The Pork Rinds Mistake

The First Commandment of American politics is this: Never Try to Be Something You Are Not.

Voters see through it, think you are more phony than the average phony politician, and it always backfires.

When George H.W. Bush came into office in January 1989, he faced two challenges: 1. to get out of the long shadow of his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, and 2. to seem more accessible to the average American. During his 8 years as Reagan's Vice President, he noticed how much attention Reagan's bowl of jellybeans had received. Reagan loved jellybeans, and he kept a bowl of them on the desk in the Oval Office. The press loved the detail, and the candy's bright colors seemed to reinforce Reagan's sunny image.

When Bush 41 moved in, one of the first things he did was replace the bowl of jellybeans with a bowl of pork rinds, which he professed to munch as often as Reagan had popped the candy.

The problem was that even if Bush actually enjoyed the pork rinds, nobody believed he did. He was the son of a U.S. Senator, born and raised in Connecticut, the former head of the CIA and the Republican party, a former Ambassador to the United Nations, the first envoy to China, former vice president. The ultimate Eastern Establishment guy---eating port rinds? It didn't mesh. Bush had other issues that prevented his re-election, but the attempt to be something he was not didn't help.

Today, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are trying mightily to cast themselves as working-class heroes. She's turned into a Crown Royal-swilling, gun rights-protecting, tractor riding populist. He's turned into a beer-swilling, shirtsleeves-rolled up, hot dog-chomping Everyman.

Both are trying to channel Huey Long.

And neither of them is succeeding. Hillary (with Bill) has raked in $110 million (that we know about) in seven years, was educated at Yale, and grew up in the affluent suburbs of Chicago. Obama is also a multi-millionaire, was educated at Harvard, and attended prestigious prep schools.

Making money and having a fine education are both good things. But if you are running for president, you shouldn't be running away from them. If that's who you are, be proud of it. Embrace it. Be who you are. Cut out the "relatable" phoniness. Voters roll their eyes at it. As one North Carolina woman said this week after attending a Hillary rally, "I'm going home and doing laundry at 1am. She's not doing laundry."

The problem with trying to run as a "man" or "woman" of the people? In order to pull it off, you actually have to BE a "man" or "woman" of the people.

Comments

[Truther]

And who is the genuine man? Ron Paul?

[FredK2929]

Reagan was seen as a man of the people. Was he actually? No way, but he could act better than Hillary Clinton and Obama.

You can appear to be what you are not if you are a good actor, or your campaign is good enough. Let's go back to the election of 1840, when aristocrat William Henry Harrison won an election where he was seen as a man of the people, beating Martin Van Buren, who was seen as an aritocratic, dandified elitist, but who was raised the son of a tavern keeper and was nowhere near as wealthy as Harrison.

It's all in the production, isn't it? Things have changed all that much in 168 years.

[FredK2929]

I meant "things HAVEN'T changed . . ."

[gringoman]

Monica,

Agreed, Bush pere should lay off the jelly beans, the Rodham of Clinton should stop sweating over her laundry, Charisma Barry should eschew the bowling alley, and maybe Georgie Bush as a border-busting Harvard MBA-er should stop wearing his cowboy gear.

And while we're on the subject of trying to be what you're not, or do what you can't: maybe Johnny Boy McCain should stop giving speeches.

By the way, this topic might also include an even greater pretense: Americans as savvy warriors. Here's the gringomanic comment, which could have gone (and almost did) to your post below ..............

MICHAEL AVARI,

The problem with today's American Man in confronting barbarism: Conservatives want to,(or think they do) but aren't very good at it, while liberals don't really want to even if they were good at it, which they obviously are not. (For those with eyes to see, this is perfectly obvious even domestically, in the so-called US social and culture wars.)

(I won't bother with FrK's apologia for liberal, as he vows not to read best-selling books which carefully delineate the disorder. GRINGOMAN to FrK: If you really want to break your addiction to Monica's site, where you feel yourself so intellectually and morally superior, take Nancy Reagan's advice: The next time you feel like injecting yourself, JUST SAY NO.)

Or put it this way with previous metaphor: Conservatives, even when they carry a big stick, don't know what to do with it. The new Soros liberals hate big sticks, at least for the military.

You say the US was wise not to respond to the Islamic atrocity in Beirut with force. You posit the only alternative as ineffective military action or non-response. Meanwhile, Islam (not to mention most of the world, including China with its "paper tiger" view of the US) sees this as aject impotence, the act of an ineffectual giant with no sense of honor or redress, even to 241 of its own warriors. Sick Giant, flooding the planet with Hollywood Sex and Macho. Or contemptible giant(as muslims see it)

("There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreampt of in your bottom-line philosophy"--The gringo Hamlet)

Even if your view is perfectly correct in a practical sense (and with the US talent for war, it might be), the image of America declines, every bit as much as its education, sovereignty, balance of payments, family structure and "progressive morals" creating an unruly rabble.

And I've always thought that--- despite the abysmal Democratic record, their hideous weaselly need to hide from, for example, the Killing Fields genocide they enabled in Cambodia by forcing the abject withdrawal of all US forces--- the Republicans and Reaganites also want to hide from their support of what became Al quaeda.

Yes, Ronnie in his first term was very hesitant to follow Jimmuh Carter and aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

But by his second term the pressure and temptation to help blast the Russians out of Afghanistan became overwhelming. The Muj was getting rave reviews in our big-time largely liberal Lamestream Media. US aid to Islamic "freedom fighters" escalated massively. Reagan delivered the all-important stinger missiles to the Islamics which used them so effectively against the Russian "infidels."

A great victory in the Cold War, no? Even at the time, I called it "a pyrrhic victory" How wrong was I?

Russians out, the Taliban and Osamatons in.

Reagan's wonderful triumph in Afghanistan without shedding any American blood. Isn't that the "smart" way, Michael? Keeps one's hands clean, no? Like the CIA who can keep nice and clean in their super leather lounges of a country gone fat and prsoperous, while the crude Russians get down and dirty in the real world like men always did, even the pioneers in America.

That great Afghanistan "victory." Russians out, the Taliban in. The Osamatons now encouraged and inspired to take Mohammed's Jihad onto the world stage.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jU70EeNlH54C&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=Reagan+Mujahadeen+Afghanistan&source=web&ots=cWNOt8u30D&sig=Ivt2yvlsnegxB_ECrXE3Z9v9Krg&hl=en#PPA323,M1

www.gringoman.com
Escaping Politically Correct

[Ummah Gummah]

Gringoman you summed it up in inimitable fashion. Dhimmi Carter was the beginning of the end and Obama the Bowker will make sure to finish the job.

So Ebony and Ivory those two equal-opportunity losers.

[Michael Avari]

Well that was certainly inimitable.

1- The world did not view Reagan as a paper tiger when, without firing a shot, he brought down the Soviet Empire.

2- The world certainly views us as impotent now after having run over a country under false, perhaps fabricated, evidence of an impending threat, and being mired in the detritus we created, like "real men" do. Right?

3- Am I incorrect in inferring that you would have committed troops to Afganistan when the Russians were there? Or would you have nuked them too?

4- Yes, the best military victories are the ones in which the least amount of American blood is sacrificed, as in Desert Storm. By that standard Reagan's support of the mujahideen was a successful campaign. At that time the primary enemy was communism and the Soviets were causing mischief all over the world.

5- Retreat--not to be confused with surrender--is a valid military strategy, better said tactic. Reagan did not hesitate to use force effectively when necessary and justified to materialize a global strategy against our enemies or to punish them. There is no heorism in sacrificing lives and treasure if there is no clear path to victory.

6- Whom would we have attacked after Beirut in any case?

7- Our military was not designed to fight insurgency and guerilla warfare. Therefore, a smart Commander-in-Chief would now call for the creation of a strike team comprising US Army Special Forces, SEALs, and Marines -- in a single unit outfitted for the particular theatre and commanded by a single officer or small team of officers, covered in the air by Navy and Air Force, and fed intelligence by a single parallel intelligence team drawn from all agencies. Our present miliary structure is the best armed and trained to fight the next world war, or prevent it by that very fact.

8- Following your logic to its inevitable conclusion, why are Conservatives not putting more pressure on this Adminstration to fight harder and with greater resources in Afganistan today? Or has Bush lulled the best of us into thinking the primary theatre is in Iraq?

9- I hope Fred does not "just say no" and stays with this site.

Cheers,

[FredK2929]

1 - More than Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Their system didn't work, and it overextended itself. (We should learn a lesson from them.)

2 - If not impotent, they certainly see us as having a premature ejaculation problem.

3 - For UG to answer.

4 - Nothing like doing it right the first time. We needed more troops to go into Iraq if we were going to invade at all.

5 - Granted. We could not have won the Revolutionary War without the use of strategic retreats.

6 - Problem: We were there with no clear objective, and no idea who our "enemy" was. So I don't know who we would have attacked. We should not have been there as sitting ducks.

7 - Time to train our forces differently.

8 - I can't speak for conservatives. But I don't understand how this can be.

9 - I can't seem to help myself.

[FredK2929]

3 - For Gringoman to answer, too.

[FredK2929]

Gringoman -- You are kidding yourself if you think you and UG are superior to me. The only one here with any intellectual mettle is Michael Avari. I definitely feel challenged when I read his contributions, and it's refreshing. You and UG just disgust me, and that's why I can't believe I keep coming back here.

[SteveOk]

As this campaign has droned on and on the real views of Hillary have come out, especially as she has attempted to become the champion of the working class. All her goofy McGovern views have come to the forefront. The gasoline tax is a perfect example of Hillary's leftie views. She is willing to use this issue as a ruse to go after corporate America. She is even willing to reduce taxes (temporarily) as a ruse to go after oil companies' profits. Her lust for taking the profits of corporate America is limitless. She sees it as a source of revenue to fund her social programs, and she is spewing endorsements for every Democratic social welfare program that was ever proposed in the past 20 years from:

Increases in:

Student loans program
Bail out of people in home loan mortgages
National health care (mandated for everyone)
Increased taxes and repeal of the Bush tax cuts
Eliminate "no child left behind" because it isn't funded enough
Increases in expenditures for veterans

The whole essence of her stump speeches is a laundry list of social welfare programs she is going to fund on the backs of American taxpayers and corporations. That is the essence of her campaign--wealth redistribution. When she is speaking on the stump all she does is go down this laundry list.

[Ummah Gummah]

I don't know why I am supposed to answer #3 but here goes:

NO, of course I wouldn't have had troops in Afghanistan while the Russians were there.

In fact I would have given the RUSSIANS the stingers and told them to go ahead an kill all the islamists they can.

We might not have to be there now if we had done that then.

And Bush would bnever have had his excuse to go into Iraq either.

And the a%%aholas in iran would have treaded much lighter knowing we and the Russians are working together on the eradication of islam.

But alas!

My good ideas never find the right ears.

[M/M]

I think Hill and Bill are much cooler than the other two candidates; they are definitely taking my mind off McPain.

Hillary was just so dull and such a victim at the beginning of the campaign, but she is really fun these days. I thought she was great with O'Reilly and funny when she discussed Rush's crush on her with George. Even though I don't agree with most of her ideas, she does not annoy me like the other too. In fact, Hillary and "Operation Chaos" bring joy and laughter back into my life.

[M/M]

*oops - that should be "like the other two"

[FredK2929]

UG --

Your "good idea" for the eradication of an entire religion sounds very familiar to me. Something I remember reading about that happened around World War II. Hologram? Hollercost? Something like that? I remember being told it was a horrible thing . . . You know anything about that?

[Truther]

Should not Hillary be allowed to have a primary vote in the People's Republic of China? A global leader and a global vote. Besides, an exercise in democracy might be good for them, and a holiday from the factory schedules.

[Truther]

George Romney said he backs Obama because he cannot see giving the woman the house. He is actually making a comeback with the write-in votes, possibly because of his obvious youthfulness and McCain's early rigor mortis.

[gringoman]

from MONSIEUR AVARI to GRINGOMAN:

3- Am I incorrect in inferring that you would have committed troops to Afganistan when the Russians were there? Or would you have nuked them too?

from GRINGOMAN.

Yes, Michael, you are incorrect. I'll assume you were kidding about such a dumb idea, as it's like what we'd expect from FrK when he takes the typical lefty tack yet again of trying, trying, trying to show himself above the "right-wing morons." (It shows that, even at his most potty-mouthed, he's got at least one virtue: perserverance.)

In fact, I find myself much more in agreement with Ummah. Obviously Ronnie--no matter how much Ummah urged him--- would not have given the Stingers to the "Evil Empire" Russians in Afghanistan. Ideology made that impossible for Ronnie. But he still should have resisted the pressure to arm the fanatics of Islamo Fascism. How, in retrospect, this point is even arguable, boggles the independent mind. OMG, does one have to an Ummah or a gringoman to see it? I don't think so.

But it's painfully clear that Washington then and now is not even capable of such wisdom, i.e. just letting the Russians and Islamic fanatics duke it out. (Where are the conservative "non-interventionists" when you need them?)

It also demonstrates another point where I believe Ummah is more in touch with reality than is Washington. We all know that the Russians are not doll babies. Trust me, Michael, we don't need to be lectured on that.

However, the Russians, with the burden of their own history, plus their geography, are far ahead of Americans in understanding the muslims (not to mention the Chinese.) That the Washington establishment has chosen to isolate and alienate them in the world struggle, rather than seeking out areas of rapprochement and alliance, is yet another example of American obtuseness, if not rapid decline (possibly much more rapid than the Romans.)

ps. As for the jibe about nukes in Afghanistan, I'll assume that's just another effect of what I see as your "parenting" of FrK, in itself a very humane gesture. You should do what you can for him. Some may even find it heartwarming, as he continues to insult what he keeps coming back to, like someone confined in a ....(OK, let's not go there.)Good luck with it.

pps. However, there does exist a gringomanic plan for putting "moderate" Islam on notice about the consequences of muslims nuking an American city. Hint: The Council on Foreign Relations, not to mention the globalistas dealing with nice moderate sheikhs, might not approve.

[FredK2929]

Gringoman --

Do you really think Michael is "parenting" me, or is he humoring you and Gumhead?

Potty-mouthed? Nice, amusing insult. But you might want to review past threads to see if any coarse language I use is not the equivalent of what you and UG have tossed out. You two are not exactly monks.

Monks would not advocate inflicting a Holocaust on another group.

[Michael Avari]

Gringoman,

As I try to look past the insults, two things are now clear to me:

1- Either you had incredible clairvoyance in the 1980's to have foreseen that the mujahideen would become anti-American Taliban, or that the Soviet Empire would have fallen hence allowing them to eventually take Afganistan over, or you show perfect wisdom in your hindsight. Reagan was wrong to have helped defeat the Soviets in Afganistan?!

2- In your warning against moderate Islam, lies a kernal of truth and foundation of the solution to the problem: economic interdependence (plus American strenghth) can bring peace. Which is also an argument, as Ludwig Von Mises, one of the intellects of the Austrian school of economics, makes for free trade. Besides impeccable economic logic, trade deters war.

I tend to agree with you on a possible parallel with the fall of the Roman Empire. Imperialism was one cause, moral decadence and an omnipotent state (title of one of von Mises' books) were some others. Arguably, we share one out of three, but should be vigilant against the other two.

Cheers,

[Ummah Gummah]

Fred K once again stoops incredibly low and make no point while doing so.

There is a huge difference between Judaism and islam for one.

Last I checked it is the various factions of "militants" in "palestine" and the government of iran who at the same time as they deny the Holocaust also want to "finish the job that Hitler didn't".

So you may want to direct your ire in their direction Fred.

But then you are lib and you have no logic nor sense of fairness.

If I were a moslem you would cheer me on if I called for the destruction of Israel and the entire Western World.. oooh how exciting to live in a de-constructivist, post-colonialist world!

Oooh the radical SHEIK of it all!!

But hey, the moslems are mainly "people of color" and as such they cannot be critiqued.

Give me a break Fred.

It's OK for us to give stingers to the islamists so they can kill Russians but it's a Holocaust when I suggest that we'd have been better served to give these weapons to the Russians instead of the taliban?!

You are truly a first-class racist and a jerk!

In your book it's perfectly fine to kill Russians and it's OK to kill the Serbs in Kosovo, which is their own land!

Scru-u

[FredK2929]

I'm a "jerk"? "Scru-u"? I'm accused of being a "potty mouth"?

Nice sophisticated argument, UG. I think you've really shown your true colors here. You have broken down in the kind of emotionalism that you have, in the past, called "Marxist".

You're the one advocating a new Holocaust, but you accuse me of being the racist?

Michael -- You are the most reasonable person here. Do you want to address UG's last contribution?

[Ummah Gummah]

Hey Krybaby.. bwaaaahhh.. he hurt me.. Michael help me.. bwaaahh...

NO YOU tell me where I have advocated a Holocaust.

All i want is NO moslem influence in any Western country.

How is that a Holocaust?

Second, I want credible retaliation whenever we are attacked. I know you libs only want the enemy to defend himself.

I can hear the smug snideness in their tone when they report casualties on "n"pr and the BBC. They seem so pleased when they can report US casualties because they think they have something they can stick to Bush.

As much as I hate Bush i am NOT breathing heavily over our dead service people just so I can score political points.

Liberals disgust me!

[gringoman]

Michael,

Touche! You found me out on "clairvoyance" re the folly of Team Reagan following Jimmuh Carter's lead (by about 10 fold, incidentally)in arming the Islamos against the Russkies in the Afghan.

I think if you read it again you'll see that I did not claim "clairvoyance," but probably was not clear enough. I did and do say that the US "folly" must be inarguable in retrospect, a parallel folly that Bush perpetrates with Moscow today, and which McCain seems anxious to follow. Instead of working with a world power that would gladly cooperate against Islamic terror (unlike most Euro weenies) Washington seems intent on seizing every opportunity to alienate the Russians.

(Under Reagan surely the internal Soviet rot would have continued rotting nicely without the US having to help out by emboldening Islamic fanatics and in effect propelling them onto the world stage with new-found confidence and daring. )

No, I was not up on Islam at all back then, despite a history of some travels from Europe to India overland. And I had my objections to Ronald Reagan back then too, which could have prejudiced me.

Nevertheless, I absolutely did have a sense of "pyrrhic victory," regarding Ronnie's "triumph" in the Afghan. I was certain that this would be recognized later. I simply did not know when and exactly how. Maybe I was in prophet lite mode?

See, I've been naive enough to think that my Government, with all of its tremendous resources, would have had a far better understanding of the Islamics than little ol' me could possibly have.

I became that trusting again of Republicans, years later, when I supported Bush taking out Saddam Hussein. I fell for the notion that Bush---despite all my doubts about him---nevertheless, and unlike the Dems, had adults around him. You know, the competent types, who really knew what they were doing. Finally, after 8 years of Clintons, we had "adults" running the show. Right?

My wrong. We just had, mostly, big egos.

Well, as penance, I intend never to make such mistakes again for Republicans OR Democrats. Let them all beware, as they shuffle around the prospect of the coming Mullah Bomb (as gringoVision calls it.)

And with today's Internet,2008, there is less excuse than ever for making such mistakes vis-a-vis "our leaders."

[Ummah Gummah]

Gringoman.. you are speaking from my soul! I was but a wee kid in Germany and I saw and listened to the A••ahola K•k•mamie spout his evil anti-European and anti-Western rants into the cameras and microphones of eager-beaver euro-"journalists" who ate it all up with glee..

And all I could do is stand in stunned disbelief - sorta like the Red Sox during game 6 in 86 - at the complete inaction of any Western government.

I though.. but surely.. if WE don't do anything and the French don't throw the bastard out.. the MOSSAD *WILL*.

But nothing ever happened and Dhimmi Carter became President and the A••ahola became the Führer of iran.

Much to the excitement of the likes of Fred!!!

May he be cursed with an eternally itchy-scratchy venereal disease!

Yep, another example of my "emotionalism", Fred!!

After all the damage u liberals have done OUR Western World I should be entitled to a WHOLE lot more than that!

[FredK2929]

UG --

You are right. I'm after people like you. We liberals want the Muslims to take over and for your way of life to end. And we will do whatever needs to be done to make that happen. Bwaaaah hahahahahaha!!!!

[Michael Avari]

Gringoman and UG - It is not clear to me what you are proposing. Are you proposing Russian troops on the ground with us in Iraq? Afganistan? The latter may not be a bad idea, but Iraq? What happens after the war? Perhaps the Russians are waiting for us to leave, licking our wounds, so they may have greater influence over the area, thus having no incentive to help us. Is Russian revanchism not a greater long term threat? And how do you want to remove Islamic influence from Western civilization? Forbid the building of mosques? Close the border to anyone born or converted to Islam? Isn't that anti-Constitutional?

Regards,

[FredK2929]

Yes, Michael, forbidding the building of mosques and locking out anyone of a certain religion would be unconstitutional.

But that's exactly what UG and Gringoman want.

Based on things they say, I think they would be fine with rounding up all the Muslims in camps and exterminating them.

[gringoman]

Michael,

I was not writing guidelines for a US/Russia alliance in Iraq,( anymore than I signed on to Ummah's wishing an "itchy-scratchy" venereal disease on your liberal protege here.)

I suggested that Ronald Reagan was misguided for giving into pressures, i.e. extending and escalating the stupid Jimmuh Carter policy of arming Islamo fanatics against the Russians (a Carter inanity which Ronnie wisely had avoided emulating in his first term.)

GAB also suggests that the Bush-McCain policy of alienating the Russians in the global war on terror (a policy we'd expect from the clueless liberals) may be staggering in its stupidity. And of course, in its Bubba form, it doped its way through the Balkans, when Clinton (who Bush pere once called a 'bozo,') took sides with the atrocity-committing muslims against the atrocity-committing Serbs, a loyal ally noted for its anti-Nazi warriors.

Should Russians work with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan? These are details. Complexities.

One likes to think that our hired "leaders" are in a position to work out the details---despite the tawdry spectacle of Pubs and Dems each trying to convince the booboisie that the other is the most incompetent, corrupt and clueless.

Real adults in charge in Washington might possibly have the sensible answers to your questions, after working out the details. Are you holding your breath, waiting for them? The Gringo Advisory Board is not.