Hi all,

The Poster below says all I want to say this week.

Hi all,

Huntsman dropped out (said so) and endorsed Romney (told ya). Of the ones left, Perry was most likely to be the big man and drop (predicted) allowing Newt to rise (he did). Meanwhile Santorum has no chance (called it) with a poor showing post Iowa, but has too much ego to bow out gracefully (right again) and will instead drag it out and in doing so, help Romney (nailed it). 

To paraphrase my Father, "Don't go away mad Rick, just go away." 

You think I'm bragging. 

Truth is, I hate being right. 

After South Carolina, Romney's "aura of invincibility" is noticeably dimmer. Will it be enough? This time, I don't know. 

Yes, I know you are shocked.

What I do know is I was tired of the well-paid-for myth that is Romney's "electability". Romney just discovered that electability isn't money, it isn't power, and it isn't a slick campaign. South Carolina proved that convincingly.

So what is electability? Well James Madison scribed, in the Constitution, that to be elected President you must:

Be a native-born U.S. citizen 

Have lived in the United States for at least 14 years

Be at least 35 years of age

Thats about it.

The citizen thing and living here make sense from a founder's perspective -- we get it. But I do want to examine the requirement to be 35 years old.

Hang on, I'm getting there and yes, you are getting a History lesson.

(ahem)

The average lifespan in 1776 was 33 to 35 years old (depending on the source you cite). This of course did not have as smooth a bell curve as we have today. Deadly weather, conflict with tribes, disease, nutrition and the like did not affect all equally, and the whole measurement is of course horribly tilted by the death of the young in the wars. Therefore, the distribution had far more outliers in both directions. Many died younger, many lived into their late 40s. Another group lived well beyond their 50s, though those were mostly the well-off. To try to compare to some modern equivalence is highly subjective but a good number to use for conversation would be "1776's 35 years of age equates to somewhere between mid 50s to early 60s", at least in modern 2012 parlance. 

So why did the founder's care? 

Think of a teenager convinced he/she "knows everything". We all went through that stage. Some believe there is likewise a 3rd stage, even more compelling though subtle, where tomorrow for another becomes more important than today for yourself.  Around that age you left behind the passions of youth and began to gain wisdom. You could think beyond this moment with foresight and a broader understanding of the world instead of vanity in defense of your own unlearned "rightness". You would start to consider the fate of your grandchildren and what you are leaving behind for generations yet unborn. You could care about the future for its own sake, as you would have less investment in your own.

This is what the founders wanted in a President, and when you look at Obama's 47 year old "me" Presidency, you understand why.

For some the 3rd state of grace comes earlier than the age the founders wanted, and we say those people are wise beyond their years. For some it comes later, and we speak of how that person became great "late in life". For some it never comes at all, and we call them old fools. 

When Gingrich spoke in his South Carolina victory speech about his grandchildren and the America they would inherit, I was struck by the contrast to his earlier indiscretions and the foresight of the founders. I was amazed at how yet another man became great late in life, and how fortunate it happened when we needed it. Because no matter who wins, Gingrich pulled the conversation to where it needed to be -- about our grandchildren and the world we leave behind. 

Just as the authors of our Constitution, Madison, Jefferson, et al, intended.

Way to go guys. Way to go.

See you next week!

Contact The Irritable Pundit   Brushfire Home

Copyright 2011.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

Hi all,

The general consensus is that Huntsman will drop out of the race, perhaps the very day you read the words I am writing.  

Note: There is a delay from when I write these columns to when they publish on Mondays. Usually these are written Saturday or sometimes Sunday, it really depends on what I have going over the weekend.  Currently I am shaking my head at the beating the Broncos just received (Tebow will be a force next year people), so if the announcement comes out before the publishing on this blog, well... sorry.

Anyway, the big questions are A) "Will Huntsman endorse someone?" and B) "If so, who will Huntsman endorse?"

The answers are pretty obvious.

A) Yes, Huntsman will endorse someone.

Huntsman has well and truly burnt his bridges with his previous employer, Barack Obama, by running for President as a Republican. Huntsman has to earn a favor or two by endorsing. He needs a job, period, end of story.

B) Huntsman will endorse Romney.

Newt, Perry & Santorum continue to split the conservative vote & fundraising. So long as all of them stay in the race, Romney has a clear path to winning the nomination. It is the safe bet for Huntsman, best bang for the buck and all that.

I should probably point out that Huntsman was always dismissive of the conservative base, so he actually only took votes from Romney's base of moderate and liberal Republican's. The endorsement isn't worth much to Romney other than getting those votes back into the fold, and even if they were to split among the candidates in total (won't happen) it would be to Romney's benefit.

Again, this assumes that Newt, Perry & Santorum continue to split the conservatives. Ah, but if one or more of them dropped out? It would electrify and focus the anti-Romney opposition and this would be a competitive race again. Who should drop out? More importantly, who would be willing to drop out in the first place?

Lets briefly look at each:

1) Santorum's boomlet is already done, and he can't win the general in any event. Will he drop out early to keep Romney from walking away with this? I doubt it. Way to much ego. By the time he drops out it will likely be too late. Side note: Of all the candidates he is the one who should drop as he has little cash or experience. Lacking one or the other is fine, but lacking both is asking to get creamed.

2) Perry is damaged but has the cash to spend -- in buckets. Will he drop out to help stop Romney? Believe it or not, he might. Perry is actually a decent person and reasonably clear-headed, if a poor speaker. Romney winning would stick in his craw.

3) Newt has the experience, but would he drop out? Depends on if he is still running for President or just punching Romney. If he still wants to win, he will stay in as long as he can -- that is his DNA. If it's all about counter-punching for the Iowa mugging he received from Romney's dirty trick squad, he'll get tired of punching eventually and would probably drop in time to help one of the "not Romney" candidates.

We'll see.

It is truly sad to realize that we are witnessing Bob Dole Part II take place, and absent a brokered convention, our only hope is that one or more of the candidates go away. This is what happens when the establishment nukes your best and brightest and make no mistake, that is what happened. Worse, we let them do it. 

Now all we can do is wonder what could have been.

Miss her yet?

Hi all,

Everyone is saying that Mitt is going to win no matter what. Seriously. We apparently have no say in the matter. Who knew?

So maybe it's time for him to change his image somewhat, to get more people excited.  OK, well since I already did this for Obama, it only seems fair we do it for Mitt as well.

I'm on vacation, so I have to keep this short.  It is a brand new year. Hopes, dreams, new optimistic visions for the future... anything is possible. 

So here are the Top 10 Things I hope for in 2012!

10) The Republican establishment does not stick us with another loser.

9) Megyn Kelly goes back to longer hair and shorter skirts. Fox News ratings soar!

8) The makers of auto-tune have a meeting with the makers of the Disney music stars and disappear in a massive black hole of suck.

7) Website owners realize no one ever wants to use a crappy "mobile version" of their website, outside of the few sad remaining Blackberry users.

6) Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore die in a tragic organic wine and peanut-butter fueled 3-way while collaborating on yet another anti-American script.

5) Newspapers & networks realize that creating a crappy iPad App is not going to keep them relevant, and actually start to report real news.

4) MSNBC's Chris "Tingles" Matthews joins Oprah, Olberman and yes, Glen Beck, in ego driven "I want to own my own network" exile.

3) Science discovers that the Earth's climate is affected by mellow vibes and immediately issue corrective orders to "just chill". Banana daiquiris, beach hammocks and romantic trysts by the seashore for everyone! Do it for the Earth!

2) The original members of Kiss make another record. Ace Frehley: accept no substitute!

And the number one hope for 2012...

1) Nobama!

And if none of those are possible, perhaps I can at least get to the end of my diet before I lose my mind and mug the Pepinos Pizza delivery guy?

That might be hoping for too much. 

Skyrim DLC?

See you next week!

Contact The Irritable Pundit   Brushfire Home

Copyright 2011.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.