>Quelle Coincidence!

1 Mar

>Lead ‘grafs from two stories at The Week:

Newt Gingrich says President Obama is trampling the Constitution by refusing to fight for the Defense of Marriage Act….”


The former Speaker of the House is on the brink of forming an exploratory committee to run for president…..”

That’s Newt, always the pure and idealistic Public Servant.

Y’know, the Democrats are like a hard-drinkin’ uncle, undependable and spendthrift but a lot of fun ’til he passes out and drives into a school bus full of orphans. But the GOP? They’re the other uncle, a penny-pinching skinflint who keeps slapping the same old threadbare retreads on his Caddy and claimin’ they’re just as good as new.

It’s possible — only possible — that the electorate might like something other than a choice between Marxist notions drunkenly askew (or, worse, maudlin) on one hand and the same old, same old, same old fossilized Nixonian distortions of “conservatism” on the other. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it.


9 Responses to “>Quelle Coincidence!”

  1. Tango Juliet 1 March 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    >Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free. – Harry Browne

  2. BobG 1 March 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    >"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right. The Coolidge Prosperity and the Hoover Economy of Plenty were quite as bad as the New Deal. The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds."- H. L. Mencken

  3. RobertSlaughter 1 March 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    >They're out there — but getting the right level of visibility is tough. There is Ron Paul, for one, and Herman Cain is investigating a run (http://www.hermancain.com/ — not advocating, just informing) He too is mostly a libertarian Republican.Newt's stand for fiscal responsibility is commendable, but he'll *never* get elected — he wants a Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. Most women don't want an abortion, but most support the right to keep the gubberment out of their nether regions. Without the centrist women's vote, no candidate stands a chance.

  4. docjim505 1 March 2011 at 9:54 pm #

    >Rather than the amusing ol' ne'er do well uncle, I'd liken the democrats more to the worthless spouse who not only refused to get a job but also spends all the family savings on selfish crap for him / herself AND maxes out the credit cards giving cash away to his / her worthless family and friends, all the while hectoring you to get a second job "to make ends meet".Your description of the GOP is pretty much spot-on, though the skinflint occasionally likes to blow huge amounts of cash on parties and gifts to try to show that he's actually a nice guy.

  5. Roberta X 1 March 2011 at 10:33 pm #

    >Excellent points, Doc — I find happy-fun irresponsible drunks considerably less amusing than most folks do, having had a couple of friends drink themselves to death.Robert: Newt's got some serious credibility issues with me — there's that unfulfilled contract, for instance. Bob G, TJ: very apt quotes.

  6. Nathan 1 March 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    >I wouldn't vote for Newt Gingrich for if he were running for dog catcher. His 15 minutes are way, way over.

  7. Charles Pergiel 1 March 2011 at 11:49 pm #

    >Well said.

  8. RobertSlaughter 2 March 2011 at 1:15 am #

    >All of the suggested candidates (Huckabee, Romney, Gingrinch, Palin) are pretty much "meh" where I'm concerned, and "business as usual" Republicans. Palin has started to try and identify with Tea Party folks, but is mostly getting a lukewarm reception there. It also doesn't help that she steps right into the media's portrayal of her as "dumb" (I don't think she is — but she plays one on TV).The only two I have any warmth for are Paul and Cain, but both need to develop a fuller platform. But the real issue is — are any of them electable? We don't need a situation where we have Obama not-win and still get elected because the repubs ran a useless candidate who flat-out loses.

  9. joannahurley 8 March 2011 at 7:15 am #

    >Gah, you're so, so right! When I couldn't take the Democrats, and I started learning about guns, I switched to voting Republican. Now I'm learning even more and I don't want to vote for any of them, either. I'm really hitting the point where I'm going to say, "To heck with both of them," and find some obscure candidate who at least I don't have to hold my nose for.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: