Romney and Gingrich appear to be liars…

It is not news that politicians lie — not misspeak, exaggerate, embellish, but just plain engage in knowingly not telling the truth — lying.

We pretty much know now if we did not already that Newt Gingrich is a bald face liar, and for that matter so is Mitt Romney. Nice to know when one of these two might be the next president.

I have not seen direct evidence on out-and-out mendacity on the part of President Barack Obama yet but he is not fighting for the nomination; he is already in office, although of course he is beginning to fight for a second term.

During Thursday night’s debate Gingrich tried his bully- the-questioner trick but this time he was up against a real newsman who did not let Gingrich rattle him. Gingrich had previous to the debate charged that Romney was not transparent enough in his personal finances. Then when Blitzer asked Gingrich about that, Gingrich, who was on the defensive in the debate, tried to score some points like he did in South Carolina when he bullied John King when asked about a charge of philandering (or permission to fool around, really) by one of his former wives. I did not see the debate and did not watch a video, but as I understand it, King was caught off guard. Thursday night (I did see it), Blitzer kept his composure and reminded Gingrich that he was the one who brought the subject up and then got help from Romney who commented it was too bad someone can make a charge and then not want to talk about it when questioned on it further. Easy to make a charge, but not as easy to back it up.

Bullying journalists may be good for the consumption of partisans who may already be on your side — it does not play well with open-mined people just wanting to make a decision on who should be president.

For Romney’s part, on those finances Gingrich spoke of, maybe he is not as transparent as he should be. With a smirk on his face Thursday night Romney absolved himself of all responsibility for his finances, such as investments in Freddie Mac, which he so criticizes, by saying everything is in a blind trust. Not sure about that. Just read this morning that such is not so. And even when things are in a so-called blind trust, the person with the money decides how that trust operates.

Romney also claimed to be ignorant of some of his own TV Ads. Perhaps so, but then why the tag lines at the end that say: “I’m Mitt Romney and I approve of this message”.  A political consultant later said that it is standard practice for candidates to tape those tag lines, not having seen what is actually put out. That is kind a lie or dishonesty in itself and certainly a wrongful abrogation of personal responsibility for someone who wants to lead the United States.

When you listen to Gingrich you hear an egotistical blowhard who does for sure have a lot of ideas, and all over the place and not always strictly conservative, but you get the impression he really likes to hear himself talk more than anything else.

Romney is cold and calculating and could not help himself when he used the words fire someone again Thursday night. He said if he was a CEO and someone came to him with the Gingrich proposal of colonizing the moon he would “fire” him. Romney got into dutch with the job-sensitive populace some weeks ago when he said he likes to fire people who don’t provide good service — it just does not sound right to lick your chops at being able to fire someone.

While I think that Romney would be a more responsible and steady hand as president than Gingrich, his cold, calculating manner bothers me.

I’ve just been writing about the Republicans because that is where the action is now.

I have been disappointed with Obama, but I’m starting to warm up to him a little.

He does a Good Al Green singing impersonation, as seen via this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/president-obama-sings-al-green-lets-stay-together-sales-jump_n_1236428.html

Read earlier today that Rick Santorum may decide to call it quits. Seems like a good idea. Cut your losses. There’s always next time.

We’d really have a shakeup if Ron Paul was elected and got his way — nearly impossible on both counts. And I don’t think a lot of people would like it, despite some of the more enticing parts of his platform — peace, personal freedom. His libertarian approach makes Democrats and Republicans appear as two peas in a pod.

——————-

What follows is my previous post (cleaned up a little) I did just after the debate:

I turned off the CNN Republican Florida debate when Wolf Blitzer asked the question why would your wife be the best First Lady?

I had already watched much of it, and I decided to go to dinner.

But I came back and began to watch a rerun of it and finally got to the point where I had walked out.

And now I am writing this, trying to listen to the rest of it at the same time.

Looks like another win for Romney to me, and I think Newt Gingrich seemed a little off and on the defensive, while Rick Santorum was strident, more in the game, and Ron Paul was in good form and continued to show how different he is and probably how impractical on some things. On health care he seemed to suggest if government just got out of it and everyone bought their own insurance all would be good.

Yes, and how on earth would most people afford insurance on their own? Certainly not when steady employment is so much in question.

Paul said something absurd. He claimed when he was a kid since government was not yet involved in health insurance it was not all that expensive. What world did he live in? I’m 62 and the cost of health care has always been astronomical in my life time.

It is a complex problem. It would be difficult to impossible to make modern health care economical, and when you want to save your own life you are in a far different position than trying to figure out what kind of car you really need.

I did think Paul was certainly correct in his non-intervention and no nation-building approach in world affairs and with his call to try to restore open and good relations with Cuba. Fighting Fidel Castro is a relic of the Cold War.

I’m not sure how Paul sees it, but there is a major difference between non-intervention and Neville Chamberlin appeasement of world bullies — there may be times when intervention is called for, but they hopefully are limited.

I only write about these debates because I follow politics. It would be doubtful I would vote for a Republican.

But it is disappointing that with the triumph of the Obama election the Democratic Party could not unite itself and get more done.

The Republican Party is currently going through the nastiest and most bitter infighting I have ever seen in that  party.

Now it has seen most in the bitter rivalry between Romney and Gingrich. At one point during the debate I almost thought Romney was going to slap Gingrich with a pair of gloves and say: “You insulted me sir; I demand satisfaction”.

It would be interesting to see if a Republican is elected president if he could get anything accomplished.

Independent and corporate money has become the vehicle and power of politics, winning out over the old party structure.

People always have differing opinions, even when they agree in general ideology, and there is always competition for economic advantage via government through laws and polices and regulations. If everyone just goes his or her separate way we have paralysis, good for keeping needless laws in abeyance but not good for handling problems that need to be solved for the good of the citizenry.

So political parties can have a legitimate role, coalescing various divergent approaches to problems into coherent policy, but they do not seem to be functioning well at this time.

P.s.

Just finished listening to the full rerun of the debate while I was writing this. Nothing interesting enough to make me quit writing — but it is kind of an interesting political season this time around. The Republicans are actually fighting each other and not all in lockstep like some mindless fascist soldiers.

P.s. P.s.

The CNN debate program was produced something like a professional football championship game, with pre-game or debate promos, and at least one quick on-field or on-stage interview with Romney and Santorum (others, don’t know yet as I am writing this).

I kind of liked it better when public affairs programs were more staid with plain sets — still always entertaining to me — politics has been my sports, but I don’t want it to become nothing but pro-sports pizzaz. It’s too serious. There are consequences.

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: