SONICFROG DOT NET

Upon Further Review – Newt, And Why He Can Win Over The GOP! (maybe already has)

Man, this is turning into a really fun election year.   First, we all pretty much figured this would be  a race to see how quickly we would coronate  Mitt Romney as the GOP Presidential candidate. Romney did after all have the steadiest support of all the candidates – nine at one time.

Then, you started to see some interesting rumblings within the party. You started to see the third tier candidates get some love – first Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Newt, then Santorum. The GOP was like kids in a candy store that mostly sold white chocolate – Romney – but the GOP customers desperately wanted to have a taste for the other flavors stocked in the store.  But, thing is, the store only markets one flavor, it only makes its money from one product, and that flavor is Mitt Chocolate. So they’re not too keen on having too many customers choosing one of the other flavors, because the mark-up isn’t nearly as profitable.  Well, it turns out, most of the other candies in the store were bitter-sweets, tasted good at first, but left a  bad after-taste in the mouth. But, it turns out, one of the candies had a tootsie-roll center, and once you got to it… Mmmmmmmmmmmm.

Introducing Newt – Chocolate! It’s actually more of a giant gob-stopper than regular chocolate, with multiple layer, made of stuff you probably don’t want to know! It’s not really very sweet. Some of the flavor layers are so tart, you find you want to spit it out… In fact that was done once already! But there is something about this candy… It’s just so BOLD… And a heck of a lot more interesting than Mitt-Chocolate!

———————————————————————————————-

OK, enough of that.

I’ve been reading a lot about the GOP race this week-end, and had a few thoughts about the recent turn of events, and exactly why Newt has made the comeback, and just how he appeals to elements within the GOP. Granted, he’s not going to curry much favor with the evangelical set, but they already had their candidate, George W Bush, and we saw how that turned out; so they will just have to suck it up for a few election cycles. Newt trying to paint himself as an outsider is just about the most ridiculous  strategy out there, maybe with the exception of Santorum trying to brand himself as “The” Tea Party candidate.

That said, Newt brings something to the table that no one else can… Well, almost no one else, but we’ll get to that exception in a moment.

** Note – My filter is off, and I’m going to make a few hints and allusions to things some readers might find offensive.  I thought about editing it out after I was done typing this post, but… What The Hell!  It’s My Blog!  **

Point # 1  –  For all his flaws, Newt is a well known public figure. He speaks a lot, A LOT!, and doesn’t have much of a PC filter to speak of (which may not be a bad thing). He’ll say what he wants, reflect on things at length, and if he’s contradicted himself from something he’s said even a few minutes earlier…  Well… That’s Newt! It’s kind of like multiple marriages to this crowd…  This time, I’m serious! OK, that was kind of mean, but it’s relevant.

Point # 2  –    Newt is loud, bombastic, which in the minds of many, means he really really believes what he’s saying! Hey, it works with the talk radio set, so why shouldn’t it work in a campaign!. Newt maybe has figured out the old meme that no publicity is bad publicity!  Romney, on the other hand,  seem just too damned meek and polite and couldn’t assert himself if he tried. Which brings us to:

Point # 3  –  Unlike any other candidate I’ve seen in a long time, Newt has figured out how to deflect an answer and gin up the base at the same time – Shoot the messenger!  Even as Newt was floundering, he had already laid down the roots of his comeback with the use of a time worn Conservative strategy – blame the Main Stream Media! Though the other guys wanted to, only Newt had “the guts” to actually come right out, right there on the debate floor, and chastise  one of the debate moderators for asking a question! Now, I don’t remember exactly what the question was, and I don’t think it was anything that was particularly out of line, but it doesn’t matter what the question was anyway. It could be somethnig like this:

George Stepha-what’s-his-face:  “Let me start by asking you a personal question.  Newt, we’ve heard recently that you’re allergic to cats…”

Newt:   “Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is, that is just an outlandish question to ask, many folks are allergic to cats!!!!”

Mission accomplished.

Nobody remembers the question. All they remember is the “Oh Right On” and  “Yeah Baby!” moment it produced. It’s an opiate for the “True Conservative” set – addictive even!  The beauty of it is, Newt is probably the only one on stage who can pull it of, almost as if it were a “gift from GOD!“.

Why will Newt be the likely winner of the GOP nomination?  Because he’s a perfect stand-in for one of the most popular Conservatives out there. Newt can “articulate the message of Conservatism” like almost no other…  Almost no other, except one…

Rush Limbaugh!

Newt has indeed become the proxy candidate for Rush Limbaugh. That is the true power source of the Newt Gingrich appeal. He has with the last couple of debates finally accomplished the task of tapping into the psyche of Rush’s audience. Romney doesn’t have a chance in hell of appealing to Rush’s audience. He’s a “squish”! As much as Santorum’s social views might line up with those of Mr. Limbaugh, he just doesn’t have that rhetorical fire on a wide variety of issues and interests that both Rush and Newt share. I know his detractors will take issue with this next statement, but Rush Limbaugh is a very smart guy! Not smart as in scientific smart, but he does have knowledge on a wide variety of subjects.

Newt and Rush are so much alike, and have been for a long time. Newt, like Rush. is a risk-taker, and more often than not, it pays off. Rush was kicked around by the radio establishment because they thought his idea of doing a “gasp” Conservative radio call-in show was nuts. Yet, here he is, years later, the King of not only a successful-beyond-anyone’s-dreams radio program, but he literally saved the AM radio format from extinction in the process, and created a new road for success for other to follow.  Newt got kicked around by the establishment and was even eventually in the late 90’s driven from power by them. Yet, here he is, a creature of the system, running a campaign counter to how the establishment says it must be done, defying them to the end, and succeeding! The message, he has realized in the internet age,  is more important than the structure of the campaign. Both have had more than one marriage (for better or for worse), and both have their addiction problems, Rush to Oxycontin, Newt to power! i consider both to be, pardon the expression, media whores.

I would be a blog whore if I had the time.   (this is the part where I jump and down and scream – “Hey Look At Me!”)

Newt, for all intents and purposes, is Rush! Watch how Newt smacks-down  Juan Williams and it’s plain to see. It’s exactly the kind of thing Rush would say if he were on that stage! And it’s not even a bad thing. The Republican  party has needed to come to terms with the fact that that one man has more power of influence that anyone is willing to admit. No, Rush Limbaugh does not run the Republican party. He has, however, slowly but surely been cultivating and shaping the desires of the base for a generation.  It doesn’t matter what Newt does or says now. A long as he stays on message, and no other Freddie Mac lobbyist scandals hit the press, Newt has this nomination in the bag.

Then, the true test. Is the United States ready to elect Rush Limbaugh as President?

We shall see.

Blind Spots And Seeing Things That Aren’t There

While I agree with him that FOX news is not being very “fair and balanced” for not having Andrew Sullivan on any of their programs when discussing the recent article he wrote for Newsweek, Sully goes way too far in describing a phrase uttered by a Fox-ite as “homophobic”. Here is the conversation Andrew is critiquing:

GUTFELD: The ultimate hypocrisy here, Kimberly, is that Sullivan is calling critics dumb when, in fact, he is the most obsessed critic of Sarah Palin’s children.

GUILFOYLE: Remember that?

GUTFELD: I don’t want to get into it. He’s got an amazing blind spot.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, and talking about her children. I mean, it’s totally inappropriate. And he has no credibility because of that. That’s what’s so problematic about it. In fact, how do you expect this magazine to have any kind of credibility either when you have writers putting forth stuff like this? With the background that he does. Leftist propaganda.

Can you spot the obvious homophobic slur????

*

*

*

*

Answer: It’s the phrase  ” He’s got an amazing blind spot.”

Here is Sullivan’s write-up. This is a pretty good “Jump The Shark” moment.

8o’s Set List

Here is an example of some of the stuff I’ve played with the San Diego band RareForm. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but gives you an idea of what we did together for the 18 years I was the bass player in the band.

RareForm Set List 1

RareForm Set List  2

Some of these songs were not 80’s per-see, but there are plenty of 80’s in there.  Add some Mr. Mister, some Cars, and some more Police / Sting and Crowded House stuff, and we’ll be set!

Caption This Freakday!

Hey, at least we know what a love child between Peter Gabriel and Michael Stipe would look like!

Remember that song “Mama’s Don’t Let Your Babys Grow Up To Be Cowboys”? Well, if this is the alternative…. I beg of you… Let them!

How nature says “Don’t Touch”!

Irony Of The Week!

Gay sex advice columnist Dan Savage lecturing Newt Gingrich on morals!

Technically you’re not asking your wife for an open marriage if you’ve already been fucking another woman for six years. You’re presenting her with an ultimatum. That doesn’t make you a proponent of open marriage, Newt, it makes you a CPOS.

I don’t think Newt has made himself a proponent of open marriage; he’s just a flawed individual, as we all are. I think going on TV and trashing your ex-husband in the days before a critical primary is bitter, bitter, bitter. But I’m a Christian. The private stuff I forgive and understand. Like many men, over the years, my libido has sometimes seemed to have a life of its own. I think we should all give people’s priavte consensual adult sex lives alone. But the public hypocrisy? The ranting about gay marriage destroying America? The lecturing of the poor on family structure? Not so much.

In my opinion, it is foolish to look for an un-flawed candidate. I contend that we never would have been able to elect an Abraham Lincoln (didn’t go to the right schools) or a Winston Churchill (drank too much) under the standards we set for our modern candidates. It’s why I was very please when 3 1/2ish years ago, Republican Rudy Giuliani  had rival Barrack Obama’s back when he admitted he had used cocaine in college. I’m not saying we shouldn’t scrutinize a politicians personal live. All I’m saying is that we are not electing the person to be our moral guide, we are electing the guy (or gal in the future) to run the country in accordance with political philosophies and public policies we deem most appropriate. I am definitely not a Newt support in any way, but, really, does the fact that Newt was (and may still be) a cad really going to affect how he governs now should he win?  The fact that he was having an affair at the time certainly didn’t stop him from riding Bill Clinton’s nose into the ground for doing the same thing.

When Paymasters Collide! And More!

The delicious quote of the day! From this article quoting none other than Rupert Murdoch concerning Obama’s ambivalence to take a stand to support the dying SOPA legislation:

“So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery.”

Murdoch…  Complaining about paymasters?

That’s Rich!

Somehow, I’m not convinced that Murdoch is all that concerned with the plight of software creators. His support of SOPA might have something more to do with protecting this content, maybe.

Regardless, the moguls are outraged!

“We just feel very let down by the administration and Obama for not supporting us,” one studio chief explained to me. “At least let him remain neutral and not go against it until we can get the legislation right. But Obama went against it. I’m personally not going to support him anymore and not give a dime anymore,”

The article continues:

Several moguls have informed Obama’s newly anointed Hollywood re-election liason to the entertainment community Nicole Avant and her husband who is helping her, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos, that they are pulling out of major fundraisers planned over the next few days and won’t participate in any more headed by Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (whom they see as in the pocket of the Internet giants like Google).

And all this is the result of Mr Obama refusing to vote present on this issue. It would have been nice if Obama himself were to have come out against this piss poor legislation before it gained such a negative amount of notoriety, but having his lackeys hint that the White House doesn’t support it will do I suppose.

Oh, and on that fundraising boycott….. Raise your hand if you believe these Hollywood big-wigs are really going to write no more check to this candidate, especially if Newt wins the primary.

I don’t have to be clairvoyant to know that no hands went up.

PS. I case you missed it, this is a very interesting admission by this writer, and I’m not sure if it was wise for the editors to let it pass through:

The boycott even extends to many of the moguls’ families who also are big Obama and Democratic Party donors. The situation is serious because many moguls and/or their families comprise Obama’s top bundlers in the TV/movie/music biz. Bundlers as defined by opensecrets.org are “people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big ‘bundle’.” These donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else. As of September 2011 these 357 elite bundlers were directing at least $55,900,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts — money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee, according to opensecrets.org. That figure by now has significantly increased and will continue to do so.

$55,900,000!… And that was four months ago! Kind of puts Romneys $364,000 dollar speaking take-home into perspective, doesn’t it. And I love that a well known but little talked about method of getting around campaign laws is brought into the light.

Where is the campaign reform crowd when you need them!

Two Weeks – Expect Lite Blogging.

I’m going to be very busy in the next couple of weeks.

• Both of my bands, Taylor Martin and Acoustic Highway, are going to see increased work in the weeks ahead.
• After a couple of months off, the Police Tribute band is gearing back up, so I need to set aside some time to remind myself just how to play those and sing those.
• Now that I have Vir, the studio computer back on line, I will be recording some more songs.
• More open mic nights are in my future.

So, that’s the agenda.

Before I sign off, I just want to note that I think it was a deplorable act to take out the Iranian scientist. I really hope we were not involved, but, given some of the recent actions we’ve taken in the failed Global War On Terror, I wouldn’t be surprised if we had some involvement. Yes, I distrust our current leadership that much. To assassination a civilian in this manner, it’s wrong and is an act of terrorsim as far as I’m concerned. It was wrong when Russia tried to assassinate Viktor Yushchenko, and it was wrong to take out this civilian. Or do we even care anymore?

In The “Sounds Good, But…” Department.

Or, to steal a phrase from Admiral Ackbar… “It’s a TRAP!!!”

But, as far as traps go, this one may be a good one.

President Obama is going to ask Congress to give him more power to be able to merge competing Federal agencies, thus getting rid of competing agencies, easing the conflict of overlapping bureaucratic regulations, and trimming a little bit of Government to boot.

To voters sick of dysfunction, Obama wants to show some action on making Washington work better. Politically, his plan would allow him to do so by putting the onus on Congress and in particular his Republican critics in the House and Senate, to show why they would be against the pursuit of a leaner government.

Sounds like a good idea to me…. With a caveat. If the merged departments are going to be an excuse to create yet another over-arching management agency that will eat up even more resources, a-la Homeland Security, then, sorry, this is a no-go….

But hey – If this would give the President the authority to unwind the Department of Homeland Security, a money sucking bureaucratic duplicate if there ever was one, then I am DEFINITELY all for this!!!! 🙂

My misgivings aside, this is a pretty screwed play by the President. It will be argued that this is just an election year ploy to set up the Republicans.

Duh!

But, unlike some of the other ridiculous things pull by both side in the last few months, this one is a smart one. Lets see how the supposed Government-cutting Republicans respond to this.

Domestic Terrorism… It’s What’s For Dinner

There are times when I wonder if anyone is paying attention to anything anymore. A few days ago, a domestic terrorist group committed arson against Harris Ranch, one of the prominent local beef producers here in California. This is not one of those huge industrial farms run by AMD, mind you, but a truly local company, a family farm. Somehow, this story has been ignored in the press, who are reporting more important things like “More see class conflict between rich and poor“, “Corey Feldman Is Going To Name Names Of Hollywood Pedophiles“, or “Rick Santorum’s Italian Based Relatives Are Communists!“. I guess it’s news when domestic terrorism happens in somewhere important, like LA, but not so much when it happens here in the lowly hicksville that is the San Joaquin Valley.

Here is the story:

Animal-rights activists are taking responsibility for an arson fire that destroyed 14 cattle trucks at the sprawling Harris Ranch in the San Joaquin Valley off Interstate 5.

The fire broke out at the feed lot truck-storage facility at the ranch about 3:45 a.m. Sunday, said Fresno County sheriff’s Deputy Chris Curtice. Firefighters found 14 trucks fully engulfed and extinguished the blaze within 45 minutes, he said.

In an e-mail sent to the media Monday, the North American Animal Liberation Press Office said it had received an anonymous message from someone with specific details about the fire at the Coalinga ranch, one of the largest farming operations in the San Joaquin Valley.

“Containers of accelerant were placed beneath a row of 14 trucks with four digital timers used to light four of the containers and kerosene soaked rope carrying the fire to the other 10,” the e-mail said.

“We were extremely pleased to see all 14 trucks ‘were a total loss,’ “ the message said.

“We’re not delusional enough to believe that this action will shut down the Harris feeding company, let alone have any effect on factory farming as a whole,” the e-mail said. “But we maintain that this type of action still has worth, if not solely for the participant’s peace of mind, then to show that despite guards, a constant worker presence and razor wire fence, the enemy is still vulnerable.”

The e-mail ended with, “Until next time.”

Um… The enemy???????

On the local Inga Barks radio show, one of the spokesmen called in to the show to brag about the success of the terrorist act. In the process, he also said that the killing of livestock is much worse than what happened on 9/11. The audio is not up yet, but when it comes on line, I’ll post it ASAP.

UPDATE: The audio is here! The link didn’t work. I’ve got the audio. Will post it when I get a chance to package it and edit it down to length.

Meanwhile, these guys have been busy:

The North American Animal Liberation Press Office highlights “revolutionary environmentalism,” including these recent examples:

A Dec. 1 statement that an anarchist group was responsible for sabotaging a rail line in southern Oregon to stop the transport of “resources from the earth without consequence.”

A Nov. 22 claim by the Animal Rights Militia that the group “liberated animals from a Vermont farm for the second year in a row.”

A Nov. 18 communiqué from activists taking credit for a break-in and mink release at an Oregon fur farm in late September.

Now, this group is an admitted terrorist group. I wonder if President Obama will use his new powers to scoop them up and hold them without trial? They are terrorists after all!

————————————-

On a related note, a friend of mine who is an avowed Socialist (the real kind) and very very sympathetic to the OWS movement, said something the other day that stuck in my craw. I had been meaning to write about it and chew on it, but I put it aside. But this attack makes our conversation all the more relevant.

He was complaining about the lack of real news coverage of the OWS movement when compared to how the press covered the happenings of the Arab Spring uprisings. He said this:

“The OWS movement is going to start up very soon, and this time people are going to die just like in Syria and Egypt, and only with that blood will the people of this country rise up and take action”

Now, he’s not going to take that action, but, it sounded very much like he is hoping for, maybe even advocating violence and death, for the purpose of inciting the new American Revolution! Now, every one is entitled to their opinion, and I don’t like the condition of our political class or the systematic corruption either… But Jeez! Is the OWS cause really the equivalent of the Arab Spring????

PS. If you happen to find yourself on the I-5 in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley, and have a hankering for a fantastic steak, you won’t find a better steak than can be had at the Harris Ranch Restaurant off the 5 and 198! The food there is legendary, and the cows are grown locally… At the ranch the terrorists want to destroy!

The Romney Conundrum.

Mitt Romney is a good guy. A stand up family man. A guy who knows business and a guy who will likely lose the Presidential election if he is the GOP nominee.

Why won’t they like him?

Ruben Navarette Jr has his reasons for the persistent “Anyone-But-Romney” faction that resides not only within the GOP, but across the voting public as a rule. Though he does have some points, I think he missed something.

But first, let examine the reality of this upcoming election. Even though things do not look great right now for President Obama, they are slowly but surely improving. I just saw a report that medical inflation has slowed down a bit. Not, there was no indication that ObamaCare, as it’s called, had anything to do with that as most of the changes from that don’t go into effect until 2014 or so. Never-the-less, the President will be able to take credit for it.

The unemployment numbers have been trending consistently down, albeit slowly. I’m not sure if there is a definite number value to set your sites on, but if that number continues to trend down this year, Obama will have his “Stay The Course” message. Now, a 7.5 percent unemployment number is bad, but, it’s better than an 8 percent, and he’ll have that momentum on his side. If this is the case come November, Obama take this election, especially if Mitt wins the GOP nomination.

I single out Romney because, at this point and time, I don’t see anyone else getting the nod from the GOP, and oh what a reluctant nod that will be. The base of the Republican party, they don’t dislike him, but he doesn’t satisfy their needs for a meat thrower, a male version of an Ann Coulter (although maybe that isn’t the best example right now as she is on the outs with hard-core Conservatives because she’s backing Romney). But Romney isn’t the only one that Conservatives just won’t take a shining to. I know It won’t happen, but I think the one guy who would give Obama a real run for his money, even if the trends are looking up is Jon Huntsman. He’s to my mind the most sensible and experienced guy in the GOP field. Plus… well… he’s sane. I mean, really, Newt “I did not lobby for Freddie Mac” Gingrich can be a total basket case. Ron Paul, though I support him, can be a bit looney (but in a fun way)… And how crazy does Rick Santorum or Michell Bachmann have to be to even THINK they could attract a sliver of the independent vote during the general election!

Not to imply Mitt Romney’s not sane. He is very well centered in that regard. When compared to Bachmann or Cain or “business” (con artist) rival Donald Trump, he’s uber-sane! It’s just that, he’s just… so… canned. He’s the “perfect” candidate… Too perfect! He comes across as someone who was born and bred to be a candidate. In many ways, he’s the GOP’s version of Al Gore, who also came off as a pure-bred and changed positions on almost everything under the sun to try and be all things to all voters when he made the switch from local and state elections to the national one.

Romney and Al Gore are defective chameleons who, no matter how hard they try and change their colors to match the conditions of their current environment, they are never quite that convincing. This is the thing that ultimately made Al Gore such a weak candidate in 2000. He couldn’t even win his own home state of Tennessee (which would have made Florida moot, BTW). Just as Gore had magically forgotten about all those positions he has changed to get the high office he had obtained, eight years later he campaigned as if Bill Clinton had never existed, wiped from his memory. And yes, he did have plenty of reasons to distance himself from his boss. Lets not forget the fund raising scandals. Now, all candidates have something to run from, some skeleton in the closet as it were. It’s the way that you distance yourself that makes a difference. RomneyCare and ObamaCare do sound the same, in both name and substance, and I’m not sure that Romney will be able to get away from this one. But its all the other changes, from abortion to immigration, and everything in between. It just doesn’t sit well with the core of the GOP, and me neither. The conversions just look too convenient, insincere. I’m certain that any day now, Romney will come up with a single term equivalent of Al Gore’s “Lock Box”!

Now, granted, I think Gore was more successful with his base than Romney has been with the GOP, but only because the Democratic base thinks that any conversion to their side “must” be sincere for “obvious reasons”, because, you know, that is what you do when you become intellectually enlightened and have feelings for your fellow man! The GOP, on the other hand, approaches things from a “core beliefs” angle, and core beliefs just are not susceptible to change, because if they change, then how can they be core beliefs?