"...Admittedly, Eisenhower Gave Us Nixon...Still and All, Though....."

It might come as a surprise to any regular reader here, but my roots are Republican.

Born in the southern California of the 1950's, I was surrounded, from that first slap (and I always just assumed that those family members in attendance insisted that the doctor use his right hand), by relatives who would no more have even considered endorsing, let alone voting for, a Democrat than they would have even considered not making certain and sure that any out of state visitor wasn't treated to, at least, one complete, action packed day at Disneyland.

And if Walt Disney had ever run for President, good golly miss molly, talk about your historic Electoral College landslide.

Obviously, in that climate, it was inevitable that, along with my minimum daily requirements of vitamins, minerals and fiber, there would be a healthy dollop of creamy conservatism served right along side.

I was ten years old before the show biz glitz of the Kennedy show in 1960 alerted me to the fact that everyone was, in fact, not born Republican.

Here the thing about that, though.

I recall the elders being engaged in spirited discussion, even passionate philosophizing about the contrast between the two polar points of view.

There was never a moment's doubt about which side of the line the family would always choose to live and breathe.

There was no gray. It was black and white.

This, of course, being in the days before the advance of television technology gave us both programs in living color and states that came in red and blue.

Concrete commitment to the conservative cause notwithstanding, what I do not recall was vitriol.

Make no mistake, there was no mistaking the depth of the family dislike of any and all things Democrat.

But it seemed to be understood that it's one thing to be doggedly determined to offer up a healthy, nutritionally sound alternative cereal to the national breakfast table.

And quite another to spend vast amounts of time, energy and money to accomplish nothing more than peeing in the existing Cheerios.

Again make no mistake and assume no naivete', petty politics is as much an American tradition as getting in the ten items or less line with twenty items.

But, risking the inevitable tsking that results from rose colored looks back to good old days, one thing seems pretty obvious.

It's really no longer how you play the game.

And totally about whether you win or lose.

Red state, blue state, left wing, right wing, in support of or passionately opposed to...we all liked Ike.

Can't help but suspect that, these days, even Ike wouldn't find much to like.

"...You Don't Have To Be A Humorist To See This Is One Opportunist Who's Never Heard The Word Ricidivist..."

Full disclosure.

I am not racist.

Nor sexist.

Nor misogynist.

Nor, particularly, activist, adventurist, ultra rightist, ultra leftist or hedonist.

Although, truth be told, I am a sentimentalist.

Or so I've shared with my therapist.

I do freely confess, though, to being a stupidist.

And that's a stupidist, not the stupidest.

For the latter, you have to go south, young man.

(By Patrik Jonsson | Christian Science Monitor )

Declaring Joseph Ozment “rehabilitated,” Gov. Haley Barbour included the convicted killer among over 200 pardons he issued in his last days as governor of Mississippi.

Mr. Ozment was last seen leaving the Governor's Mansion, where he was a convict “trusty,” on Jan. 8 when he got into a car driven by his grandmother.

Ozment, whom Barbour described Friday as a “free man,” is now being sought by Mississippi authorities investigating the constitutionality of Barbour's mass pardons, which shocked many Mississippians, including victims and law enforcement. The list included over 40 murderers, rapists and others convicted of violent crimes.

The unusual manhunt is the latest twist in a peculiar tale of Southern patriarchy and redemption that has dogged Mr. Barbour since he left office earlier this month. The governor has defended his actions, saying the state pardon board had already freed most of the people, and that the clemency was mainly designed to give worthy ex-convicts the right to vote and hunt.

This particular piece goes on for a few paragraphs but I ended my reading here.

Hard to continue when dealing with the coffee coming through my nose from the laughter.

Said snort/spit take occurring, of course, as I read the last sentence.

The governor has defended his actions, saying the state pardon board had already freed most of the people, and that the clemency was mainly designed to give worthy ex-convicts the right to vote and hunt.

The temptation here is to castigate the entire sovereign state of Mississippi as the last remaining bastion of inbreeding in modern times.

That would be unfair and incorrect.

Keeping Up With The Kardashians has disproven the theory that inbreeding is confined to the Confederacy.

Here's the thing, though...ya'll...

You've got to laugh, or weep, at the luscious lunacy of a freely elected governor of a state in the United States of America who sees his role in the protection of human rights as seeing to it that those who have been convicted of felonies have returned to them their constitutional right to vote...

...and hunt.

Because, way down South in the land of cotton, there are no two more precious possessions than a ballot box and a gun rack.

It's that kind of mindset that turned me into a stupidist.

Again, a stupidist.

Not the stupidest.

For that, you have to be Haley Barbour.

Or anybody who ever flipped a lever next to his name.

"...Put Them All On A Desert Island and Cue The Tribal Council...Even Better..."

Some years ago, Paul McCartney was asked some inane question, or another, about the state of world affairs.

Because, even then, media somehow operated under the still held belief that when it comes to cogent political perspective, the first, best place to get it is from movie and/or TV and/or music stars.

McCartney, full of the youthful exuberance that, well, youth doles out but, at the same time, showing an already mature, impishly veiled contempt for media who were operating under the still held belief that that when it comes to cogent political perspective, the first, best place to get it is from movie and/or TV and/or music stars, replied, give or take a paraphrase, thus:

"Personally, I think they should put all the world leaders in a stadium and let them duke it out. Whoever walks out, wins."

Given the pasty look resulting from the pampered lifestyle of your garden variety despicable despots, that was arguably both an impudent, and insightful, reply.

And, if you think about it for a second, not a half bad idea.

Fast forward forty years and it occurs to me that we might be wise to reconsider Sir Paul's simple, silly/savvy solution as the already mundane march to Washington has already reached new levels of mundane.

But, perhaps, with just a little timely tweak.

As demonstrated by the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania.




Couple of instant impressions here.

First, say what you will about his performance as the keeper of the castle.

But even the most righteous right winger would come off petty and petulant by denying that, when it comes to vocal versatility, the guy's got game.

And if you think it takes stones to cha-cha like Chaz in front of millions of people each week, imagine what it takes to be re-running for the highest elected office in the land and risk ragging, rebuffing, and Republican ridicule, by imitating the iconic voice of Al Green.

With Al Green in the audience.

All of which, of course, for the benefit of my friends and family on the other side of the aisle, has absolutely nothing to do with the man's qualifications, or lack, to be given another four years in the Oval.

As if the current criteria does anything to guarantee us a quality choice.

But, I digress.

Since the process, as is, is, at best, arguably nothing more than a talent and/or personality contest, why not concede it as such and make the most out of it?

Why put ourselves through ten months of lame lies and rhetorical ramblings when we can choose our next President and actually look forward to tuning in to the latest attempt to curry our favor at the same time?

Yes, kids, I'm talking...

"The Voice- D.C. Edition".

"The D.C. Factor".

"American Hail to the Idol".

Call it what you will, the opportunity is obvious and the potential is powerful.

Each week, they sing, they are judged and we vote.

Until, come summer time, the field is narrowed to two.

Then, each week they sing.

Until the final week when they sing and we vote.

And the winner is awarded a major label recording contract...and the title of Commander In Chief.

Simon and Paula and, uh, what's his/her name?

Yawn.

Randy and Steven and JLo?

Snooze.

Let's talk Blitzer and Coulter and O'Reilly.

Yeah.

And if turns out that Obama is a one trick pony (think Katherine McPhee singing Over The Rainbow), if Romney can't carry a tune even if it was subsidized by state mandated health care dollars, if Newt has to deal with the dilemma of which of the wives get the song dedication, so be it.

It's a small price to pay to be sincerely entertained, as opposed to anesthetized, by the year long yammering.

And, for the every now and then comic relief, we could throw in "cameos" by once and no longer viable candidates.

Tonight....

Rick Perry sings "Oops, I Did It Again"....

Michele Bachmann sings "Bette Davis Eyes"...

Herman Cain sings "(I'm A) Love Man"...

Sarah Palin sings " I Can See Russia From The House of The Rising Sun"...

Man, I think we're onto something here.

And for those pooh-poohing naysayers who might naysayingly pooh poo the idea as making a mockery of the majestic process of picking a President, I would, all due respect, rebuttingly reply...

Your majestic process is pretty much already little more than a song and dance show.

So, lighten up.

And stay tuned.

"...Resignation As Inspriation..."

Today's poignant presentation from the "keeping things in perspective" folder.

It speaks volumes that, if asked, a great many people would prefer to keep this lady employed as opposed to keeping a great many of the fully "functional" people who have the same job.

There is a palpable sadness on display here.

And it has nothing to do with her physical condition.

It has totally to do with the fact that Gabrielle Giffords has to work extra hard to simply walk forward....

...while managing to take the high road that so few others even manage to find.

"...If You Don't Like The Weather...Or The Current Front Runner....Just Wait Ten Minutes..."

First, the center line disclaimer.

The Democrats haven't exactly been a font of inspiration lately, either.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch's right wing...

The Republicans, regardless of their "F Troop meets Benny Hill" adventures this primary season, have managed to make history.

For the first time ever, the first three presidential primaries have been won by three different candidates.

Channel surfing around last night just past South Carolina poll closing time, I witnessed the following quick spins, give or take, paraphrase here or there, on that accomplishment from the usual gang of suspects.

Fox News- "....clearly the Republican party is still fine tuning their message and determining which of the fine candidates will best take that message to the American people to insure victory in November..."

MSNBC- "...clearly the Republican party is in total disarray with no clear vision, no clear message and no clear road to victory in November..."

CNN- "...tune in tonight as Piers Morgan conducts a no holds barred interview with the reunited cast of "Growing Pains"...."

No matter what spin you subscribe to, there is a pretty non-partisan, no brainer conclusion to be drawn from the primary results to date.

There is no clear front runner for the 2012 Republican nomination for President Of The United States.

And, believe it or not, at this point some of the pundits and pontificators are even offering up cautious conjecture that the condition of the G.O.P. candidate collection might actually be ripe for the arrival/entry of yet another, as yet unannounced, as yet undetermined pair of eyes on the prize.

I'm reminded of two things at this juncture.

That garden variety scene in most buddy movies where chaos, disaster and/or danger are imminent and unavoidable and the buddies look at each other, each with an expression on their face that clearly reads "you first".

And Ray Bolger.

Admittedly, Mr. Jumbo, Dumbo, et al, ever the imposing pachyderm remains, for the moment, the iconic symbol of the Grand Old Party.

At the rate they're going, though, I'm thinking they might want to consider a hip/retro update of the whole image.

And maybe go with the whole Scarecrow thing.

http://youtu.be/yejtZgzB5Ik

Cause, the thing is ,that whole "of course, people do go both ways" business seems to have this year's Republican philosophy down pat.

Although, from all appearances at this point, their campaign trail ain't no yellow brick road.

"...Red States, Blue States...and The Pot And The Kettle..."

First, today's Scriptural perspective on the process politic.

Ecclesiastes 1:9.

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Charleston, South Carolina (CNN) -- The four remaining GOP candidates played to their individual strengths on Thursday and tried to leave a lasting impression in a final, boisterous debate two days before South Carolina's pivotal primary.

In a campaign cycle where debates have had direct consequences on the ebb and flow of the race, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich turned his contempt for the media into one of his strongest performances yet. When CNN Chief National Correspondent John King opened the debate with a question about open marriage, following an interview by Gingrich's ex-wife that he had sought one, the Republican chastised him.

"To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine," Gingrich told King, the moderator of the debate.

Gingrich's response elicited loud applause from the audience.

A common lament, in this day and time, is that the political process in America has deteriorated into a morass of malicious, malevolent mudslinging, long on low blow and short on substantive spark, said lament usually accompanied with a wistful wish for a a return to what we inevitably refer to as "the good old days".

Fact is, when it comes to the hallowed days of good old past, much like any supposed claim of legitimate talent in anyone named Kardashian, there simply ain't no such thing.

The process of politics has been malicious and malevolent since inception.

And while it's certainly Newt's prerogative to get his panties in a twist about this slap or that slander, implying that some new level of "despicable" has been achieved in the age old process is like suggesting that there is something dirtier than dirt.

Not to mention the aforementioned Ecclesiastes editorial.

As illustrated by a few "oldies but goodies" from campaigns past.

Obviously, the terms "campaign trail" and "high road" are not synonymous.

And, as another adventure in the four year cycle gets under way, there is, among the myriad questions to be asked and answered along the way, really only one question that we are able to answer with certainty from the outset.

So, what's new?

Not much.

"...The Motto The Merrier..."

There's something missing from this year's Republican presidential aspirant assemblage.

Besides that.

And besides that, too.

What's missing is anything resembling a cool, catchy, well crafted campaign slogan.

A catch phrase that looks equally at home stickered on a rich kid's school locker, a designer gym bag or the ass end of a Lexus SUV.

Toyota Camry?

Seriously, we're talking about Republicans right now.

And Republicans, right now, seem to be not only in search of a certified superstar but a slogan we can savor.

Check out this year's nominal nominees.

Mitt Romney - Believe In America

Ron Paul - Restore America Now

Rick Santorum - The Courage To Fight For America

Rick Perry - Get America Working Again

Sensing a theme here?

Don't know which agency, etc, is working for who, but it's pretty clear that whoever has the copyright on the word "America" is raking in some serious simoleans this election cycle.

Meanwhile, the just departed Michele Bachmann offered up this bromide during her season on the stump.

"Restoring Constitutional Conservative Values".

Erudite and sincere, to be sure.

But, just as sure, over the heads of the millions of members of the Republican base who think that NASCAR should be an Olympic event and "Pawn Stars" got robbed at the Emmys.

And last, but certainly not least, there's Mr. Gingrich Who Wants To Go To Washington.

"Newt 2012".

This implies either a genius of brevity.

Or a attitude of "whatever".

This year's scarcity of sharp and snappy slogan seems not only regrettable but, frankly, a little ironic given the five second sound byte attention span culture in which we live. Not to mention the tradition of fun/fanciful phraseology throughout political history.

Here's a gaggle of greatest hits from our respective partisan pasts.

1840- William Henry Harrison - "Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too"
Good alliteration, always a plus. The actual reference is, of course, dated but a little Google will enlighten you as to how clever this was in its time.

1884- Grover Cleveland - "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar From The Gate Of Maine"
Obviously, Blaine was Cleveland's opponent. And, just as obviously, Cleveland's media folks had no problem with the concept of "going negative".

1884- James G. Blaine - "Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa? Gone to The White House, Ha, Ha, Ha"
Grover Cleveland as much as admitted that he had fathered an illegitimate child years before the presidential campaign. And Blaine's media folks as much as admitted that they had no problem with the concept of "going negative" either.

1924- Calvin Coolidge - "Keep Cool With Coolidge".
Calvin Coolidge, in his day, had a personality that would have made Al Gore seem like a fire and brimstone preacher. That said, you gotta hand it to his sloganeers for recognizing the obvious opportunity here and carpally diem-ing it.

1952- Dwight Eisenhower - "I Like Ike".
Like basic black, classically simple and understated, while being neighborly as all giddyup at the same time.

1964- Barry Goldwater - "In Your Heart, You Know He's Right".
Poignant, outreaching, right up to, but not past, the line of being preachy and even a little condescending while appealing to the common sense in all mankind. And a value added comedy touch when one bunch of Democratic wags got a hold of it and adjusted it slightly, answering back "Yeah....extreme right..."

1968- Richard Nixon - "Nixon's The One".
Once again, simple, catchy and memorable. Also, as it turned out unfortunately, sadly true.

Somewhere around this time, subsequent slogans began to lack snap, the phrases began to fade.

Every now and then, a little glimmer of past glory. But, for the most part, it seemed as if the wheels had come off the witty wagon.

And, in some cases, the slogans were just plain sloppy.

1984- Ronald Reagan - "It's Morning Again In America"
Well, okay. But what about the millions of voters around the country who would honestly fess up that they simply don't consider themselves morning people?

1984- Walter Mondale - "America Needs A Change"
There's certainly a strong case to be made about how shitty some things are in this country, but I'm not sure the image of America with a full diaper is what you want to use to convince people you're the guy to fix those things.

1992- Ross Perot - "Ross for Boss"
When you've got lots of money / you can afford to be funny.

2000- George W. Bush - "Real Plans For Real People"
I think we can all appreciate the intended sentiment here. But I think we can all also see where this could easily be construed as some kind of devious plot to create a race of artificial, but amazingly lifelike, loyalist cyborgs.

Admittedly, there are far more important things to consider when choosing a presidential candidate than the quality, or lack, of their respective campaign slogan.

But I think the ability to sum up, in a few, sharp, succinct words what one is all about is an ability that can't be too overrated in someone we are hoping will lead and inspire us.

Because if they can't come up with a simple catchphrase to excite us about their product and/or service , how are we to be expected to buy what they're selling?

In your heart, you know I'm right.