From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
Just think of the headlines. Not to mention the national undertones and seething emotions that would erupt if 2008 turns into a Rudy-Hillary clash.
1) Team-Rudy will attempt to transport his image as "America's Mayor" into "America's President."
2) Team-Hillary will attempt to tarnish Rudy's image with
a) statistics on already-declining crime rates in the nation and in New York; b) Rudy's heavy-handedness and alleged civil rights violations; c) Rudy's failure to fund a critical joint-communications system for firemen, police and rescue personnel -- which might have saved many lives after the planes hit the Towers ... and, d) questions about his decision-making and performance during and after the attack ... reviving sentiments that Rudy was little more than a "PR" man -- albeit, a heroic PR man.
3) Team-Rudy will counter with the reality that, if Hillary's husband had acted responsibly against terrorism and especially after the first terrorist attack in New York -- the 9/11 attack might have been averted .... And Sandy Berger might not have been motivated to destroy classified documents to protect her otherwise "preoccupied" husband ....
a) And feminists will join soccer moms and NJ widows to declare war in the streets, kitchens and bedrooms across America -- funding their own PACS to counter the legal-beagles, corporate moguls and anti-terrorist fanatics. b) All of which will negate the far-right conservative agenda (and options) for supporting a demonstrated "person of faith" who will lead with one hand on the Bible and one on his/her heart ---- c) Much to the dismay of the MSM -- who have already re-cycled eight years of op-eds and feature stories condemning far-right Christians and conservatism.
4) Meanwhile, Team-Hillary will get all shrilly and defensive and play the "stand-by-her-man-at-any-cost" conservative-conspiracy-card against her husband and screech that Rudy-pa-tootie best watch his mouth because e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y. knows about his un-secret trysts in the goodness-gracious-Gracie-Mansion while his sick wife and kiddies slept under the same roof and how pots can't call kettles black because there's enough smudge to go around ------ as evidenced by the cheep mascara smears on his third wife's face as depicted in an un-presidential love-clutch photo on the front page of national newspapers .... yada yada yada.
5) In a futile attempt to manipulate public discourse -- an MSM operative will post the photo of Hill 'n Bill's sunset nuzzle on the beach at Hilton Head (post-Monica) and America will spend months dissecting the "worser" of two evils:
a) elect a man with questionable experience in national/international affairs (pardon the pun) and of questionable moral character, or b) elect a woman with questionable experience in governance (domestic or public -- pardon that pun, too) who has a husband of questionable moral character ....
6) And no matter how hard Team-Rudy and Team-Hillary portray their own (or their opponent's) positions on educational reform, national security, terrorism, taxation, abortion, war, marriage vs civil unions, health care, immigration or foreign affairs ---- their candidacies will reduce the 2008 election to two volatile issues: reminders of the horrors of 9/11 and the moral degradation of a former President.
New York and our nation neither deserve nor need the emotionalism that a Hillary-Rudy confrontation would invoke. We cannot afford to entrust our future to the memory of two national catastrophes. Nor do we need two candidates who played integral roles in those catastrophes.
~~~~~~
... and you're thinking, "OK, Ms. Smarty-Pants, who do we need on the 2008 ballot?"
And Ms. Smarty Pants responds, "The two most qualified candidates from each party: Bill Richardson and Mitt Romney."
Naturally, Ms. Smarty-Pants will be voting for Mitt Romney.
[Not only because 'Mitt will fit," but because Mr. Bill worked for Mr. Clinton and it was the same Mr. Bill who hired Ms. Monica to get her out of the White House after Ms. Hillary beaned HER Mr.Bill with an ashtray .... Not to mention that Mr. Bill has not demonstrated a propensity for truth-telling about his prowess in America's favorite sport (a cardinal sin, no less) and by extension -- only the good Lord knows what else he could be lying about! But you didn't need me or MSM to remind you of all that, did you?]
I've been surfing the net regularly for over a week ..... I've come to suspect that I'm the only "unaffiliated" blogger who is brandishing Mitt Romney banners and blog lists in my sidebar.
And I update the blog list daily.
Naysayers have been busier than the yaysayers .... That has to mean Mitt is doing something right.
Lots of folks (democrats, the Boston Glob Globe, pro-Rudies, pro-McVains, etc.) are working overtime to portray Romney as a flip-flopper. A nerd. A RINO. The problem is -- they are, in essence, comparing apples and oranges.
Someone will connect the dots for the naysayers later, I'm confident.
For now, I'll continue to note the dates of the supposed flip (when he was re-tooling the state of Mass-confusion or swimming up-stream against Teddy-K) with the designated flop-of-the-day. Pretty soon the naysayers will run out of Mitt memes and have to turn on each other.
An article in tomorrow's Muslim News caught my attention:
The number of Hispanic Americans converting to Islam is growing rapidly --particularly in New York, California, Texas and Florida, which have the greatest concentration of Hispanic residents.
Muslim leaders say interest in Islam has increased in the past few years, and they also note that Muslims and Hispanics, many of whom are immigrants, share a number of common concerns.
"Muslims and Hispanics face common issues and concerns, like finding their way in a new, unfamiliar country. The media focus on Islam since September 11th has also been factor."
Imam Muhammad Musri, president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, which has about 40,000 members, says Latinos and Muslims share "common denominators" as immigrants -- "immigration issues, as it is a big discussion in the United States, and there are other issues of trying to find a job, keep a job, buy a home -- all the same struggles two groups of people happen to be going through creates this bond between them".
Another commonality is through Spain's historical ties with Islam and the cultural similarities between Hispanics and Muslims.
Iman Musri says, "Many who come from Central and South America come with conservative values and, as well, Muslims come with conservative values. And here in the States they find that those values are put in[to] question or are being challenged. So it is common to see Hispanics and Muslims working on similar projects in terms of family and education and reforms to protect their values, their conservative values they have."
Many of my neighbors and associates are Hispanic. I consider myself sensitive to their cultural values and heritage. I have never heard anyone discuss their cultural similarities or "common denominators" with Muslim issues. If I am remiss (ignorant) in my knowledge of 1) Muslim (Moors) influence on Hispanic culture or 2) commonalities between Muslim and Hispanic conservatism -- I apologize.
I will discuss this with my associates and post again ....
If any readers have thoughts/reactions to this article, please feel free to comment.
A comment at a previous post prompted me to assess (again) my reasons for supporting Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.
But before I share my reasons -- I often wonder about his reasons for seeking the most powerful office in the world.
I wonder why any man who has amassed millions of dollars in economic and business ventures would even want to expose himself and his family to a labyrinth of caustic critics, quibbling detractors, moral dissectors and political piranha -- especially as a conservative!
And then I realized that there is something unique about Mitt Romney. Something more unique than his magnetic demeanor. Something unique about his composure, his deportment, his confidence, his optimism, his delivery.
He is genuine. He doesn't hedge his message with hyperbole. He is substantive, informed, aware of issues that face our nation, domestically and globally. No one denies his intelligence or expertise. He's smart. And he communicates that "smartness" with ease -- and just as importantly -- without condescension.
Have you ever listened to a politician and felt that he was speaking by rote? By canned sound-bytes? Reading from a script prepared by a slogan committee?
Mitt Romney offers a refreshingly candid and contrasting image. His countenance is that of an organizer, a designer, an administrator, an executive, a leader.
If you believe the election of 2006 told us that America wanted and needed change, then Mitt Romney is that change.
Mitt Romney doesn't invoke the visage of a politician. His successes -- political, domestic and international -- have been achieved by a unique focus, a different perspective, a new vista for change.
America needs the character, commitment and leadership of Mitt Romney. Don't be dissuaded by polls, political analysts, op eds and talking heads.
Romney recently commented about opinions and polls concerning his Mormon faith:
"If you did a poll and said: 'Could a divorced actor be elected as president? Would you vote for a divorced actor as president?' my guess is 70 percent would say no. But then they saw Ronald Reagan. They heard him. They heard his vision. They heard his experience. They said: 'I like Ronald Reagan. I'm voting for him.'
The campaign is early .... Not all America knows Mitt Romney or his vision. But once America meets Mitt Romney, I contend that he will be elected the next President of the United States. And he won't be elected as a vote against his probable opponent.
Patience with those who push the envelope and walk that thin gray line between fact and fiction, truth and half-truth, context and conjecture, apples and oranges.
Captain Ed said it succinctly in a post yesterday (the topic was Romney's religion and how those who oppose/fear him continually plant seeds of dissension):
... Free speech includes the right to criticize religious beliefs, even when the criticism goes from rational debate to mindless hatred. It also includes the right for others to criticize that speech and the politicians that appear to support it, as many on the Left manage to do whenever they get up on their high horse about Pat Robertson, a nutcase who retains a dwindling following among conservatives.
For the time being (at least), I'm trying to be even more tolerant of those who post dissenting comments here and at other forums in which I participate. If I didn't WANT anyone to react/respond to my posts, I'd remove the comment option!
Thus far, I've been fortunate. Except for a few idiots, most responses are either by kindred spirits or respectful dissenters. My bias is that I thoroughly enjoy the later two and have utmost disdain for the former.
Unlike more than a few others -- I'm so dang much older, my opinions don't normally (and I said normally) fly off the cuff of my sleeve to splatter across comment boards. Normally, I said.
Guess I'm more into that gray area -- chronologically AND mentally.
Maybe it's due to my training, background. Maybe it's that my Adrenalin is directed toward more relevant uses. But I'd rather spend five minutes collecting my thoughts than sputtering a verbal knee-jerk at some open-mouthed Neanderthal. Normally, that is. I call it responding proactively -- not reactively.
At least my intentions are good -- with full cognizance that the road to hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions.
What I sometimes note as a primary "difference" across commenters is the equivalence of an age-print.
Ever noticed?
Ever noticed how easy it is to distinguish among the hot heads, the thinkers, the manipulators and the trolls (instigators)? How about youth and maturity? I'm not suggesting that there aren't mature youths OR immature elder-folks. There are. It's just that if you listen to them long enough -- you can often tell that difference as well.
So where I'm going with this is in three distinct directions:
1) I enjoy discourse with those who focus on the message -- not the messenger. 2) I have little patience with those who can't distinguish between the two and I'm trying my best to cram stupidity, arrogance, the mis-informed, trolls, idiots and smart-asses under the umbrella of free speech. 3) And when I can't -- I promise myself to be as proactive as humanly possible.
After all, Romney IS Mormon. He has never denied it or pretended to be anything else.
And there are probably as many bigoted, red-neck far right conservatives as there are hypocritical RINO ca-ca spewing moderates AND loonie leftist moonbat dems who want nothing more than to see an old woman get her panties in a wad as they flagrantly and irresponsibly exercise their right to say anything they damn-well want to say.
Excuse me. I need to take my blood pressure medicine.
I want to clarify a thing or two about faith-based politics. And my clarification has little to do with religion.
First -- I admit that I probably read too many blogs and op eds and definitely watch too much cable news. I confess. Unless I'm running errands or going out to dinner or walking the dog or watching a favorite TV program or taking in a movie or playing poker or conducting a workshop or attending a meeting -- I'm a political junkie. It's my escape.
And I study it -- not what pundits and talking heads or politicians necessarily say -- but how they say what they say. And how often they reiterate a perspective or theme, literally and subtly. Once I've read an article or post, I go back to the headline and re-read the first 2-3 paragraphs. Just to see if my initial reaction was accurate .....
Maybe it's because I'm a moderate who lists right .... Who knows.
I'm fairly up-front about my own perspectives on a variety of topics. Like ... I'm much more spiritual than religious. I'm called irreverent, yet lots of people have faith in me. I tend to "play" politics because it's a reality of my job; therefore, I also have faith in my ability to, when necessary, be political. It comes naturally. I grew up in politics. I've worked in politics. I married into politics.
But I digress.
I've studied Mitt Romney for months. I google his name every day --- I collect and log the articles. I have a Bloglines account that includes most of the news/blog sites that post about Romney. And when I visit a favorite forum and see articles that [either innocently or intentionally] couch questions about Romney in terms of his faith, I get a tad agitated.
And I've thought about this quite a bit. And I've decided that unless the man Mitt Romney is a total facade, I believe in the man -- what he says and how he says it. Call it faith. Call it a gut-feeling. Call it a sense of security in his demeanor. Call it trust. Call it confidence. Let's just call it faith.
Faith, to me, is neither a burden nor a label. It just is. It even exists in difference colors and styles. You either have it or you don't; if you have it, you can either wear it on your sleeve (hopefully without flaunting or being obnoxious -- God forbid) or tuck it away in your heart or the back of your mind and just let it be. But to deny another person the right to either have it or to show it -- or to denigrate or ridicule a person because of it -- is, in my perspective, unacceptable.
Where am I going with this?
Oh, ye of little faith .... <chortle>
An article titled, "Latter-Day Lifer" was posted on one of my favorite forums today. The purpose of the post (I assume) was to promote discussion on either stem-cell research or Romney's pro-life stance.
Fine.
Great topics!
But before a discussion can ensue, I asked myself, wouldn't it have been more relevant to post an article in which Romney himself actually stated those positions?
But, nooooo --- ut uh. We get a loaded, slanted headline "Latter-Day Lifer" which implies, innocently or intentionally -- what?
Say it. Go ahead. Say it.
Yep. Bias. It implies a tone -- regardless of the content of the article -- preparing readers for a WASP on Mitt Romney's religion.
This article is NOT about "Italian-American Catholic Lifer" positions or "Whiskey-drinking Pseudo-Christian Woman-Chasing Lifer" positions. This article predisposes the positions of a "Latter-Day Lifer" -- i.e., the potentially negative influence of Mitt Romney's Mormonism on his political positions.
So (ever respectful of being respectful), I posted this comment:
I don't even open my door when Mormons knock -- but I'm offended when pundits shroud Romney's "positions" in the context of his faith, i.e., the title of this article: "Latter-Day Lifer."
I firmly believe that Mitt Romney's positions will be adequately demonstrated in "stumping" over the next year and in the debates.
Spinmeisters and naysayers will try to profile him differently, but if you review all candidates (position-by-position AND how they came to those positions), Romney is probably the consummate Republican candidate for 2008.
IMO, Rudy is a good guy -- a bit "iffy," and the odds of his winning NY are slim .... McCain has wayyyyy too many problems and too much ground to make up to unite the party .... Mitt Romney IS and WILL BE the consummate Republican candidate.
I apologize if I've overstated my frustration and enthusiasm ... but I'll humbly eat my words if proven wrong.
I'm not declaring that Mitt Romney will get the Republican nomination. If he does and wins (which I think he can), it will great for America. And if he doesn't get the Republican nomination, I suggest it will be because too many conservatives and moderates will have allowed themselves to be manipulated to defend their faith as opposed to having faith .....
And probably just as frustrating for me right now is the realization that my faith, my irreverence and my politics will be challenged many, many, many more times over the next two years ....
Give me faith, oh Lord, I pray --
I may revisit this later. But right now, I'm taking an "81" and toddling off to bed ....
Uhhh .... she was acting, right? Well, wasn't she? Helloooooooo? Anyone there? 'Scuse me, did I miss something here? Helloooooooo?
Oh. Nothing.
I was just going to say that she looked much brighter when she was over-weight. You remember the movie .... she got an Oscar for playing that man-killer.
I've been surfing the net regularly for over a week ..... I've come to suspect that I'm the only "unaffiliated" blogger who is brandishing Mitt Romney banners and blog lists in my sidebar.
A comment at a previous post prompted me to assess (again) my reasons for supporting Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.
Color me frustrated.