Forget Grandiose, Return to Simple Basics

My husband and I have been discussing how Gingrich has embraced his being "Grandiose" with grandiose ideas. Well, here's our conclusion:

We don’t need grandiose ideas.

Grandiose ideas are expensive. Remember FDR and the foundation of our grandiose, excessive entitlement state? Look at Europe and their grand experiment in economic equality where the government takes care of you, cradle to grave.

Grandiose ideas only serve to self-aggrandize the person behind the grandiose idea. Fancy that sort of thing coming from Gingrich.

The problems we face do not call for grandiose ideas.

What our nation needs right now is not grandiose ideas, but a return to simple, foundational principles – principles recognized by our Founders:

• Liberty--freedom is good.

• Work--hard work is good.

• Opportunity--opportunity to succeed on one's own merits is good.

• Success--of course, success is good.

• Charity--charity, person by person, is good.

• Smaller government--States and local governments (closer to the people) can generally do things better than the federal government, and that is good.

So, instead of coming up with attention-grabbing, expensive, grandiose ideas, what we really need to do is remember and get back to our simple principles. Those are largely what is required to return to the America we believe in and love.

The Media Made Me Do It

In the Garden of Eden, when Satan tempted Adam and Eve, remember what Adam said after he ate the fruit? Eve made me do it—and it’s sort of Your fault, too, for giving me that woman. Well, Adam may have been the first to try to blame someone else for his actions, but he certainly wasn’t the last. We saw it again last night.

Newt Gingrich is a master at spinning negative attention from himself and putting it back onto someone else.

So, when CNN asked Gingrich about his open-marriage request and affair with Callista, Newt went into a tirade. Not about the corrupt morals of government officials, not about the devastating pain and anguish such behavior causes to families and society. No, he blew up over how the “Destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the media makes it hard for decent people to run for office.”

Hold on. I assume he is lumping himself into the “decent people” category. But what about the “destructive, vicious, negative nature” of his behavior and its “destructive, vicious, negative” effects on his family?

And he thinks ABC’s actions are “despicable.” Do a kettle and a pot come to mind here?

But he topped all that when he blasted the moderator for choosing to start the debate with such a question and what a horrible a beginning it was. “Don’t try to blame somebody else,” Newt warned.

Wow. Here it goes, stating the obvious, but Newt, YOU are the one who CHOSE to lie. YOU chose to deceive, and cheat with your wife. YOU. Don’t try to blame somebody else.

Here’s the really ironic thing about Gingrich complaining that the media brings all this up again right before a big vote—he did the exact same thing.

Here’s a headline from a Washington Post article dated Oct. 30, 1998: “Gingrich Orchestrated GOP Ads Recalling Clinton-Lewinsky Affair.” This multimillion dollar ad campaign was devised by Newt Gingrich. The ads revived the White House scandal with President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. The ads were about Clinton lying and denying the affair. And—I like this one—one had two mothers discussing “What did you tell your kids?” Guess when these ads aired—that’s right, just a few days before election day.

Do I even need to point out the hypocrisy of Newt leading the charge against Bill Clinton while he himself was having an affair with a Congressional aide?

But, to be fair, in an interview with James Dobson Newt explain he was moving forward with action against Bill Clinton, not because of infidelity, but because, “You cannot accept…perjury in highest officials.” I think what he’s saying here is that it’s ok to cheat and lie, as long as you don’t get caught doing so in front of a sitting federal judge.

Remembering back to Newt’s ads against Clinton has made me do some thinking. Now I ask myself, if Newt and Callista get into the White House, what am I going to tell my kids?

No Desperate Housewives, Just Desperate Politicians

In a desperate attack against Mitt Romney, a Gingrich super PAC recently released a film trying to disparage Romney’s work at Bain Capital. However, today Fox news showed an interview with two men featured in “King of Bain.” Tommy Jones and Mike Baxley were “angry” and “frustrated” with how their words had been twisted and taken out of context to attack Mitt Romney and Bain.

Neither man was informed that their comments were being used in a film about Bain and Mitt. Both men had worked at Unimac, a company taken over by Bain. Tommy and his wife were shown talking about their fears of not having insurance or income, as the ominous voice-over explained how “their brush with Mitt Romney and Bain nearly tore their family apart.” Well, in the Fox interview Tom explained that those clips were completely out of context. Tom had been talking about his experiences of later trying to go out on his own to start his own business years later. In fact, once Bain took over the company, Tommy said, “Everybody at the company received raises.” He said he went through “two promotions while it was under Bain.”

Mike’s clip in the film was his talking about how Bain shut their doors and he lost his insurance as his daughter was diagnosed with leukemia. Mike explained that the time he was talking about was after Bain had sold the company and he was going out on his own as well. He was talking about entrepreneurship, and had made that clear to the filmmakers. They took it out of context completely. They even had him sitting in an “extremely hot room” where he had to wipe a bit of sweat away, making it appear Mike was crying.

It was a bit maddening watching this interview. In fact, my teen-age son watching with me said, “Shouldn’t that be illegal to twist people’s words like that?” But I admit I laughed out loud when Megyn Kelly asked if the two men had decided who they were supporting. Tommy is undecided, but Mike got a big smile on his face and declared that, although he’s still planning to wait until Mitt gets down to Florida, after a lot of research he is really leaning toward Mitt Romney. Oh, the irony. Can we call that poetic justice?

"I like being able to fire people."

Good. Can you start with this guy?

Time for a Time Out

Have you ever watched toddlers play? When they want something they may ask for it, even try “working things out,” but in the end they just grab it or go crying to Mommy. We seem to have seen this same kind of play this week when Obama made his recess appointments when there wasn’t really a recess.

President Obama just named Richard Cordray as director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and also appointed three other people to the National Labor Relations Board. All of this was done while the Senate is actually in session (according to the Constitution). The Constitution requires that if the Senate is in session, the President must have their advice and consent for the appointments.

Forget checks and balances in the three branches of government—what about the presidential oath to defend the Constitution?

This was a sort of power play—I want it, and I will get it, no matter what. But in what he may have intended to be a show of stubborn strength, Obama just ended up showing desperation and childish weakness (not to mention lack of understanding and upholding the Constitution).

When a child grabs a toy away we cut him some slack because he hasn’t fully learned how to take turns and act rationally. But he still might get a time out.

When the president just grabs what he wants he’s showing similar traits. He is demonstrating his lack of ability to work together, follow the rules (Constitution), negotiate properly, and in general play fair with the other kids.

Well, the consequence is obvious--I think it’s time our president had a good long time out.

Choose Freedom

This year we are not just voting for a president, we’re voting for freedom. Freedom to choose.

Currently we have a president who just doesn’t trust us to make our own choices. He doesn’t trust us to choose our own health care. He doesn’t even trust us to choose our own cars. He treats us as if we are unable to function properly without a government agency to tell us what to do and how to do it.

It is as if the president wants all citizens to be on equal ground with equal reward regardless of effort, education, risk-taking, or commitment.

But America has always been the land of opportunity, innovation, and dreams. Only if people are free and have limited government can they truly choose to pursue those dreams.

As the government continues to grow our individual freedoms shrink. We are Americans. Freedom is in our blood. Our history has been made by people who love freedom, even more than their own lives.

If we want to keep that freedom, if we want to remain free to choose, now is the time to exercise that freedom and choose to end Barak Obama’s time as our president, before it’s too late.

Anything But Chocolate?

I took a few research methods classes and statistics in grad school, but I guess I missed the whole discussion on the “anything-but-that” interpretation chapters.

If I take a survey that asks me if I like chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla ice-cream best, I’m going to mark my favorite choice, which, by the way, is chocolate. But just because I mark “chocolate” does not mean that I’m only marking chocolate simply because I don’t want “strawberry” to get the most votes. It actually means I like chocolate the best that day.

The truth is, I like chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla ice-cream. But if I have to choose, I’ll take chocolate first. If, for some reason all the chocolate disappeared off the planet, I’d take vanilla (then I’d make sure all my affairs were in order, because that would be a sure sign that the end of the world was near).

So why do we keep getting so many poll interpretations saying that people want anyone but Mitt? Isn’t it possible that there are people out there who maybe just happen to like another candidate for some reason or other, and they aren’t just voting for someone simply because that someone isn’t Mitt? Frankly, if I were Rick Santorum right now I’d feel a little offended (and worried). These people are telling us that the real reason anyone voted for him, or five of the other candidates, in Iowa was simply because he wasn’t Mitt, not because they actually like him.

The other candidates have all had their surges in the polls. They have all had spurts of momentum when people suddenly give them a lot of attention. But it dies down. Mitt Romney has remained the constant through it all. And just like how I occasionally will eat strawberry ice-cream, or maybe vanilla just for a little change, I always go back to chocolate, and I believe people will rally around Mitt in the end, when they’ve tried the other flavors, but make Mitt their final decision.