Newt, Herm and Mitt

The accusations by hired bimbos have hurt Herman Cain’s presidential chances, so I have a second choice.

Had you told me even last year that I would have handed the highly coveted Unseen Moon Seal of Approval to Newt Gingrich, I would have scoffed.

First off, there’s the name, Newt.  It’s a species of lizard.  True, it’s short for Newton*, but even so. And does the man ever smile?  Likability matters.

One clear trait that does not matter to me, but it does to others, is that he’s a horn dog.  At 68, I doubt he remains one, but he was a horn dog most of his life.  At age 19, right out of high school, he married his geometry teacher, age 26.

That marriage lasted 18 years, and there is a myth connected to it.  It is widely believed that Newt visited that wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery, and he dropped the divorce bomb on her.

Newt has long denied the story, and their daughter Jackie revealed this year that it was her mother who sought the divorce, that the issue came up before her hospitalization, and her surgery was not for cancer, but a benign tumor.

Gingrich had had an affair and married the new object of his affection in 1981.  But you can’t restrain a horn dog for long, and in the mid-1990s he had an affair with a flashy blonde named Callista, a congressional staffer 23 years his junior.

They wed in 2000, and I imagine he’ll stick with her.  She’s quite an eyeful, if you like that sort of thing.  I prefer more chocolate varieties of womenfolk.

Newt is a walking encyclopedia, clearly the brightest on the political stage on both sides of the aisle.  He has a Ph.D. in modern European history from Tulane.  Yes, he is Dr. Gingrich.  Interestingly, he’s a top book reviewer on Amazon.

And he is very effective in setting and meeting conservative goals.  Plus, he is learning to smile.  I saw him on the telly a few days ago, and clearly his handlers had stressed the value of happy faces.

A poll released within the past 24 hours shows Gingrich passing Cain.

Maybe that’s why he was smiling.

* * * *

Herman Cain has handled the bimbo issue very badly, issuing contradictory and sloppy responses.  I don’t believe the bimbos’  stories, but Cain’s reactions to the crisis have been dreadful.

It’s a shame because if there is one thing the nation needs, it’s a fiery speaker in the White House, an FDR or Clinton.  We need a leader, which we certainly lack in the humdrum, wooden, anti-American, left-wing, radical beanpole currently sitting in the Oval Office.

Cain may yet pull his campaign out of the fire.  He would be more inspiring than Gingrich even if Newt learns to smile.  Either would easily defeat Obama.

* * * *

And then there is Mitt Romney, the slick, picture-perfect president by all appearances.  But he remains eternally stuck with 23 percent of the Republican voters, never much higher, never much lower.

No matter the issue, no matter the venue, no matter anything, over three-fourths of Republicans prefer somebody else, somebody who wears normal, not Mormon, underwear.

Real men wear boxers or briefs.  There is a hybrid called boxer briefs, a contradiction.  This is what I sport, if you were wondering.

I have them on right now.

* * * *

* Isaac Newton, an English genius.

(Note 1:  I have added three links to the right-side column.  Before there was Cain.  Now there are links to Gingrich, Romney and Obama!)

(Note 2:  Tomorrow is election day in my developing nation, and I will be voting.  It’s fun to vote in two countries.)

8 thoughts on “Newt, Herm and Mitt”

  1. The news this week makes one wonder what sort of neuroses drive citizens into politics. That, of course, is a rhetorical question. A toxic mix of needing the approval of others combined with a lust for power. And I have enough of that in my own personality. I don’t need to seek it out elsewhere. So, I write.


    1. Steve: You lust for power?!

      Yes, that is primarily what drives people to seek the presidency. Many quality candidates reject the possibility now because of the absurd scrutiny the media place on them. The hyper-scrutiny is a relatively modern thing made far easier by the internet.

      In the olden days, reporters (always men) were willing to overlook many foibles in candidates if they did not consider them pertinent. Plus, they were often drinking buddies with the candidates and pols.

      Everything is considered pertinent nowadays. Whatever dirt you can find. And how many people have no skeletons at all in their closets? Virtually all of us have something in there. I do.

      As women gained a place at the reporting table (previously, they only covered “light,” female-oriented things like cake sales and society luncheons), it became harder to ignore raunchier elements of candidates’ lives. Women reporters tend not to play along. Is this a positive development? I think not. Since women reporters don’t play along, the men reporters cannot either. It’s a constant free-for-all dirt hunt.

      FDR had his outside romance. JFK famously dallied with Marilyn Monroe, and God knows who else. Little was written about it at the time, and it was definitely known. And presidents who came even earlier? No telling how many horn dogs have lived in the White House. Did the Republic collapse? Decidedly not. Clinton came along too late for the Good Ole Boys to cover for him.

      The bottom line is that the constant scrutiny indeed keeps many good candidates away from political races. It is a very negative development. Harmful to the nation.


  2. I don’t weigh in here very often but I love a political debate…
    Re your comments about Herman Cain I have to disagree and say that I believe
    the women who are accusing him are telling the truth. There are too many who have come forward and none appear to have any reason (financial or otherwise) to lie. That said, Herman’s harassment is no different than that of Bill Clinton (or JFK for that matter). What worries me about Cain is that he is so ill informed — The China nuclear thing is a great example. Newt? Well it’s not entirely clear what his agenda is but I think his personal life should be left out of the process. As to Obama, I think he has not done as much as he could in any number of arenas. However, I completely disagree with the socialist label — given who he has hired and how he has reacted to financial matters that charge is a non-starter — it is little more than Tea Party rhetoric. That said, please don’t take offense — While I suspect we are at different ends of the political spectrum, my comments are offered in a friendly manner to promote discussion — I enjoy your blog and hope that one day we can sit down in a cafe to debate politics and discuss life in general. I would enjoy that.


    1. Brian, I have no problem whatsoever with politely phrased differences of opinion. Take offense? It’s impossible to offend me. As for Cain’s situation, there is no way to know the truth, so one must go with one’s gut. Your gut and mine point in opposite directions.

      Here is an interesting column from the controversial and often shrill Ann Coulter, but on this issue what she writes is interesting. I trust her facts here. I think the harassment accusations are a set-up. As always, I could be mistaken.

      We agree that Cain appears too often to be in over his head. That saddens me.

      When I say Obama is a socialist, it’s just shorthand for what is, to me, his clear conviction that government should be a force for leveling society. Equality of outcomes as opposed to equality of opportunity. The U.S. is drowning in red ink, and he’s doing nothing to reverse that. Quite the contrary. The Republicans also have a hand in causing the problem, I admit.

      You are quite free to disagree!


      1. Thanks very much!..and by the way, I hope you translated the “Good night. my love” post into Spanish and slipped it under your wife’s pillow.


        1. Alas, Brian, I cannot write in Spanish like I write in English, not even close. And my wife does not speak more than very rudimentary English. She does not read my websites and never has.


  3. Ah Señor…while I have been aware of your professed dislike for the current POTUS for some time now, I will gladly take another 4 years of him over ANYONE in the current field of Republican contenders. The debates are a joke as are all of the players…I well remember the debates between John Kerry and the Smirking Chimp…Kerry leveled him on every one…and still the American public chose 4 more years of war and lies. Now that I am living down here my interest in American politics has waned even more than it had when I was still living in gringolandia…but it will indeed be interesting to see the outcome when the fat lady stops singing. Saludos!


    1. Señor Charles: We’ll certainly have to agree to disagree on this issue.

      The Smirking Chimp! I like that. We agree. I was never a fan of Dubya, but I’d swap him for the radical in the White House now in a New York minute.

      As for your waning interest in American politics, you might want to consider the fact that what happens in the U.S. affects the entire world, and it certain affects our new country.

      As for the debates, well, take a look at the video that I link to at the bottom of this comment. After the recent boondoggle of responses from my previous main man, Herman Cain, following the bimbo outbreak and some subsequent remarks from him on other issues, I have abandoned him with regret. I have joined the Gingrich train after leaping from the Cain train.

      The video is excerpts from Gingrich’s debates. Blew me away, as the young people say.


Comments are closed.