Friday, January 11, 2008

Teh Big Fred! Endorsment (s)

Is it ok to say I'm on pins n needles awaiting the announcement later today?
Human Events have thrown in their lot with Fred...but that ain't the 'big' endorsement Fred has alluded to. It's nice, but, trust me, that ain't it.

My money is on the NRA.
Anything less than a huge national organization like that would be disappointing. (and I would owe my eldest 5 bucks.) Some are even speculating that it will be Rush breaking his own rule about primary endorsements.
Naw, homey don't play that game. I really don't think that's it, either. Although I could see how some would read that, since the announcement time for today puts it square into Rush's national air-time slot and the guy has been making favorable remarks about Thompson. But I really don't see that happening.
We shall see.

Now about the debate last night, I didn't get to see it, wished I could have because by all accounts that I've read last night and this morning Fred wailed awesomely.
So now the msm have takened out new knives. First Fred was getting in late and he was "lazy", now he's clearly McCain's lapdog.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!!??!!

The stalking horse theory has been whispered about since Fred got in. And now Joe Scarborough has come right out and said it. (nevermind that Joe, himself, is a lapdog..and has been for years. Perhaps he could say it takes one to know one?)
Although I've read comments on blogs that do present good arguments in that vein, I keep coming back to the one question in my mind: "Why?"

Why would anyone, anyone subject themselves to the rigors, slings, arrows, personal attacks, upheaval of personal life and that of their family, the exhausting schedules, the never ending travel, the speeches and media appearances, and all of the unbelievable stresses that come with being a presidential candidate in this new fangled 21st century convoluted campaign unless they really believed in what they were doing?
The argument that he's doing it because he and Capt. Queeg are buds and so Queeg can get the nomination just doesn't wash with me.

Buds loan you their car for a day or 2 when yours is in the shop.
Buds remember your birthday and buy you a drink. (or even plan a surprize party in your honor)
Buds might (might) pony up bail money for you...or at least give you the number of a good lawyer.
Buds help you paint your house.
Buds come over when you're having a bar-b-que-and might even bring a 12 pack and a side dish. If they are really good buds they may even stay late and help you with cleaning up the mess.

Your buds do this because you both are friends, enjoy one anothers' company and because you would do the same for them, if needed. But there are limits to any friendship...no matter how tight. I have one really close true friend- the kind that one would say they would do anything for- and I just about would-short of ruining my own life, that of my younguns, or endangering my financial well being or being complicit in a crime. There comes a point where you have to just say: 'Honey, I love ya, but you're on your own here. I can't do any more.'

Mounting a campaign for the highest office in the free world just to bail out so your "bud" can get the nod is just way too far fetched for me. Especially when this so-called bud is, by all appearances, the anathema of what all you, your values and your campaign embodies. I don't care how big the carrot is dangling from that stick.

Yeah, Fred might have a beer with and laughs with Capt. Queeg now and then (and it's safe to say that Fred would have the better jokes.) but to sacrifice his own political and personal life for this jackass raging rino just don't make a lick of sense to me.

But what do I know?

2 Comments:

Blogger Patrick Joubert Conlon said...

An NRA endorsement would be great. I know Dobson said no to Fred but I wish he'd change his mind. That would be the end for the preacher man weasel.

1/11/2008 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Personally I would sooner vote for Fred Flintstone than for Fred Thompson, but I thought you might like to see what I wrote about Mitt. Here you go, hope you like it

I realize now that I’ve been wrong about Mitt Romney all along. I have been mystified by the ability of Republicans to support George W. Bush when they know he is lying to them, but that somehow Republicans did not extend Mitt the same support given his repeated problems with the truth. But now I think I understand it.

George Bush is a straight ahead liar, he can lie repeatedly with a straight face to his adoring Republican adherents, people know he’s lying, but since they like him they are OK with it. They believe (like most sentient beings on the planet) that Bush is an amiable dunce, but they just plain like the guy so they’ll accept what he says, even if they know that he’s not being truthful with them.

Mitt, on the other hand, is not a straight ahead liar; at least he’s not perceived in that way. He is viewed (by most sentient beings on the planet) as a panderer, one who will change any position, wiggle out of any past opinion, slither away from any previous statement, all with a pasted-on smile. Bush’s lying is straightforward, bold, readily apparent, free from nuance. Mitt is all about nuance; it’s actually entertaining to watch him try and explain his past support of gays, of abortion, seeing his father march with MLK. His slick rationalizations, professionally packaged, rehearsed and delivered with a faux-conviction that makes his new position seem somehow heroic, its marketing genius. Except that people aren’t buying it. Clearly they will accept lying from people they like, but they can’t accept pandering insincerity from somebody they don’t like.

Of course Mitt is well-schooled in the insincerity business. He’s the guy who told you (and expected you to believe it) that when Bain Capital bought your company and you were one of the 25% of employees to be laid off, this was actually a good thing for you. He was the person who, when Bain bought the factory where you worked and shut it down to move the operation to China, that this was progress. He was the guy who, when he bought the business where you worked and cut your benefits, told you that it was for you and for good of the company.

What Mitt knew then, and knows still today, is that those things actually were good. But they weren’t good for you, your co-workers, your friends, they were good for him, and the small group of managers who would buy a company, gut it, break it up and re-sell it at an enormous profit. Mitt and his partners were left with millions. You were left without a job, and with Mitt’s voice ringing in your ears telling you how great the whole thing was. The thing is, Mitt wasn’t exactly lying to them, he was simply, painfully, obviously, insincere. Bottom line: people will accept lying from a known liar as long as they like him. People will not accept insincerity from one well known for it, even if they do like him. Of course, with Mitt, they don’t seem to like him, either.

It’s clear that, with Mitt and his handlers, the belief is that it’s all about marketing. If they package the product in a certain way hopefully enough people will look past their misgivings about the brilliant panderer and vote for him anyway. But over the long haul, people will inevitably see through the packaging and get an unadulterated view of the product, and when they see the real Mitt they don’t like what they see. Would that all Americans are able to get a similar, unvarnished view of the man. If they do, then the Mittanic, which has struck dual icebergs in Iowa and New Hampshire, will slip quietly beneath the surface of the political landscape in our beloved country. Here’s hoping!

Have a nice day,

Phil

1/11/2008 9:37 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home