (and perhaps his relationship with Arthur Dent, a hapless Englishman who travels the galaxy, could help if the aliens lose all common sense and decide to invade the planet–Come on, you think he doesn’t know him personally?) Now let’s put in a dash of

John Huntsman seems like a nice enough person but he reminded me of a bobble-head doll every-time he spoke!

Rick Santorum’s ability to keep talking to everyone while not  really enhancing the conversation one iota, but seemingly not pissing people off (other than convincing them he is really truly a conservative–and after-all to Rick, that is all that matters right?), Michelle Bachmann’s attractiveness to the Tea Party and her singular focus on repealing Obamacare (Do they still find her attractive?–I mean in a political sense of course), And Mitt Romney’s uncanny ability to continue to run for president after, what is it?–eight years–wining only one state and still not get more than about 25 percent of the electorate interested in him, but still he continues. (Don’t forget the hair–Mitt has great hair! The best that money can buy!)

Please, will someone tell Mitt Romney not to put jell on his implants? It makes them look like a well cultivated cornfield owned by some anally-retentive Iowa farmer.

Now, if we could pull that off we would have the One Billion Dollar Elephant Man (BDEM).  The Republicans are going to need this to go up against the One Billion Dollar Donkey Man(BDDM). (I thought about using the pejorative that I know many of you are thinking but, it would not be appropriate!) Oh yea, he already has one billion dollars doesn’t he!  I think we should put this fact in a bit of perspective.

Lee Majors vs Barack Obama

I did not realize, until I began to research this article, that the show The Six-Million Dollar Man began in 1974.  The same year that President Nixon took us off the gold standard!  Now, how about that for a coincidence!  Lets take a look at what it is going to cost to build a modern replica of Steve Austin and compare that to what either the BDEM or the BDDM is going to actually cost us all.

In 1974, when Steve Austin was being constructed to protect mom, apple pie, and the American way, He cost America $6 million to build and there was a total of $500 billion of currency in circulation (CinC.)at the time.  That was about 0.0012% of the total money in circulation.  Now, if we look at the Billion Dollar Donkey Man or the proposed Billion Dollar Elephant Man, using the benchmark of Mr. Austin, either of these candidates should only cost about $192 million based on having almost $16 trillion total Currency in Circulation today.  But, they will likely cost at least $1,000,000,000.00 each! That equates to 0.0625%–an increase of 520.83%. That is an inflation rate of 13.71% per year since 1974. What do we get for our money?

That’s a 520% Increase!

I guess we should not complain all that loudly, should we?  We only had a 520% increase in the cost of the $6 million dollar man but we increased the total amount of money circulating in our economy by 3,200% Yep, that’s correct! We increase the total amount of money in our economy 32 times what it was in 1972. And of course the value of all the assets of the U.S. increased 32 times as well didn’t they?

While our ideology, and its complete polarization, have made for great copy; no single person or party is responsible for this mess.  We all are!  As I read the paper this morning, I start to see the new push against Gingrich as angry, unpredictable and undisciplined.  I see the attacks on Romney as not in touch with the common man, driven more by greed, and not able to close the sale with voters.  Overall I saw so what!  In sales and marketing there is a thing called the “so what test!”  If after someone tells you something they think is a selling point you can say so what, then they have not made the sale!  I think we need to all say so what a bit more!

Conversely, now I hear, over and over, how the democrats are more afraid of Romney than Gingrich–that Gingrich has so much baggage they feel they can easily beat him. And as Yul Brenner said in The Kind and I, “Etcetera….  Etceteraaaa….  Etceteraaaaaaa!”  Deep inside, when I hear this I wonder if the words of the queen in Shakespeare’s Hamlet ring true?

_____________________________

Player Queen:
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!
Player King:
‘Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.
Player Queen:
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!
Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?
Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet Act 3, Scene 2

_____________________________

Logically thinking about this, I am not sure I agree with the conventional, or contrived wisdom, that the Democrats are more afraid of Romney.  He has more money at this point, he is more organized, and his background accomplishments key him up directly as the economic foil to illustrate the Presidents economic failures.  In the long run, if we get our collective heads out of our nether regions, I don’t think the rap against Romney on his fiscal achievements, and liabilities,–Bain Capital, taxes et. al.–amount to much in balance.  For everyone who begrudges him his success and fortune, others will want him to translate these skills to work on their behalf.

Likewise, Gingrich may have baggage, but it just different baggage.  Like the others, in many of the attacks on Gingrich the supposed weaknesses also become strengths.  Unpredictability, is well, unpredictable.  Unpredictability makes it difficult for others to prepare their game plan and stick to it.  Clearly, Newt is the strongest debater, and by almost every account the smartest man in almost any room.  Some have charged this leads him to be undisciplined and that his idea-a-minute brain makes it hard for others to find focus and achieve.  Clearly, this is not the case for some others.  Newt himself has had a disproportionate share of successes, accomplishments and achievements in his lifetime.  Recognized as a quintessential American, more along the lines of the early framers and founders.  He is and been a successful politician, author and consultant. He has been Times Man of the Year in 1995 for his role in leading the Republication Revolution and creating the Contract with America, Earned his PhD from Tulane University, has taught History and Geography,  founded Conservative Opportunity Society, American Solutions for Winning the Future, The Gingrich Group, and the Center for Health Transformation and co-authored over 27 books and documentary movies. Yes, his marital history and admitted infidelities are cause for some to find him inappropriate to hold the office. A number of our founding fathers had similar transgressions.  And for one I am really tired of this as a litmus test for an elected candidate.  I want someone who can lead the country, come up with good ideas and solutions and fight hard and passionately to bring them forward to conclusion.  I want someone who will call things as they are.  I am tired of the politically correct version of our history and our life.  Most importantly, I am tired of our desire to offend no one standing in the way of our ability to recognize the issues on either side and deal with them effectively, timely and efficiently.

Newt has baggage but he also has a long and diverse list of accomplishments!  While Romney resonates with women Newt does not.  While Newt creates the feeling that nothing is beyond his intellect and willingness to take a risk and to fight the full fight, Romney often appears to favor the safe path.  Overall, Newt presents to Americans the Passionate Risk Candidate, while Mitt presents the Safe Bet Candidate.  Who will eventually win may still be anyone’s guess.

Being a Mugwump, I will end up voting for the person that I believe will do the best job and accomplish the most.  There are things that are attractive to me about Newt as I feel what we need now is a fighter, someone who is willing to passionately address the issues we face both inside our nation and abroad.  I think now, I want someone who will not play it safe and who will take the risky path and fight for the best outcome.

I do not worry about Newts baggage, I am concerned that we have changed so much as a society that we no longer want citizen politicians with all their flaws–just read any of the recent biographies of Washington, Adams or Jefferson and you will see what I mean they were all flawed men.  I am worried that today we want political-celebrity-rock star-gods.  We seem to really want to have a Professional Political Class, telling us what to do.  We seem to be willing to accept anything they do as long as they do not become regular everyday people like us!

There are things about Romney I like as well.  I like his tenacity, his success, and his history in the private sector.  His religion and long term commitment with his wife neither sway me nor bother me.  I am not voting for a political-celebrity-rock star-god.  I will vote for the person I think can and will do the best job.  I am still forming this opinion, but I am now down to two candidates only.

What I am most concerned about is us!  I am concerned that the criteria we are using to select our next president is not based on the things we really should be evaluating.  We have said in years past, mostly in furtherance of political objectives, that it is about character.  I think in some cases character matters.  But like everything else, even a persons character has to moderated against the other factors and issues we face.  Genius lies in many people, many cultures, many demographics, many ethnicities, and many degrees of fidelity.  Overall, I want the best person to solve the problems that our country faces today.  The characteristics I have looked at in many ways become conflicting with each other and sometimes conflict with basic human nature.

What do I want?

  • I want plain talk, I want workable solutions, I want clear answers,
  • I want a dedication to America more than I want a dedication to my own self interests,
  • I want someone who knows how to get things done in Washington DC, I also want a citizen politician,
  • I want a strong leader, I want a leader to balance compassion with responsibility,
  • I want a person who can elevate the nation, and myself,  to a new level of greatness in the world,
  •  I want someone who believes enough in our capability to think big thoughts but deliver pragmatic solutions,
  • I want a leader who builds admiration and respect in our nations friends and abject fear along with respect in our nations enemies,
  • I want someone to lead us to a new era of tolerance and respect for each other as Americans,
  • I want someone who can move our full-time professional political class back to part-time citizen politicians,
  • I want a president who is selfless who will sacrifice the potential for “4-more-years” to do the correct thing for the country,
  • I want a president that can help re-engage our youth and re-invigorate our education system in teaching our next generations our real history–what it takes in terms of knowledge, commitment, dedication, hard work, respect and compassion to be successful and responsible national and family leaders,
  • I want a leader that will resolve the ongoing conflict between the powers at the federal level with those at the state level,
  • I want a leader that will inspire all of us to be bigger than ourselves, become more self reliant, and do better at helping each other as Americans.
  • I want a Washington, or a Lincoln, or an Adams, or a Jefferson, or a Jackson, or either Roosevelt
  • I want a pragmatic idealist
  • I want a person who believes that faith plays a role–which faith is not important
  • I want someone who can sees how the Federal government can provide the checks and balances to make sure we all do our best for the country and each other but not one who sees the Federal government provide for us all
  • I want a leader that knows the value of our history–all of it–not slanted to one political side or the other
  • I want a leader that will make the hard choices–the ones none of us want to make and does not soft peddle the solutions to preserve the livelihoods in DC

I could go on and on but this is long enough already .  I would hope that most of you do not find much, if anything, you disagree with–despite your political affiliation.  I also, hope you will notice what you do not see on this list: things like; marriage status, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, size, weight, personal predilections or anything else.  In the long run I am not even sure that in the end I want to ‘like’ the candidate. By this I mean they do not have to be someone I want to go have a beer with.  I really just want the best person, with the best ideas, singularly dedicated to fix the problems and make us a better country.

In the long run this alone would be a great start!  Wouldn’t it?

Ron Paul:The Republican’s Pall

Recent Pitts Article

Perhaps it is just me, and apologies to those Ron Paul supporters out there, but I do not understand the fascination with him as a candidate.  Yes, there are things he says that I agree with, but there are also many things he says that I find, quite frankly, astounding. Yes, he has a number of concrete plans, but his unbending ideology takes his positions to a ludicrous (I don’t mean the rapper–Ludicris) level.  Yes, he is a non-Romney candidate but given his positions in some areas you could say the same about Michael Moore. Because in some cases, I am not sure I can find much difference in the level of both extremes. I am not saying he and Michael Moore share the same views, just that often I see Mr. Paul taking his ideas to the same level of incredulity.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

In a article by Leonard Pitts Jr., Ron Paul’s consistency doesn’t make him right, He sums up what it is about Ron Paul that has confounded me for so long.  I am fiscally conservative and often socially moderate and given the correct circumstances, sometimes socially liberal.  So I should be attracted by a committed Libertarian, but in this case I am not. To confound the problem, I don’t understand how he could have rated so high in Iowa. While there is an old joke that Iowa stands for “Idiots Out Walking Around,” I know many people in Iowa and I have traveled there many times over the years and conducted business in Iowa as well. I find the people of Iowa to be highly intelligent, dedicated, perhaps slightly more conservative, and very hard working. In short, I see nothing that would explain to me why so many have gravitated to someone who is often so far in the extreme.

I find myself in agreement with Mr. Pitts.  Something that is not a common occurrence.  This in itself gives me pause!  But Mr. Pitts summed up my exact sentiments about Ron Paul when he said, “Ralph Waldo Emerson, meet Ronald Ernest Paul. He is the very soul of a foolish consistency. Meaning that he is willing, often to a fault, to follow his ideology to its logical and most extreme conclusions.”

I also do not find some of the extremes of Ron Paul to be that conservative.  I know a few other very conservative people who refer to Ron Paul as really one of the most “liberal” people in the presidential race, some proclaim he is to the left of President Obama in many areas.  I am not sure that I would draw the same conclusions. I do, however, think his brand of extremism is more than confusing; it is at least very risky–perhaps even dangerous. It is in any event at least dangerous for the Republican party.

One pundit last night suggested that perhaps Iowans were sending a message to the Republican leadership. Well if so, it is to my way of thinking a very problematic message.  This election, more so than any others in recent history, will be decided by independents, and moderates in both parties.  Non-Republicans, and some Republican moderates, tend to worry about the extreme views of the Republican party and the potential extreme conservative segments of its platform, just as non-Democrats and Democratic moderates then tend to worry about the extreme liberal segments of the Democratic platform.

Sending such a message and ignoring Paul’s foolish consistency in the areas of civil rights, Iran and their nuclear ambition, and the recognition that there are some areas where the federal government must play a role to promote the general welfare, if in fact that is what is being done, is not going to go far toward endearing independents and moderates to the benefits of a Republican executive branch and congress.  Not since the period of the 1880s to the early 1900s have we seen such a divided ideological ocean between the parties.  With it has come a broad distrust of the professional political class and significant suspicion as to motivation and potential corruption in their platforms and agendas.

In the end, Ron Paul’s finish in the race last night in a virtual dead heat with Romney and Santorum worry’s me.  If the Republican party members in the U.S. now are willing to accept such a level of foolish consistency in their candidate in order to adhere to other desired ideals, we will run the risk of ignominious defeat in the presidential election.  Independents and moderates will likely see Republicans as a party driven so far by  ideology that these key voters will not be able to accept their perceived risk of this foolish consistency.

Perhaps the pundits are correct and Iowa is a Paul anomaly, and as we move through the remaining caucuses he will once again fade into history as did James G. Blaine in the election of 1884 or Alton B. Parker in 1904.  If not, I fear, in about one year, we will be recalling the Paul pall of 2012.