Newt Gingrich: book smart, but a social retard

If we've heard it once, we've heard it a million times: Newt Gingrich is one smart honcho.  Smartest guy in the room.  Brilliant, a genius.  The guy's brain is huge.  Yeah, yeah.  We've heard all of that.  Lots of times.

And he's got the resume to prove it, too.  He's got a PhD in modern European history from Tulane, and good ol' Newt can really mop the floor with anyone in a political debate.  He's quick, and can really turn a phrase to get the crowd on it's feet.  Yup, ol' Newt's one sharp fella.

But not so fast...

How smart does one have to be to know that cheating on your spouse (not once, not twice but many, MANY times) will ultimately stain your integrity?  Most dunces know this, but apparently Newt is clueless as to how this works in the fullness of time.  And how intelligent do you have to be to know that there are some things better left unsaid?  Most of us seem to get this, but not Newt, oh no.

It seems that no thought swirling around Newt Gingrich's huge brain goes unsaid.  An idea a minute, and some are great, some not so great.  How about his latest great idea; let's start a colony on the moon.  Sounds good.  Well, maybe not. 

Almost ALL of Newt's peers back in the heady days of the Republican Revolution in 1994 agree that Newt was a terrible leader.  As Speaker of the House, he would call meetings nearly every day, and have a new agenda for each meeting.  No follow up on anything discussed in the past, but always something new and fresh at the meetings.  Nobody could keep track of all of Newt's initiatives, and his freshly won majority soon descended into chaos.

Socially, Newt Gingrich is at best a retard.  He's the guy who, after not seeing a female colleague for a few years and notices that the woman has put on a few pounds, will point this out to her right away.  And I think we all know how much we love to hear from people we know tell us all about our weight gain.  We just love that, don't we?

Newt thinks so, apparently.  The guy can't maintain relationships.  Not with his spouses, nor with members of Congress, and particularly with those in leadership positions.  Dr. Tom Coburn, who was swept into office during the Republican Revolution, was part of that freshman class and recalls Newt's modus operandi back then.  And he in no way supports Newt's presidential aspirations.

When asked why, Dr. Coburn tacitly defers from getting into detail about Newt, but simply reading between the lines suggests that Newt Gingrich as a leader has much to be desired, and seemingly stepped on so many toes, that not a single congressional toe went unstepped on.  Accordingly, not one - NOT ONE - former or current member of congress who served under Newt when he was Speaker of the House is willing to come out in support of Newt today.

He may be the smartest guy in the room, but I would posit that he is arguably the dumbest politician to come down the pike in some time when it comes to maintaining personal relationships with anyone outside his family (not including people to whom he was married).

Newt may be book smart, but the guy's a social retard. 

Wake up and smell the oil, Americans

Spain, a cash strapped socialist country on the verge of bankruptcy, just announced that they are discontinuing the government subsidies to green energy concerns: they just don't have the money anymore to chase this Utopian idiocy.

Spain has for the past fifteen years spent an enormous amount of money trying to encourage its citizens to buy green, think green, spend green and breathe green.  And now they are completely broke, after chasing this stupid dream for so long.  They had to give up and smell the coffee - there is no economically feasible alternative to coal, petroleum, natural gas and nuclear energy.  None.  And it only took them fifteen years. 

What lessons have we Americans learned from Spain's misery?  We haven't learned bumpkus.  Jack squat, zilch, nada, zippo.  We as a nation still subsidize corn energy (ethanol), solar energy (the Solyndra's of the world), wind power, just to name a few of the offending dream energy sources.

And by subsidizing these Utopian dream sources of energy, we are spending TRILLIONS that we don't have on this futile effort.  Like the Spaniards, we are told that we need to think green, to recycle our milk cartons, juice boxes, newspaper and the like.  If you give this idiocy even a moment's thought, you will realize that all of this recycling we are doing is accomplishing two things: 1) giving the dolts who buy into the failed concept a feeling that they are doing their part in saving the planet, and 2) employing a guy (or two guys) for driving around all day wasting money and spending tax payer dollars doing it.   That's it.  That's all we get for our green effort, and it's not even arguable.

How much do you think it costs to have a guy (or two guys) driving a great big diesel powered recycling truck around picking up in your recycling bins what amounts to simple garbage?  And maintaining that truck, and insuring that truck, and providing that guy (or two guys) a pension in their old age?  Hmmmmm?  And what do they produce for all of this?  Recycled materials such as bags, floor mats and an endless parade of 'green recycled' products?  How much would these green products cost to produce them the good old fashioned way?  You know, buying raw materials and manufacturing the stuff.  I would hazard a guess that it costs HALF as much as those recycled chatchkies that the greenies want to foist on us.

The chasing of green energy is simply a make-work program paid for by us taxpayers, and it's time we stopped flushing money down the drain chasing these simpleton, ineffective Utopian programs.  Americans, it's time to wake up and smell the oil.

WAKE UP!!

Why indeed ARE Obama critics so dumb?

Andrew Sullivan's latest Newsweek article 'Why are Obama critics so dumb?' will certainly sell some magazines with a title like that.  And there's no  doubt that Newsweek needs to do something to sell its products, as it has become a mere shadow of its former self, and sold for $1.00 not so long ago. And that was the price for the entire MAGAZINE and it assets (and debts), not just a single copy of this fish wrap of a publication.

I'm not sure if Mr. Sullivan is serious about that question, or if he is so blinded by leftist ideology that he can't fathom why a failing president as judged on almost every criteria mentioned would be questioned by his opponents.

But for the sake of argument, let's just go with Andy's premise: conservatives are dumb.  We're all just dumber than a bag of hammers.  Fine. 

I would like to start at the beginning of Obama's record that is being called into question by us dummies.  He walked into office in January, 2009 with a bag load of promises to fix an economy that was faltering, and an unemployment rate of around 6.5%.  And of course, this ailing economy was all George W. Bush's fault, any dummy would agree with that.

We dummies would point out that the housing bubble that burst was all based on liberal policies, under the watchful eyes of Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, which essentially gave houses to poor people, never expecting them to pay for them.

Once this bubble burst, down went Lehman Brothers and the economy with it.  Most of us invested in our retirement accounts saw our portfolios dip by as much as 50%.  Trillions and trillions of dollars of asset valuation vanished in 6 months, and us dummies don't get it that it was the Republicans who caused all of this.  Despite George W. Bush wanting to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from manipulating their nefarious real estate Ponzi scheme. 

But we are too dang dumb to understand that it wasn't liberal policies that caused all of this mess, it was Republicans, you see.  And Obama marches into the White House with a pretty bad economy, and what has he done to fix this, with promises of cutting the debt in half in two years, with promises of the unemployment rate never exceeding 8%?

Us stupid morons who criticize Obama's failures see a national debt spiral out of control in three years to the tune of $15.3 TRILLION dollars, up from what Obama called 'an unpatriotic' 9 trillion' dollar deficit left to him under the Bush administration.

And we morons on the right have no legs to stand on when we criticize Obama for failing to deliver on virtually any of his campaign promises, and watch while our credit rating on U.S. government bonds is degraded for the first time in over a century.

Yes, we are indeed the dumbest of the dumb, Andy.

'Conservatives' who attack from the Left: stupid or slimy?

Got to be one or the other.  Which ever way it turns out, this form of campaigning should eliminate the attackers from the race, as the GOP does not have the luxury this time around of putting an idiot or a slimeball into the White House. 

Both Rick Perry, who is tossing around the term 'vulture capitalist' like rice at a wedding, and Newt Gingrich are both calling into question Mitt Romney's role as the CEO of Bain Capital, and accusing Mitt of bad deeds. 

If stupidity is the reason for these attacks, I find that awfully hard to swallow.  Both of these guys are 'big picture' conservatives, and know that venture capitalists are necessary in our economy; without them, things would grind to a halt in short order.  These are the guys who have the money to invest in enterprises, to include start ups, existing thriving companies and struggling companies.  And once they are owners, they want to put their money to work which maximizes their shareholders interests and the interests of the companies they now run.

And in this free market economy, sometimes it makes sense to shut some operations down that are a drag on the bottom line and redirect those assets elsewhere where they will better serve all concerned.  And of course that means that people get laid off from their unprofitable jobs.  This is how capitalism works. 

This is America, remember.  Nobody has the right to remain on a job that loses money for the boss in perpetuity.   For Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to cherry pick a few companies that were downsized by Bain Capital, and to ignore the positives that were ultimately gained from reassigning assets is either slimy or just ignorant.  They know that a job that is created by this process does not really lend itself to a news crew and camera ready to film some news.  No, newly created jobs do not make news. 

What makes the news is the sad sack that was making typewriters who got bought out by some venture capitalist who closed the typewriter plant and started a computer chip plant with the proceeds.  That sad sack typewriter assembler lost his job, knows nothing of computer chips, and now is unemployed and is sobbing into the camera about what rotten mean sumbitches those guys who closed the plant are.  Cherry picking sob stories is what Democrats do.  This is a page right out of the Democrat Party playbook.  And these guys want to be the GOP nominee?

"Creative destruction," and without it, we would still be subsidizing buggy whip factories and typewriter factories and washboard factories. 

I think Newt and Rick Perry know this.  And accordingly, are not ignorant as to how these things work.  They are just not getting any traction with the voters, are getting desperate, and are now cherry picking any and all sad sack sob stories from laid off buggy whip factory workers. 

And this is just plain slimy.  Neither of these guys is presidential material. 

Liberals to Americans: 'Only 8.5% unemployment. Let there be dancing in the streets!'

When Barack Obama was elected in November, 2008, the unemployment rate was around 6.5% and rising, and one could assign this stat to the spectre of a Marxist taking over the Oval Office, and the business community was preparing for the long cold 4-year winter.  In a few months into the Obama administration, unemployment hit 10.1%, and hovered there for quite a while.  The causes of this downturn can be debated at another time, but the reality was that President Barack Obama promised that things would be all honey and roses if he were given the keys to the car. 

President Bush drove the car into the ditch, they said.  Unemployment was at an unacceptable 6.5%, and Barack Obama now has the keys.  Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics put the unemployed figure at 8.5%, and we are all told that things have turned around.  Let there be dancing in the streets! 

Am I the only guy in this country that remembers that Democrats were bashing the Bush administration for the horrible numbers that reflected how desperate things were in America, and the worst numbers he ever chalked up during nearly all of his adminsistration until the last few months were well below 6%?  And we are now told that things are looking up: "ONLY 8.5% unemployment, Obama is now a shoo-in for re-election with numbers like this."

That is much like the following analogy: once upon a time,  a village historically held a celebration at harvest time, and 10 pigs were roasted, 100 chickens were put to the spit, and yet the elderly village chief was cursed by many because there were not 20 pigs roasted, and 200 chickens for everyone.  Then the elderly chief died, and a much more free wheeling, generous chief was hailed as the successor.  Of course, as the generous guy the new chief was, throughout the years going forward, he slaughtered most of the village pigs and chickens and passed them out to the neediest of the villagers, without thought as to how anyone would replace them.  In subsequent years, due to scarcity of pigs and chickens because of the new generous chief's profligate slaughter of the village animals, the annual celebration served up fewer and fewer pigs and chickens, and the last few years had to borrow pigs and chickens from other nearby villages to feed the villagers during the celebration.  Last year, only 2 pigs and 20 chickens were served at the 'feast.'

Time then came for a referendum on the new generous chief's leadership, and prior to this judgement by the villagers, the chief borrowed twice as many pigs and chickens for the celebration, and that year 4 pigs and 40 chickens were devoured by the hungry villagers.  Then, after the meager celebration was over, the chief declared 'let there be dancing in the streets, we have doubled our feasting from last year.  Happy days are here again!'  And the news was spread throughout the village that there should be dancing in the streets, the generous new chief had come through.  Let us keep him in control of the pigs and chickens for years to come!  Debt owed to the nearby villages was actually causing some serious PR problems with these other villages, but that information was not actively distributed to the local villagers, as that can could be kicked down the road, to be dealt with by some future chief.

And all the while, the generous chief and his managers simply assume that nobody remembers the days when the elderly and now departed old chief insured that the feast served up 10 pigs and 100 chickens.

Yes, the analogy is too long, but the point is this: liberals will have us all believe, contrary to our recent memories, that 8.5% unemployment is a really good thing, and that this good news is owing to our brilliant president's policies.  Once Barack Obama raises the debt ceiling by another 1.2 TRILLION dollars, we as a nation will be in debt over 16 TRILLION DOLLARS, and George Orwell could not have written this scenario with any more incredulity than is being spouted by liberals and the Democratic National Committee. 

"Let there be dancing in the streets," the liberals cry.  And let the debt and looming crisis be dealt with by a future administration, one that is responsible.  Or so that message seems to me.

Fredd's so evil, he wants old people to die...

Yep, that's me.  Can't stand old people.  They should all just die.  And don't make me come by and pick up the bodies, as that is simply a bother I can't stand to contemplate, as I have many evil doings in the works that I have to attend to, and don't need such distractions.

Of course, this is nonsense. All of this is the spin that most liberals would have everyone believe, when I suggest that the enormous transfer of wealth from the young to the old via the brute force of a huge and malevolent government is unsustainable.  When I merely suggest this disastrous national policy needs change if we are to survive in the long run as founded, then the liberal long knives are flailing away at evil ol' Fredd.  What a monster I am.

One liberal moonbat referred to a piece I wrote last September titled 'We all know old people are parasites, but what about teachers?' (http://freddsez.blogspot.com/2011/09/we-all-know-old-people-are-parasites.html).  Of course the title is controversial on its face, and subsequently the moonbat takes that one sentence and runs with it, without reading a single word of the piece.  Based on that one title, this numb nutted idiot declares me a 'sick (f-word)' and accordingly discredits any opinion coming from my evil keyboard as thoroughly wicked, insidious and malicious.

Old people and teachers are very well aware that they are the beneficiaries of a public largess over the last 75 years that is boundless, or at least if they are being honest with themselves.   For me to suggest that this largess simply must end if we are to sustain our way of life as founded by the Constitution is not evil or uncaring.  It is an inarguable fact.  We can't continue to confiscate huge amounts of money from productive people and give it to unproductive people in perpetuity, especially when faced with a $15 TRILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL DEBT.  To continue this transfer, we must borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent to keep it up.

We can't keep it up.  It's impossible.

And of course saying this makes me an evil monster, according to any liberal asshat you talk to.  And I am not the only one saying this.  Take Governor Scott Walker (R-WI): he ran on the very campaign that I am pointing out, and won the governor's seat.  He enacted tough austerity measures (which were actually quite mild, if the truth be known), and the entrenched liberal 'takers' went nuts.  Absolute nuts.  They tried to stack the Wisconsin Supreme Court with some of their fellow judiciary moonbats to block his legislation.  That didn't work.  They tried to overturn the Nov. 2010 election results with recall election after recall election of Republican victors: that didn't work.  Now they are canvasing the state with petitions (signed repeatedly by Mickey Mouse, Al Capone and Michael Jackson) to force a recall election on Gov. Walker. 

This will not succeed, either.  When you take away the money from these slacking non-producers that was confiscated initially from the producers, there will be hell to pay in all manner of skullduggery and thugishness on the part of the left.

But I am the bad guy, you see.  I point out the cold, hard reality of this unsustainable transfer of wealth from the haves to the have-nots and I am labeled as the devil incarnate, me and Governor Walker. 

See how this works?