In Defense of Family Values

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

I’m sure there are places in the world where potential presidents’ sex lives are less important than their leadership skills or policy choices, like all of Europe, for instance. But not here. Here, we are invested in the covert details of our leaders sex lives, and for good or ill, it matters. It matters because such information presumes to offer a snapshot of a politician’s character and ability to uphold traditional culture and family values; or at least it did.

Political Blog, News, Information, Astrological Perspective.

It now appears that rather than accept Mitt as the only viable presidential candidate, or embrace Santorum as an electable choice rather than an ideological one, the Pubs in South Carolina may forgive Newt Gingrich both his demand for open marriage and his habit of leaving ill and suffering wives in the lurch. Newt is surging. The Pub base is desperate for an un-Romney that might unseat Obama, and it’s put them in a position to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.

In tandem with the shift of so much else, it appears Republican voters are no less appalled at the sexual history of some of their politicians, but suddenly pragmatic, are resolved to hold their noses. In the fight to rid themselves of the black guy, they’ll throw everything under the bus, even issues of morality. Well, almost. Marianne didn’t say Newt had suggested incorporating another guy in the triad, so open hetero-marriage doesn’t seem to be ruffling Pub feathers as we might have supposed. Perhaps it’s the influence of their high priest, Rush Limbaugh, who considers Newt’s marriage request no big thing:

So Newt wanted an open marriage. BFD. At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her. That’s a mark of character, in my book. Newt’s a victim. We all are. Ours is the horniest generation. We were soldiers in the sex revolution. We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato’s retreat, Deep Throat to no fault divorce. Many of us paid the ultimate price, AIDS, abortion, or alimony for the cultural marching orders we got. Hell, for all I know we should be getting disability from the government

A bit of hypocrisy from a four-times married blowviator? Yes, considering his over-the-top vendetta against Clinton for the Monica scandal and a supposed love of “Republican family values” that becomes suspect when you Google Rush and the word “gay.” I’d be interested in an explanation of the third wife and him living in separate homes for their entire marriage, but I suppose such a question would hint of slander: you know, little blue pills and alleged sex-trip to the Dominican Republic aside. But don’t say that too loud if you want to avoid Hurricane Rush. That’s where it all gets tricky and goes south.

Conservatives are expert at playing that victim card. Mentioning anything they’ve done is synonymous with attack. They can make a mountain out of a teensy liberal molehill and suggest civilization as we know it is doomed, but pointing out any of their nonsense is considered an orchestrated media blitz against conservative values. Decades of that have made the left uniformly silent on most of these issues. We’re used to embarrassing incidents leaking out of conservative closets, including a “wide stance” incident in Rush’s youth. The conservative defense, should they offer one, is stunningly simple and obtuse: nothing to see here, move along.

But there is something to see, most of it sexually repressed and dysfunctional. The red states have the most child welfare and the most teen pregnancies, and evangelicals have one of the highest rates of divorce. It takes some real balls to call liberals the hedonists, but projection is conservatives’ first line of defense. Their dismal track record is to be expected. When you erect a prohibition against something, you can be sure it will be broken more often than if you’d kept your mouth shut. Liberals don’t throw that first stone, they leave that to those who are pretending they’re squeaky clean, and there are always plenty in line.

Our motley crew of Republican contenders has now lost a few of their number. The Santorum campaign didn’t want to split the evangelical vote, so they questioned God’s approval of putting a woman in a leadership position: adios, Michele Bachmann. Herman Cain and Rick Perry had enough brash attitude to raise their numbers high, but not enough brain-power to keep them there. Besides being too Bush-like, Perry had an unwelcomed compassionate streak, and Cain’s peccadilloes woke the party up to the color of his skin, which would have eventually become unworkable for a party of old, white and deeply threatened Dixiecrats. Huntsman? Entirely too smart and thoughtful, and that says everything you need to know about the radicalization of the Republican party.

Newt, though, has got the keys to the kingdom. The confederate flag flies over South Carolina’s courthouse and Newt is racist to the bone, calling Obama the “food stamp” president. With that pronouncement, visions of the ghetto danced in all those white conservative heads, allowing them to forget that some of their neighbors’ houses were boarded up, that many of their friends and family were without employment, and that most everyone they know was on food stamps, including themselves. In a state where racism is overt, Gingrich got an enthusiastic uptick in support. To quote one of South Carolina’s African-American citizens, “White folks around here talk about taking the country back when it hasn’t been anywhere. The fact is they don’t like a black man as president. They think he has taken something that belongs to them.” And Newt will tell them they’re absolutely right, using what we call “dog whistles,” radical Republican buzzwords.

Then, on the very day that Rick Perry dropped out, sending his supporters over to Gingrich, Newt’s second wife’s tell-all interview broke. By that evening’s debate, Newt was primed and ready for CNN’s John King to ask the question everyone wanted answered. We were then treated to one of those campy, over-the-top displays of outrage and self-pity that only the conservatives can produce:

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” he thundered.

At this there was a standing ovation. “Is that all you want to say, sir?” King asked. It was not. Gingrich went on to say that raising the subject was “as close to despicable as anything I can imagine” and to pronounce himself “frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.” When King protested that the interview had originated at another network and that it had become a major subject on the campaign trail, Gingrich cut him off and roared: “I am tired of the elite media protecting Obama by attacking Republicans.” The crowd was roaring now. It was the strongest reaction they’d have all night.

Hear the hypocrisy? We’ve heard it before. How DARE liberal press ask these embarrassing questions? Citing facts, questioning intent? Liberal attack, not allowed during the Bush years, and still not allowed in the world inhabited by those who prefer to rest their laurels in the sunny climes and delusional rhetoric of Ron Reagan’s fictional America. It’s a liberal smear job to ask if Marianne Gingrich has truth on her side. It’s a liberal assault to question Herman Cain’s behavior, even as woman after woman steps up to accuse him of impropriety. It’s only liberal viciousness that makes Juan Williams question the racism of Newt’s carefully-crafted message. And the thundering applause that standing up to such liberal impudence earns him will likely give South Carolina to past-speaker and churlish egomaniac, Newt Gingrich.

Sex and power, power and sex. There’s a question of ego at the heart of this, of course, and historical patriarchy that belongs in centuries past, but we seldom get that far into the investigation. It’s easier to vilify on moral points without taking into account the expectations of the nation. The nation does not expect its president to cheat, any more than it expects him to bomb a defenseless country, rob it of its resources, or make victims of the citizens that supported him. Well — there it is: in a world gone topsy-turvy, what IS our expectation of a president these days?

If you look at our national history, there was a very small window when the marital fidelity of presidents mattered: roughly, the last half of the 20th century. Prior to that, there were almost always presidential mistresses hidden in the back room, and the press was complicit in keeping these things mum. Perhaps it was considered none of the public’s business.

Jon Stewart recently did a fantasy bit about going back in time to consult one of the nation’s founders. He selected Ben Franklin, finding him buck naked with two attractive young ladies and willing to share. Jon had done his homework; he’s historically correct: Ben was a player. At the turn of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt was a man of big appetites, but he played by the marital rules, while his cousin, FDR, later died in the arms of his mistress. Another Roosevelt and cousin, FDR’s wife Eleanor was unable to deal with this kind of marriage and found relationship elsewhere. Rumors had her with one of her own gender.

Even Ike had his pretty driver, Capt. Kay Summersby, but Truman wasn’t the type to step out on Bess. JFK’s trysts were legendary, LBJ’s were hushed but numerous. It has now been alleged that Jackie didn’t take it well, while Ladybird reportedly suffered it like a Southern lady and put her energy into beautifying the nation, carrying wildflower seeds in her purse to pretty up the highways. Now some are speculating on Nixon’s cruelty to his long-suffering wife, Pat, and his relationship with a shady comrade, mob-connected Charles “Bebe” Rebozo. Hard to prove at this point, but old Tricky Dick DID seem a lot easier in Bebe’s company than Pat’s, and most of us wondered who the hell Bebe was and why he was around so much. His own office and bedroom in the White House, you say? Oh well. Better than under the presidential desk in the Oval Office.

Nixon woke us up to corruption, but it was Carter who woke us up to sex. When Jimmy Carter reported lusting in his heart to Playboy, the nation suddenly seemed awakened to all matters sexual in the White House. Up to that point, nobody much talked about it and certainly not to the press. In whistleblower fashion, the one who transgressed the least on fidelity turned out to be the catalyst for awareness.

The Obamas seem happily married, and except for the expected Inquirer nonsense, no rumors fly. By the time the Bushes arrived, GW seemed to have left his past as a self-proclaimed “cocksman” behind, too busy blowing the shit out of the Mideast to have time for sexual dalliance. We’ve had twelve years of marital stability in the White House. We’ll see if our luck holds.

Until recently, the Obama administration considered only Romney a viable threat, but now it appears that Romney might lose this round. Releasing his tax information would help him look like he had nothing to hide, but of course he does: his ultra-low 15% obligation on an amount of money Midas would envy and his giving $1.9 million-worth of Burger King stock to the Mormon church. Pub populists, a.k.a. Tea Partiers, aren’t likely to approve. No matter what Mitt does, nothing will disprove his reputation as an elite corporate insider, and that’s not an easy position to defend in 2012.

Meanwhile, reports that Santorum did well in the last debate, along with his revised win in Iowa, might split the vote with Newt, giving Mitt an edge. He needs one. Nobody — discounting several million Mormons and the 1% — can easily entertain the idea of magic underwear in the White House, but if you ask that nice black couple who live there now, even greater odds have been beaten in an American election.

Of the remaining Republican candidates, Santorum and Paul at least strike me as sincere. I think Mitt has a Mormon agenda that we don’t know about, but can guess at since they proclaim end-time prophecy with one of their own saving the world. I would truly be horrified if any of the Republican nominees won the White House, but I have particular issue with Newt and Callista, wifey number three, who “wouldn’t mind” sharing. I don’t care about the sexual arrangement, but one word out of either of them about family values would make me spit up. Since Newt has an agreement with Gawd, a huge ego and an even bigger mouth, that particular version of hypocrisy would be unavoidable.

If the eight years of Bush taught us anything, it’s how quickly damage can be done. It seems to me that if any Republican wins in November, the revolution is on. Me, I’m always arguing for the easier way — the way of realization, the way of collaboration, the way of love — but snatching this nation back from the ideologues who have spent decades reconfiguring law to suit themselves has always been an uphill battle, and some people are still asleep to what we’re looking at. If elitism, racism and plain old chicanery haven’t given us enough reason to re-think our political druthers, the months ahead look to give us plenty of opportunity.

One thing is clear, though. It’s none of our business what’s going on in anybody’s bedroom, but ALL of us have to be mindful of what’s going on in American boardrooms. If we are to recreate this nation, it will take you and me — in the streets, in the town hall, the media and the courts — doing the hard work that makes democracy possible. Equality, integrity, commonwealth: the family values of a nation looking to begin again.

18 thoughts on “In Defense of Family Values”

  1. Gotta say, Green Star, that I find the Mormon church’s work ethic attractive as well but that’s a no-brain’er: they’re quasi-socialists. Talk about yer union workers! If the left could reproduce their collectivism, we could change the world in a decade. The right came close and look at the rift in the national landscape THEY produced!

    The Mormon brand is a hive, and their believers are all worker bee’s except for their patriarchy — Lord knows, they’ve institutionalized the concept of patriarchy to the degree that they can give Catholics a run for their money. I went steady with a Mormon boy in High School, went to the stake dances at the Temple, had a slew of Mormon friends and I found them all trustworthy, admirable and hardworking. As you, if I had to leave good sense and discernment behind, I’d choose Mormonism, if only for the safety when times are tough. They take care of their own.

    Mitt, though? He’s got the Mormon-polite thing down but I’m not seeing much Mormon-warm there. Neither is anyone else, it turns out. Mitt’s turning out to be the John Kerry of the Republican party — although even cold-fish Kerry could be described as a statesman. The Pubs offer no serious statesman, as Fe mentions, and you don’t get a sense from any of the candidates that they are interested in being president to the ENTIRETY of the American people — just those like them. And if this is their third tier candidates, Brendan, WHO THE HELL would be second tier or first? All reasonable Pubs have shifted allegiance to the Independents. What’s left on the far-right appears inbred and unacceptable to any but their own clans, which explains the (soon-to-get-much-worse) infighting.

    Thanks, GaryB, for the song — very apropos and kindly; I like that last. What we’ve seeded is growing, blooming comes next and Spring isn’t that far off. Relaxing a bit into this period of gestation is my best advice; especially when it appears, politically, that the nomination madness will go on well into the year. Oy! Meanwhile, every little piece of bad news adds to the collective scale that allows us to get an in-yer-face look at our mistakes, every little piece of good is encouragement and blessing along the way.

    Thanks for playing this weekend, dearhearts — good conversation and engaged community. Hugs all around.

  2. Judith,

    The 60’s music was a great venue for a movement and so will it be in the 2012-20’s. As we come upon these great times of change I feel that this songs lyrics is a perfect accompaniment.

    These Are The Days lyrics

    Artist – Natalie Merchant

    Album – Our Time In Eden

    Lyrics – These Are The Days

    these are days you’ll remember

    never before and never since, I promise
    will the whole world be warm as this
    and as you feel it, you’ll know it’s true
    that you are blessed and lucky
    it’s true, that you are touched by something
    that will grow and bloom in you

    these are days you’ll remember

    when May is rushing over you with desire
    to be part of the miracles you see in every hour
    you’ll know it’s true, that you are blessed and lucky
    it’s true, that you are touched by something
    that will grow and bloom in you

    these are the days
    that you might fill with laughter
    until you break

    these days you might feel a shaft of light
    make its way across your face
    and when you do
    you’ll know how it was meant to be
    see the signs and know their meaning

    you’ll know how it was meant to be
    hear the signs and
    know they’re speaking to you
    to you

  3. Newt just gave a very dangerous acceptance speech — he’s already boasting about how he’ll govern as president and how his debates with Obama will go. Red meat for the faithful and confidence in his ability to MANIPULATE the public, right or wrong; he readily admits it. He’s a loose cannon — but he can do some serious damage as he rattles around the political platform, going after Obama’s “Saul Alinsky America.” The Mittbot is going to have to put serious effort into matching that level of passion and confidence.

  4. The unRomney has won!

    Newt has apparently won the State of (Denial) South Carolina — giving one win so far to Santorum, one to Romney and one to Gingrich. The Pub political infighting has provided the Dems all the ammo they’ll need to bedevil the frontrunner all the way to the election, and political comedians can breathe easier now — there will be plenty of fodder for the laugh-fest. I think it’s a safe bet that we will now be treated to MUCH more grandiosity and posturing than anyone since, perhaps, Mussolini. Stay tuned for pomposity.

    Gawd love American politics and Goddess bless America.

  5. I am someone who does not watch politics very closely but given the media saturation these days, one cannot avoid it unless you live in an off-grid yurt in the middle of some outback somewhere. To me, politics is all about what has gone wrong with our world because for all the high ideals, it is ultimately about competition between two war-like factions. Basic polarity 101.

    Now that we are reaching the era which some describe as the end of patriarchy, we are seeing that this system is riddled with too much corruption and abuse that it is crumbling before our eyes under its own weight and bloat. The thing is, most folk just don’t know it yet. They still believe in it. All the trappings of the dominator model are now coming up for review, the trouble is, we have been stuck in this spin cycle for so many lifetimes we can’t envision anything else. But we are getting glimpses… the Arab Spring and the Occupy movements give us hope that we can find our way out of this dead (and I do mean DEAD) end. But, humans have a long, long history of violence against one another, themselves and the planet, and our nation has fallen so very far from the ideals we supposedly are trying to live up that no one running for any kind of public office these days stands a chance at surviving let alone changing much of anything in this horribly corrupt and dysfunctional meat-grinder that is the American political system.

    What is the solution? How are we ever going to get out of this mess? I don’t know, I really don’t. But here is a statement just about everyone can agree with: “this country is absolutely full of people who do not believe in what I believe in.” The question is, what are we going to do about that? So far, it seems we’ve spent the better part of the last 2-3 decades just winding up both “sides” to create bigger, meaner and more powerful egos and “teams” to just duke it out rather than trying to learn how to work WITH one another.

    I am no supporter of either red or blue camp… though I resonate more with the Dems if given only the choice between the two. But, I have a family member who is a Mormon ( who adopted the faith/culture as a young adult) and while I have no use for the imbalance of power between the genders within that institution, I have come to have a great deal of respect for something that does lie within their culture that we all could use more of: sincere earnestness and willingness to create systems that serve communities very well. One of the big reasons Mitt was able to “save” the Olympics (does anyone remember how crumbled and demoralized that institution was on the eve of the winter games in SLC in the aftermath of 9-11? ) was because it was taking place in the very heart of Mormonville and their ability to be organized, efficient and work TOGETHER is what enabled him to claim the victory that he does now.

    While I would never be happy as a Mormon, because I am a somewhat enlightened Feminist, I do admire the Mormon ability to problem solve for the greater good. Is that culture flawed? You bet. However, I am sad that the political machine, being what it is, chooses to ignore possible good that might be in any culture/system/institution/person and instead it chooses to vilify and tear apart each side rather than find ways to empower one another and work on finding ways to bridge the divides and come to some kind of holistic understanding that we truly are ALL in this soup together and we need each other to grow up, stop fighting and start fixing this mess or this country is going to be too broken to ever recover/heal again.

    As I look to the stars for 2012, I am most grateful that we have a chance to pause for a good long time, with Mars retro in Virgo and I welcome the Neptune ingress into Pisces, though I am also aware that this could be a slippery slide into the dreamworlds of addictions of all kinds if we don’t stay awake and aware. We’ve had enough of polarity, enough of war-mongering and tribalism. We need now to learn more about how to create consensus and vibrant communities. We are getting smarter and learning how to leverage what we do have… voices and hearts that seek a more equitable world. The Occupy movement and the very powerful demonstration we had this week show us what is possible when we all get on the SAME team…which is neither blue nor red.
    One final thought: I noticed that the Occupy movement used Black as a colour of choice in many of the ways it visually represented itself. Certainly the internet black-out day this past Wednesday used Black as its theme colour. I kind of like seeing this as the new colour of the Revolution. It is the colour of the Void, the deep Feminine. It is the “colour” of all that unknown power and matter that astro-physics tells us is occupying the vast majority of the known Universe. It is a colour that represents the Kali and the Sacred dark Madonna. I know that in the past it used to represent power, death, fear and evil….but that is the past. Something has transformed this old way of seeing this colour. What is coming up now is a new relationship with the colour Black and it fascinates me, and somehow, it feels right.

  6. Thanks, Jude, astute as always.

    I read the other day a quote from some R-land pundit/insider that the party had put up it’s third tier candidates, as if they didn’t want to win this year and were willing to thin the herd.

    I’m having trouble seeing any first or second tier “R” candidates out there actually. I mean, is Chris Christie, the man who obviously never saw an all-you-can-eat buffet he didn’t like, actually someone that has WH potential? That may be somewhat biased of me, but he’s ideologically just as dumb as the current crop of failures. Not a Republican governor out there is any better either, if not worse in actuality.

    Seems like the whole R party is now third-rate, and they haven’t realized that yet.

    As for the sex/family values issue, I think that will continue to be glossed over for as long as possible. As Jude said, “Nothing to see here, move along…” Perhaps, though, with the restless stars to come this year, it may end up mattering greatly, and all will be exposed. I sincerely wish for Rush to be led off to prison for the whole airport escapade. Anyone else would already be there.

  7. Hey Judith:

    The crazies will be forced to make a choice between magic panties and a black man in the White House. This could be a short story by Tennesee Williams, Shirley Jackson or Flannery O’Conner.

    The ‘have your cake and eat it too’ mentality could and should be the last slice of foie gras these bastards get to eat. They’ve been living too long as the courtiers in the halls of AmericanVersailles to be considered serious statesmen.

  8. Goldwater! Ahhhh, there’s a name from the past, Mystes. A curious mix of Libertarian and Federalist, Goldwater was considered an extremist. He probably couldn’t get elected today, along with Nixon, Reagan and even Bush — all of them much too reasonable. But I respected Goldwater, whom I found … again … sincere.

    And yes, Amanda, I saw Santorum’s chart. Still, sincerity is not at odds with crazy; one can be sincerely crazy, MOST sincerely, and yet too steeped in ones own reality to be able to cope in mine. I divide politicians into two categories: those who truly believe what they’re saying, and hucksters. Gingrich is a huckster; so’s Romney. They’d change positions in a heartbeat — and have — for an extra vote or two.

    As for Rush, I agree, Carrie — born and raised not far from the Pea Patch, Rush is misogynistic to the bone [no pun intended.] And Gingrich just wanted his dick serviced, whenever and wherever, with an eye … and this is important … to having that trophy-wife on his arm. He left behind the ones that weren’t up to the “political wife” task, given their illnesses. If any of you have heard Callista talk, you’ll understand why she looks past Newt’s physical limitations (and you should hear Bill Maher on that topic!) Callista has an agenda, Newt provides her a platform.

    As always, it’s the patriarchy model that needs a stake driven through its heart, but as long as legislation continues to interfere with childbearing, sexual choice is compromised. That’s shaping up to be a HUGE fight in the near future and we all have to be not only aware, but prepared to do what it takes. Sexual choice is basic freedom. Period.

    CNN just reported Newt ahead of Mitt by a sizeable margin — looks like it’s on!

    Hug, Aword — here’s another {{}}

  9. Jude, without you I’d be lost in the political fog. Thank you again for your insight, clarity and never-failing perspective.

    xo
    Linda

  10. “Of the remaining Republican candidates, Santorum and Paul at least strike me as sincere.”

    um, i think santorum strikes me as sincerely fucked up, maybe. did you see his natal chart? eek.

  11. “So Newt wanted an open marriage. BFD. At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her. That’s a mark of character, in my book.”

    Once again Rush got it wrong. Every where I have been reading it says Rush was cheating with Callista and THEN asked the wifey if she would be willing to share. So he didn’t have the integrity to ask first.

    “Newt’s a victim. We all are. Ours is the horniest generation. We were soldiers in the sex revolution. We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato’s retreat, Deep Throat to no fault divorce. Many of us paid the ultimate price, AIDS, abortion, or alimony for the cultural marching orders we got. Hell, for all I know we should be getting disability from the government.”

    By “we” he is meaning all white males. That is the white man’s lament in one paragraph. He whines that they are the victims because underneath he means that they can no longer drag women off and fuck them at will and have as many as they want without social censure and at times even ruin. He is the poster boy for male dominance over women and male sexual frustration. I believe this frustration is deeply rooted in the knowledge of their own inability to have as many orgasms and partners as women can.

    I have asked every man I know; “Why do men fantasize about having more than one woman when in reality, after having sex a couple of times, most are done for the day and cannot satisfy all of them?” In fact, I recently read that most males become disinterested and fearful of failure after having sex a few times in one day because they cannot “get it up” often enough to “keep” the highly orgasmic female interested.

    So it isn’t just the male “fear of the more picky female” at work (aka “power of the pussy”); it is also his fear of the higher orgasmic ability of the female because she will go elsewhere when not satisfied.

    For millennia, males dominated females and female fertility is STILL controlled in almost every society on earth. What Rush was really spouting is every white males’ anger at the disintegration of that dominance and the rise of the feminine.

    Female orgasmic ability means that the ideal sexual situation for most females would be one female and several males.

    Too bad, Rush. Times are changing. Deal with it.

  12. From the Dept. of Bizzaro Justifications, here’s a quote from a Religious Righty on The Adulterous Newt:

    “I see a lot of parallels between King David and Newt Gingrich, two extraordinary men gifted by God, whose lives include very high highs and very low lows.”

    http://www.alternet.org/story/153685/why_is_there_so_much_god_in_our_politics_the_religious_right%27s_theocratic_plan_for_the_2012_election

    IMHO, the road to Hell is paved with absurd justifications, but … you know … nobody asked me.

    If we do our job well enough — as we did when so many citizens groups got behind the SOPA issue and the pipeline issue — we can give the Prez cover to do the right thing without having to trade off some other vital piece of legislation. The public is beginning to get the message that they’ve got a part in this, and things are perking along. And so it seems completely counter-intuitive that the radicalism of the Right might prevail in November, Gary, but you’re right — we can’t be sure of anything, especially with that Merc retro business over the election.

    The easier way, of course, is to CHOOSE our future rather than be pushed into it. Bat-shit crazy is our current operating system but I see signs of reality peeking through everywhere I look, so we can’t stop pushing a better, broader vision forward.

  13. I second that, Gary.

    One of my respondents is a staunch, but reasonable, Republican. She greeted me the other day with: “Can you believe these jokers in my party? They’re an embarrassment!”

    She’s 88 and won’t go to the polls in 2012 unless someone like Barry Goldwater shows up.

    I wonder how many more are out there. . .

  14. Judith,

    You just can’t make this stuff up. If you had presented this draft a few years back they would have said it was too crazy of a plot for even “Family Guy”!

    As much of a crazy as bat shit possibility it could be–a Republican sweep–one and all (of the sane ones) better be prepared to roll up their sleeves and especially pant legs and jump in. If this premise seems far fetched just imagine how crazy it will be if they do sweep and we are faced with the disarmament of these right winged religious crazies when they own the power and profess and firmly believe in the end of times. Remember-They are not just the clowns on stage and Blush–they are among us- and they are going to vote and cheat. This is a winner take all conflict.

    Now what was that you were saying about the easier way?

Leave a Comment