At last night’s debate, Gingo got into a pis*ing match with Mitt Romney over Israel/Palestine policy. Who is more macho. Who has courage? Who is timid. Gingrich’s utterly unearned sense of his own bravery, his own singular judgment, in the face of complex international issues is literally frightening. We’ve known this for a long time, but he’s rarely given us a better example of unrestrained, and ultimately galactically irresponsible hubris.
Here’s what he said: “I think sometimes it is helpful to have a president of the United States with the courage to tell the truth, just as was Ronald Reagan who went around his entire national security apparatus to call the Soviet Union an evil empire and who overruled his entire State Department in order to say, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Reagan believed the power of truth restated the world and reframed the world. I am a Reaganite, I’m proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it’s at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid.” The perfectly opposite example of this is Newt Gingrich.
In 1985, he told Jane Mayer of The Wall Street Journal that he still believed that “Vietnam was the right battlefield at the right time.” Why didn’t he go? “Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over,” he allowed. But, recovering, he added, “Part of the question I had to ask myself was what difference I would have made.”
That wasn’t an appropriate question. He like all those who went to Vietnam had a role to play, an unfortunate role. Gingo would have been the same, he’d have served a role, and “made a difference.” To use the question about whether he’d have made a difference is not a question one asks when called upon to serve one’s country. It’s dissembling. It’s like a card game with a player who has exceptional sleight of hand. A principled way to avoid service is well known: conscientious objection. Gingo’s way was self-serving; dishonesty masquerading as honesty.
At the GOP debate on Tuesday night, CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo asked Herman Cain about the well-known sexual harassment claims swirling around his campaign and his character like a river around a boulder. Like that boulder, unmovable, Cain answered, in part, and to applause: “I value my character and my integrity more than anything else, and for every one person that comes forward with a false accusation – there are probably – there are thousands who would say, none of that sort of activity came from Herman Cain.”
Well, besides speaking in the 3rd person, media outlets far and wide consider this a weak, even shabby, defense, the “proportionality,” or “statistical” defense. . . For example, “Your Honor, my client presents the well-accepted proportionality defense. We ask that you take judicial notice of the clear fact that my client has robbed only a very very tiny proportion of the world population of banks and credit unions. Defense rests.”
I Beg To Differ. I disagree with the critics of this defense. In fact, I love the idea. Often, it would have pulled my chestnuts out of the fire: “Your Honor, think of the many times I did not exceed the speed limit by 45 miles per hour in that neighborhood, and that particular neighborhood is only one among millions of neighborhoods in this great country of ours, a country known for the fairness, in statistical terms, of its judicial system.” But, I’m not running for President. (Yet)
Bill Clinton could have used it. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” could have been expressed in this fashion, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, when one considers how many women there are in the world with whom I also could not have had sexual relations with either.” End of story. If the proportion defense existed then, well, Bill Clinton would still be President of the United States, and Monica Lewinsky would be Chief of Staff (no pun intended).
Newt Gingrich could employ it virtually every day of his life. “I did not say what you just viewed on that video. Just consider for a moment just how many videos are out there where someone is not shown blatantly and outrageously straying from the exact truth. And what is the exact truth anyway? Was it when Bill Clinton said . . .” You get the idea. Gingo’s hopeless.
It would be a boon to Mitt Romney! Imagine this page in his campaign brochure.
Many Have Claimed That I Am A “Flip Flopper,” Particularly On The Issue Of Abortion. However, In Relative Terms, My Stance Is As Solid As Mount Rushmore.
Consider This: There Are Literally Thousands Of Positions, Highly Nuanced, That I Might Take On The Abortion Issue.
I Chose To Take Only Eight:
Have The Abortion,
Don’t Have The Abortion,
Go To Jail For Having The Abortion,
Be Commended For Protecting A Woman’s Right To Choose,
The Right To Choose Is A Ticket To Hell,
If Men Had Babies, I’d Support Free Abortion Clinics,
The Fallopian Tube Is A Legal Person, And
Where Is The Vagina, Anyway?
With this defense Rod Blagojevich would today be in the U.S. Senate. Tom DeLay would be making a fine living dancing with rich old ladies at Vegas nightclubs. And Anthony Weiner . . . well, that’s another story altogether. . . And Nixon! “My fellow Americans, the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice has just informed me that, in statistical terms, I am not a crook.”
So, if you ever think you’re not quite the best Dad or Mom in the world; if you sometimes claim a little more for charitable deductions than you should; if you consume three dozen glazed donuts in one sitting as a reward for doing so well during the first week of your diet, just remember this:
Mitt Romney, presently running well in the GOP primaries, announced today that he will also seek the Democratic nomination for President. He told this reporter, who had been suspiciously hanging out at his Massachusetts HQ, “I sense an opportunity. The President’s falling in popularity, even in Democratic strongholds. In the business world, you swim, or you sink. I’m swimming. If I win both primaries, it’ll be an exciting campaign next Fall. I’m quite good at debating, as you know.”
His campaign staff is already hiring additional advisers who possess well-regarded Democratic party credentials. Enemies and nemeses have suddenly become best friends. James Carville has already accepted a position on the GOP side to be “near my wife who’s on Romney’s staff.” Ms. Malkin refused to comment. Also considering an appointment to the Democratic primary staff is Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. This would make him the only adviser to be working for both the GOP and Democratic side of the Romney equation. “I’m very comfortable switching sides. That way, I have nothing but friends,” Lieberman explained.
Romney’s shocking and unprecedented move roiled his GOP staff, as well as the other GOP candidates who were informed as well. Newt Gingrich, however, was impressed, and told me later by phone, “Damn! And they call me the ideas guy!” Rick Perry, once upon a time a Democrat, didn’t understand the news I conveyed in the slightest, but was miffed nonetheless, “Another Mormon runnin’ at the presidence?” In any event, Mr. Romney has shaken up the race for the White House, leaving disbelief in his wake.
About that, I spoke with Chris Matthews (upon whom I forced an eight-hour news embargo). The MSNBC icon was, in colloquial English, “blown away,” saying “this is wonderful, incredible. The audacity of it, the brilliance – I’ve always maintained Romney’s a political genius – the innovation. Man, this is gonna rock both parties’ worlds! The brilliance of the man, the fighting spirit, the delightful nuttiness of it all . . .” He charged on; I charged out.
Later on, following Mr. Romney’s announcement to his GOP staff, I had a brief opportunity to speak with him in his Massachusetts HQ office in his brother’s basement.:
Your reporter: So, Mr. Romney, you’ve created quite a stir. I hear that some of your junior staff interns wet themselves. . . Mr. Romney: Sorry to hear that. Really I am. But wetting themselves? That’s priceless. Did you get their names? Your reporter: No. Perhaps later . . . Mr. Romney: I’d appreciate it. Now, I understand you have some questions about my decision today to challenge President Obama in the Democratic primaries. . . ?
Your reporter: Yes, yes, certainly. My first question is . . . What the hell? Mr. Romney: Well, let’s look at it strategically, like a businessman deciding how many people to fire when taking over another company. The President is weak in the polls and sinking more each day. He’s vulnerable. He’s a Mom and Pop store waiting to be gobbled up and digested by the stronger business. In political terms, I’m the gobbler. Your reporter: Well, yes, Obama’s support has weakened lately, but no one in his own party is challenging him for the presidency . . . Mr. Romney: I know. [Smiling broadly] And that leaves me an open field. Frankly, the GOP primaries are beginning to bore me . . . Your reporter: Didn’t you express that sentiment last week when Herman Cain leapfrogged you to the number one spot in some national and regional polls? Mr. Romney: I never said anything about that. If I did, I was misquoted. What I said was that Mr. Cain has qualities that escape my understanding, and he would make an exceptional VP on a Romney ticket, either party. Your reporter: I see. Do you object to my quoting you on that? Mr. Romney: I never mind accurate quotes I can later deny making. Your reporter: You are unusual in that, sir. In any event, as you told your staff, you’re now the first ever candidate to be running as a Republican and a Democrat. Mr. Romney: No. I never said that. Perhaps you missed my meaning. I’ll be running as an entirely different Mitt Romney in each primary. GOP Mitt; Democrat Mitt. Accordingly, I’ll take different positions on the issues to reflect the opinions of each party’s constituency. Your reporter: So, one day, you’re for Obamacare, the next day, you’re against it? On Tuesday, you’re pro choice, on Wednesday, you’re con choice? Flat tax at a coffee klatch, 9-9-9 at a Baptist convention, millionaires’ surcharge at a union gathering? Is that pretty much it, sir? Mr. Romney: Precisely. Your reporter: So, you’re not changing your public persona much at all? You seem to be, in a way, institutionalizing your reputation as a flip flopper. Mr. Romney: I never said that. What I am doing is creating a situation where I can take well thought out positions on all sides of important issues. In electability terms, that’s a big win. To all Americans I’ll seem presidential. I am loud and stolid when I make statements on the questions that perplex us. To Americans it’s irrelevant how many sides I take on these issues. My plan is that whichever group – GOP or Democrat – likes my opinions the most – with their primary votes – that’s the party for me, and theirs are the opinions I’ll adopt fully. You have my promise. People make too much of political parties, anyway. I’m the most literally bipartisan person in this great land of ours. I’ve proved that in policies from abortion to gun control, from flat tax to no tax. It’s a record of acceptance of others’ viewpoints, and why must I be attacked for that? Why just the other day this young reporter approached me and . . . Your reporter: Excuse me, sir. You really, really want to be President, don’t you? Mr. Romney: Like the Pope wants solid gold rosary beads. Your reporter: Thank you, Mr. Romney, for your time. And good luck should you face yourself in the 2012 presidential election!
New and irrefutable evidence proves Mitt Romney was separated from principles at birth, according to communication scientists and other unnamed sources. After a long period examining his political positions these experts “could find no other rational explanation for why Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on matters of national importance at such an exceedingly high rate,” according to the Flip-Flop Research Consortium. In their report, released today, the consortium provided a summary chart of a small representative sample of Romney’s “serial flip-flops,” set out below:
Mitt Romney 1
Mitt Romney 2
‘I’m not in favor of privatizing Social Security or making cuts.’
‘Social Security’s the easiest and that’s because you can give people a personal account.’
‘I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.’
‘I did not see it with my own eyes.’
“When I first heard of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ I thought it sounded very silly”
”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has worked well.’
On bin Laden – ‘It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.’
‘He’s going to pay, and he will die.’
‘I supported the assault weapon ban.’
‘I don’t support any gun control legislation.’
‘I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.’
‘I never really called myself pro-choice.’
‘Based on the numbers of American Muslims… I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified.’ [Ed., According to the Census this criterion would eliminate members of 25 U.S. religions.]
‘A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.’ [Ed., Presumably, this would include cabinet positions.]
‘Roe v. Wade has gone too far.’
‘I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.’
‘I like mandates. The mandates work.’
‘I think it’s unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.’
‘The TARP program… was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures.’
‘When government is… bailing out banks… we have every good reason to be alarmed.’
On the so-called “Romneycare” ‘If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.’
Again on “Romneycare” ‘What works in one state may not be the answer for another.’
‘I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.’
‘Ronald Reagan is my hero.’
‘I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life.’
‘Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.’
In 2003, Romney launched the Massachusetts Green Energy Fund, saying the program offered “an opportunity to capitalize on two emerging trends: the growing level of investment interest in clean energy and the importance of Massachusetts’ academic and corporate R&D in forming clean energy technology companies,”
On President Obama’s green energy programs These programs “invite cronyism and outright corruption”and should be disbanded.
July 11, 2011[ President Obama] “didn’t create the recession, but he made it worse, and longer.”
July 30, 2011 Asked about his July 11th assertion “I didn’t say things are worse.”
2009 “I think there is a need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time.”
September 2011 ‘I have never supported the President’s recovery act. No time, nowhere, no how have I ever supported the President’s stimulus.’
In 2008 On “Romneycare,” he bragged that it “helped get health insurance premiums down and got all of our citizens insured. If we can do that nationally, we not only help Michigan and the auto industry, but the entire nation.”
2011 “One thing I’d never do is impose a state’s plan on the entire nation, that makes no sense. I’ll repeal Obamacare.”
2006 Romney was against “rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country.”
2011 “I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it’s not appropriate.”
The consortium spokesperson explained that “the rate and number of flip-flops exceeds any we have encountered before.” This may indicate “that Mr. Romney has no connective tissue between the two sides of his brain which, in the average person, leads to a general consistency in beliefs.” The researchers did not imply that Mr. Romney was a “serial liar,” but suggested that, without the vital connective tissue that exists in the normal human brain between the two halves of the brain, he may have no ability to recognize that he’s taking contrary positions on most every issue he speaks about.” The spokesperson concluded by observing, “it’s either that or he’s just plain stupid. In that case, there’s nothing that can be done at this late date to remedy that.”
Updates will appear here as this vital research continues.
Perfesser Gingo, aka Newt Gingrich, a GOP presidential sorta-hopeful, was in full Gingo last night at yet another sorta-presidential debate. Showing off what makes him simultaneously interesting and tiresome, he pulled out one of his characteristic bits of “truthiness” (i.e. lying) when discussing “Obamacare” and “Romneycare.” Here’s the CNN transcript of the exchange between the Perfesser and Mitt Romney:
Perfesser GINGO: And candidly, Mitt, your plan ultimately, philosophically, it’s not Obamacare, and that’s not a fair charge. But your plan essentially is one more big government, bureaucratic, high-cost system, which candidly could not have been done by any other state because no other state had a Medicare program as lavish as yours, and no other state got as much money from the federal government under the Bush administration for this experiment. So there’s a lot of big government behind Romneycare. Not as much as Obamacare, but a heck of a lot more than your campaign is admitting.
COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds. ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you. Perfesser GINGO: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation. ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you Perfesser GINGO: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation. ROMNEY: And you never supported them? Perfesser GINGO: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true. ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate? Perfesser GINGO: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare. ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate? Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation. GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
Capacity for Mendacity. That exchange is Gingrich attempting to weasel out of his support for an “individual mandate.” He oftengets away with it. He’s like an accomplished shell player – very good sleight-of-hand. He has many techniques that attempt to skirt outright lying. Gingo – master of mendacity, “given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth.” [Emphasis added] (Merriam-Webster) Yes, divergence from absolute truth, that’s it, that’s the shell game. Gingo’s sneaky dishonest. He’s arrogant. He underestimates his listeners, as I say, he often gets away with it. Not here. The above exchange with Mitt Romney shows a few of his shell game tricks:
Major Category:Distinction without a difference. Shell players use verbal distraction during the play to interfere with the bettor’s concentration. Gingo attempts this early on:
ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you. Perfesser GINGO: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
Here’s a deconstruction of Gingo’s comment:
“You got it from the Heritage Foundation” – “It” is the individual mandate concept.” Yes, it is true that Romney got the idea from Heritage. Gingo, though, is here trying to confuse Romney and the audience through another of his methods, over-literalism. The facts that will emerge as the colloquy continues will prove, of course, that Gingrich did indeed support an individual mandate, and has done so for more than a decade. Here, though, he hopes to befuddle Romney so much that he either drops the subject altogether or apologizes for mischaracterizing Gingo’s views. He’s using over-literalism to confuse, as you’ll see as we move along.
Gingo’s next comment moves his ploy forward:
ROMNEY: And you never supported them [Heritage Foundation]? GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.
Surprisingly perhaps, Gingo agrees that he agrees with Heritage about the individual mandate. His next comment is an attempt to paint Romney as a liar, “what you said just now plain wasn’t true,” referring back to Romney’s challenge that Gingo had agreed with Heritage about the individual mandate in regard to “Obamacare.” This is where he’s rolling out his use of the “distinction without a difference” ploy in earnest.
Expect this every time the Perfesser of Political Mendacity opens his mouth.
The Iowa Straw Poll, the Ames Straw Poll, or the Iowa Caucus convenes tomorrow night at its fundraiser where befuddled and thoroughly pissed off evangelical Christians will huddle over BBQ and engage the candidates in Iowa Republican jibber jabber. “Excuse me, Senator Santorum, do you know what happens when I google ‘Rick Santorum’?” Or “Look Gingrich, as President, will you or will you not set up an Apocalypse Emergency Response Agency? Just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ this time. Please.” Or “Mr. Paul, What’s your position on banning nocturnal emissions?” After stuffing corncobs into their pie holes and misinformation into their noodles, they’ll knock off their ballots, go home, and wait for who knows how long to reconvene, hopefully 2015. (They only meet during Democratic presidencies.)
In any event, this shindig seems to have little influence on most anything presidential, and one can only be pleased by that. Since its inception in 1979, and its six meetings in all, it accurately picked the next president one time, in 1999. So, it’s a fact: if the Iowa Caucus is a gateway to anything presidential, it’s a gateway to this 1999 Ames winner: Mitt Romney. If history is a guide, although it seldom is when you need it to be so . . . Well, let’s chance it . . . If history is a guide, then who do we pull for tonight? Who do we most want to see win and be flummoxed by the Iowa Caucus curse? Well, we don’t want the winner to be any of the ravenous batsh*t crazy ones. I may be proved naive, but don’t we want to face one of the mental patients in the general election?
So with the drooling loonies eliminated, who is left? . . . . . Um . . . . Mitt Romney. Jon Huntsman. They’re the only choices available. The others are certifiable, including Rick Perry who’s rumored to garner a bunch of write-in votes tonight. So, which one? Hmmm. Romney’s a shifty lying heartless bastard. But batsh*t crazy? Not yet. But soon, and for the rest of his life. Huntsman? Well, he seems like a guy trying to navigate between “certifiably nuts” and “batsh*t crazy.” But he seems eminently ignorable. So that’s what we’ll do. Romney would have a chance against Obama, Huntsman, not at all. So, since we want to eliminate, via the Ames Straw Poll curse, the one who would have a chance, then it’s Romney. . . . Go Mitt! I think.
Please. . . This whole GOP primary thing is light years beyond ludicrous, but not as comical as it could be. Since all news, good and bad, is first of all entertainment, you Republicans ought to go for more. America loves fun!!! So, simply make a small rule change in the GOP presidential nomination process and run the primaries like Survivor. Simply transport all the presently noteworthy nominees to a Samoan island and let them have at it! Imagine the ratings! Independent voters like reality shows, and that’s the group you guys need the most in 2012. So, don’t just sit there, get moving! Imagine Gingo Gingrich in the Survivor Menu challenge or on an 11-mile hike. My money’s on Mitt Romney being voted off first (or simply garroted by Bachmann).
See what I mean? Get on with it Republicans. The Fall 2012 voting season is almost upon us.
