Offend, Demonize, and Belittle

First they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was an ardent nationalist and prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Niemöller, like most of his compatriots, was largely silent about the persecution and mass murder of the European Jews. Only in 1963, in a West German television interview, did Niemöller acknowledge and make a statement of regret about his own antisemitism.

A "stereotype" is a generalization about a person or group of persons. Stereotypes are developed when we don't obtain all the information necessary to make fair judgments about people or situations. Society often creates and perpetuates stereotypes. These stereotypes lead to discrimination and persecution.

Some prejudice has been passed down from generation to generation. It is usually the case, however, that the passions of hatred against minorities by members of the majority are stirred up by charismatic leaders who exploit latent hatreds for their own political ends. These leaders are called "demagogues," and they depend upon propaganda and disinformation to achieve their ends. Many demagogues have been successful because people want to believe there is a simple cause of an existing problem. Through the use of propaganda techniques, persuasive arguments are made that one group or another is to blame for all the problems.

During the 2008 elections I surfed the net, and visited many forums where people were encouraged to express their opinions concerning the candidates, and the election issues. The one thing I noticed above all else was whenever someone spoke out against the policies, political track record, or ideologies of Obama his supporters invariably responded with accusations of racial bias. People who disagreed with Obama's stance on abortion, or any other political statement were called stupid, racist, and a host of other nasty expletives. It really didn't matter what the subject being debated was, the response was usually the same. There rarely appeared a comprehensive argument establishing the Obama supporter's basis for advocating his/her candidate. The mechanism used to defend their candidate was very simple: Offend, demonize, and belittle. I might add that this same rhetoric has been used in the Obama presidency: Target and offend a specific group or idea, demonize everyone who agrees with them, and belittle the intelligence of anyone who questions.

In 19th century Europe, Jews were classified as an "inferior" race with specific physical and personality characteristics. They were highlighted as a "foreign element," which could contaminate the native stock and culture and potentially dominate the population economically and politically. This long-standing history provided a seed-bed for the Nazi ideology and program of genocide. The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community. During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups because of their perceived "racial inferiority": Roma (Gypsies), the disabled, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others) as well as blacks. Others were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals.

In the 1800s another group was deemed a political threat to the powers that were. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints felt that Jackson County, Missouri was a place where they could settle and worship as they believed without persecution. However, Missourians hated the Mormons, (a bigoted label placed upon members of the church), mostly because they presented political opposition to those already inhabiting the area. The Mormons came in such a big group that the people who lived there originally thought they would hold political domination over the issues that required a vote. This is one of the reasons the people of Missouri tried to withhold the vote from the L.D.S. settlers at that time. The people of Missouri assumed these Latter Day Saints would vote in a block vote and decided to prevent them from doing so. This erupted in violence when the Missouri governor issued the famous “extermination order” which allowed the legal extermination of the Mormons, and they were driven again by mob violence in the dead of winter to Quincy, Illinois. This extermination order of Governor Boggs, and the era of the holocaust during the Nazi Regime have one very prominent concept in common. Both political entities ordered the extermination of a people.

The concept of equal rights for women is as old as the ancient Greeks; the Greek philosopher Plato advocated for equality between the sexes in his Republic. Few civilizations have even approached this equality, however, and it has only been in modern times that women have been granted legal rights which were routinely applied only to men. Actual equality in society has lagged far behind legal emancipation, many believe. The idea that all men and women are created egual is supposed to be the foundation of our Republic. Sadly, however, that equality is still a dream we are striving to attain. Women have had to fight for the right to vote, to own property, to go to school, to be paid the same as their male counterparts, and to serve in the armed forces, to name but a few. The plight of women seeking equality is mirrored by those who have suffered racial inequality.

Part of the problem is information handed down from generation to generation such as is the case of anti-semitism. Other prejudices are fostered by people being perceived as different from the majority. Skin color, religious beliefs, ethnic traditions, and lifestyle become the target of distrust simply because they are different. We end up with a socirety where one religion is pitted against another, wars are waged because of skin color, lifestyle choices become the target of hatred.

In this freedom for all society that our forefathers conceived the negative ramifications caused by fear and bias towards one another is usually propogated, and promoted by Demagogues with one ulterior motive; a power grab. If they can stir up emotions and fears among a group of people who in turn will rise against another group they have accomplished their goal. While the groups fight amongst themselves about who is right, and who is wrong the demagogues slide in under a cloak of darkness, (if you will), and win whatever power they sought.

Mr. Niemöller's words ring true today just as they did back in the day they were uttered. It is our duty, and our obligation as American citizens to speak out when we read or hear aspertions being cast because of religious, racial, sexist, or any other type of bigotry. It is also our duty and obligation to look around to find the demagogue behind the movement that creates such situations and to expose their ulterior motives. When the athiest comes to take away religion, or when a preacher comes to take away another's right to believe as they choose I will be there even though I may disagree with both of them. I will also defend the right of equality for everyone no matter their race, their sex, or their ethnic background. This is not a view limited to a right or left wing political belief. It is an American belief.

What’s In A Name? Why a Politician’s Character Matters

When I was a teen I was lucky enough to have a great grandfather who lived nearby. I was old enough, and he lived long enough for me to appreciate his wisdom. Grandfather died six months before his hundredth birthday. He told me that the only thing we truly owned in this life was our name. He went on to say that whatever we said, or did was a reflection on that name. I am not going to pretend that I have never tarnished my name, (I am no angel), but I remember grandfather’s words, and they constantly remind me that my name is all I really own. I also am not, nor do I ever plan to run for public office.

During this election cycle I have been amazed at the comments left on sites pertaining to the character of the candidates, and how some think the character of a man is unimportant. If character has no worth then why do we lock up thieves, and con-men? Why are there so many jokes about unethical lawyers, and used car salesmen? Why do very few people trust politicians? Somewhere along the line these professions developed an unsavory reputation. The names of the professions have become synonymous with lying, cheating, narcissism, and unethical. I know I’m old and the attitude of the world has evolved into something that would have been unacceptable in my younger years, and quite uncommon in my grandfather’s day, but where do we draw the line?

If a man cheats on his wife, and family, then he’s a cheater. If he does it repeatedly he’s a serial cheater. Someone who is prone to cheating might not consider cheating on their taxes as wrong. Keeping their promises might not be high on their list of standards to live by. It’s possible that they are the ones who would copy someone else’s test paper, drive away after hitting your car in the parking lot, or not taking an unpaid for item back to the store. How can anyone ever trust a known cheater? It’s true that a cheater can change. People do, but that person will spend the rest of their lives fighting the impulse to cheat. I just don’t think a person with such a character defect should be in a position, (such as President Of The United States), and have the power to affect the lives of so many people.

Another part of character is admitting when we are wrong, as well as standing up for what we think is right. I remember the show ‘Happy Days’ the character named Fonzie couldn’t bring himself to say the words “I was wrong”. The story-lines, and the ability of the actors to pull it off made the subject very funny, and somehow acceptable. We all recognized the trait within ourselves. When we were kids it was easier to deny stealing cookies out of the cookie jar, than to admit that we had broken the rules. I’m not so sure that fear of punishment was the only inducement to lie about our actions. I think it’s more about looking good at all costs. Being considered not stupid somehow trumps admitting to doing something stupid. On the other hand if a person believes something they’ve done was right, then they are bound to stand by their action, and defend it.

There is no difference between living your life by the standards you believe in, and standing strong when it comes to questions about your actions. Of course if your actions, or beliefs were underhanded, or devious, and caused harm to others then defending those beliefs, or actions is redundant. It seems today that the officials we’ve elected live in tremendous fear of being found out. They claim to believe in lower taxes until it comes time to vote. They tell you big government is their greatest adversary until you look at their voting record. They justify, explain, and defend their stupid actions. Very rarely do they admit that their actions over the years have cost the citizenry a secure future. I don’t recall ever hearing a politician admit that the earmarks they endorsed that brought home the bacon to their state hurt all the states. It’s a character flaw. Politicians should be bound by the doctor’s oath of ‘do no harm’.

After 9-11 we heard story after story of the brave men and women who ran into the burning, collapsing twin towers trying to help others. We wept as we heard the recorded phone calls made by passengers on United Airline’s Flight 93, and learned of their courageous actions to save the lives of those who were targeted in the attack on our nation. I never read a comment from anyone on any on-line forum, or news report that said the character of the 9-11 heroes wasn’t important. The names of all those who lost their lives that day are memorialized.

Today we honor the names of those who died, or who were wounded in combat. Everyone of these individuals showed a tremendous strength of character, and honored the only thing they most assuredly owned in their life; their name. Is it too much to ask that those already elected, and the campaign hopefuls display this same strength of character?

Is The Media Biased Against Romney?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, which is affiliated with George Mason University did a study and produced a press release entitled: Study: TV News Bashes Romney, Boosts Horse Race. I knew there was bias against Romney in the news, but didn’t realize it was obvious to so many people.

According to the study: Frontrunner Mitt Romney is getting by far the most negative press of the GOP field, according to a new study of television news coverage by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. The study also found that the campaign horse race is getting over six times as much coverage as the candidates’ positions on policy issues. According to CMPA director and George Mason University professor Robert Lichter, “The media love a horse race and hate a frontrunner.”

This study covered 118 stories on the Republican primaries from January 1 to the January 10 (2012), New Hampshire primary on the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX (the first half hour of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report”, which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation). This is the first release from CMPA’s ongoing 2012 Election News Watch Project.

Bad News for Romney Mitt Romney was the only major candidate to receive a majority of negative evaluations by sources and reporters, on both the broadcast network nightly news and FOX “Special Report.” (We measured evaluative comments about the candidates’ behavior, past records, issue positions, personal character, etc. However, we excluded comments about how they were faring in the campaign horse race.)

Broadcast Results On the broadcast networks, evaluative comments of Romney were 78% negative vs. only 22% positive. By contrast, on-air judgments of Ron Paul were 73% positive vs. 27% negative, evaluations of Jon Huntsman were 71% positive vs. 29% negative, Rick Santorum’s evaluations were 56% positive vs. 44% negative, and comments about Newt Gingrich were 52% positive vs. 48% negative. Other candidates received too few evaluations to be statistically meaningful.

FOX Results Romney fared slightly better on FOX “Special Report”, than on the networks, with 63% negative vs. 37% positive evaluations. By contrast, Ron Paul fared less well than he did on the networks, with evenly balanced coverage — 50% negative and 50% positive comments. Rick Santorum did best on FOX with 63% positive vs. 37% negative judgments. These were the only candidates who received enough evaluations on FOX for meaningful analysis.

I knew that MSNBC was 100% in the tank for Obama followed closely by the other major networks, but was amazed at the negative attitude coming from Fox who supposedly is fair and balanced. According to the study 2/3 of the news reports concerning Romney on one Fox show “Special Report” was negative. That’s only one show. Fox runs 24 hours a day.

The New York Times ran an article on January 17, 2012 entitled ‘A Spare Lectern and Little Left to Chance at Republican Debate’. The article covered a debate prep session with Bret Baier and other Fox pundits involved in the debate. According to the Times article: “It is one of the quirks of the 2012 campaign: the number of debates seems not to have diminished their significance or the expectation that they should create a media moment. In fact, as the Republican field shrinks, Mr. Baier and Fox view themselves as one of the last lines of defense to fully litigate Mr. Romney’s record before millions of viewers.”

I found that last line especially interesting. Baier sees his job as someone who needs to fully litigate Mr. Romney’s record. The word litigate is defined as: ‘to make the subject of a lawsuit; contest at law.‘

To prove or disprove my theory that the media is showing extreme bias against Mitt Romney I did a search on google.com and used the search words Romney, CPAC. Here’s the list of article titles that came up today in that search:

CBS: Romney has to persuade voters — not tell them — he’s the right candidate
MSNBC: Romney retools stump speech to emphasize leadership
Daily Beast: CPAC’s Enthusiastic Crowd Polled for Romney and Cheered for Palin
Washington Post: Mitt Romney, CPAC and the chance of brokered convention
Chicago Tribune: At CPAC, It’s Rick vs. Mitt: Dueling GOP candidates make their conservative pitch
Associated Press: Romney Tops Santorum in CPAC Straw Poll
State Column: Rick Santorum: Mitt Romney rigged the CPAC straw poll
Talk Radio News: Why Mitt Romney Won The CPAC Straw Poll
Politico (blog): Romney worked the CPAC straw poll
CNN: Surging, stagnating, staying relevant in GOP race
The Guardian: CPAC settles for Mitt Romney’s ‘severe conservative’ routine
New York Post: Rick Santorum dismisses Romney’s Maine, CPAC wins; suggests Romney may have paid for CPAC votes
USA Today: Romney to stick with conservative message
Los Angelas Times: Santorum says he backs working women, hints CPAC poll was rigged
The Week Magazine: Mitt Romney’s disputed CPAC and Maine wins: What they mean
Christian Service Monitor: CPAC: After a tough week, Romney wins conservative straw poll


My research has convinced me that the media is indeed biased against Governor Romney. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. My next question is, why? This is supposition on my part, but I think I’ve figured it out. The media leans left and favors the democrat party. That is a given, and not even disputed anymore by anybody. Since there is only one democrat running for president in the 2012 election the media will report in favor of that democrat. This seems purely logical, right? If the media is targeting one republican candidate above the other candidates then they must figure that candidate to be their biggest threat when it comes to their candidate winning the election.

Since Governor Romney is the man receiving the negative attention from the media, it stands to reason that the candidate that the current occupant of the White House doesn’t want to run against is Romney. Promoting his competitors to win the republican nomination would be a slick way to prevent Obama having to face Romney in the general election. He might be forced to defend his record, instead of debating social issues with someone like Rick Santorum.

Obama’s Real Intentions

According to Reuters, “In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years — $1.3 billion — despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.”

After reading the article, I asked myself why? I was under the impression that this country was in debt, and nobody in Washington, including the president, has made any serious headway towards designing, and passing a budget that would get us out of debt. There’s been a lot of bills coming out of the House that never seem to make it to the floor of the senate. There’s been a lot of press releases covering the White House, and congress concerning their intentions to get this country back on a sound fiscal base. However, I don’t recall actually seeing our government do anything but talk about it.

Perhaps the problem is we have too many talkers, and not enough doers. There seems to be some kind of criteria for elected officials to be good debaters. There doesn’t, however, seem to be a big vetting system on elected officials when it comes to being people who have a knack for actually accomplishing things.

Congressman Paul Ryan came up with a budget proposal many months ago that had all the facts and figures put together in a plan that could have worked. The democratic party ran negative ad campaigns against Ryan’s plan showing a Ryan look-alike pushing a granny off a cliff. Instead of looking at the plan and trying to work with it, the do-nothings wasted their time and energy denigrating the proposal. The president gave it a thumbs down, and everybody went on like we weren’t borrowing money from China, in debt over our heads, and slowly but surely heading down the same road as Greece.


Rep. Ron Wyden (D) and Rep Paul Ryan (R)
I was glad to note that Governor Romney had taken the time to look the plan over and applaud its ideas. I was also glad to see that Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who happens to be a democrat, had worked with Republican Rep. Ryan on the plan. Isn’t this what we elect these people to do? I don’t recall hearing any big announcements that more Republicans and Democrats are rolling up their sleeves, and working to turn the Ryan plan into a bi-partisan American plan. Too many officials on the Capitol Hill are too busy trying to one-up the other guy, to do what is necessary to save this nation. The worst offender, of course, is the president, who only seems to be able to come up with budget proposals that run us even deeper into debt.

This same president is running for reelection. Apparently, he is fighting for reelection on several fronts, all of which he has created, but they all lead to one goal. His over-all plan is to divide the country in as many ways as possible. He has labeled congress as the do-nothing bunch, and he’s run a year-long campaign of class warfare against American citizens. He is attacking those who’ve succeeded financially, and those who’ve been elected to make, and uphold our federal laws. He also promotes racial division at every opportunity. His latest campaign strategy involves pitting the federal government against religion, a clear violation of the United States constitution – the same constitution he swore to uphold.

President Obama has been in office three years, and ever since he and his Democrat allies lost total control of the House in 2010, he’s been campaigning, not leading. It is beyond unethical. It’s reprehensible. I believe Barack Obama’s ultimate goal is to divide the people of this nation so deeply that it creates another civil war. Should he succeed, the civil war won’t be north against south. It will be the republic against socialism, and it could lead to the ultimate collapse of the United States of America. A bankrupt and divided America cannot stand.

There is hope, however. I believe, with all my being, that electing Mitt Romney as our next president will resolve the dilemma we are facing. Romney has proven that he can work with elected officials who have a different point of view, and he has demonstrated the ability to get things done. The legislature in Massachusetts was 85% Democrat while Romney was governor. Romney was able to turn their financial debt around and the state coffers ended up with a surplus. Governor Romney didn’t spend his time trying to create rifts between the citizens of the state.

Another item in Romney’s successful history is how he saved the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. They were plagued with a horrible scandal, nearly bankrupt, and on the verge of being cancelled. Mitt came in, looked at all the problems, came up with solutions, and turned what would have been a devastating black-eye on our nation’s reputation into a successful, and very profitable adventure. As CEO of Bain Capital, he also demonstrated the ability to turn hundreds of troubled businesses around and make them profitable again. I believe with his talent for financial turnarounds, he will be able to push the reset button and get America back on track. I also believe that his strong love of country, and deep patriotism will help to heal the contention that the Obama regime has created.

I’ve looked over the other candidates, and although they all have good points, they all have one thing in common. They’ve all spent a lifetime of being part of the problem that exists in this nation’s capital, instead of the solution. Each has contributed some very positive things, but none of them have managed to step forward at any point in time and say enough is enough. The House freshmen last year made more headway than any of the other candidates did in their entire careers as elected officials. Perhaps that’s the problem. They all became career politicians instead of spending some time in Washington fixing a problem, and then going home as a citizen to live within the laws, and nightmares they helped to create.

Mitt has no desire to stay in Washington after his presidency. If elected for one, or the maximum two terms he’ll do his job and then go home. He won’t be hanging around trying to make money as a lobbyist, influence peddler, or anything else. That’s is the kind of attitude all politicians should develop.

A Conspiracy Theory Part 1

I've been watching the 2012 election with a great deal of interest this past many months and have come to some very startling, and saddening conclusions. I believe we are being played for fools, and perhaps we're too gullible to realize it.

Let's take a look at the last four candidates left in the Republican campaign to regain the White House. Alphabetically they are: Gingrich, Paul, Romney, and Santorum. Let's look at these candidates and see what they are offering.

Newt Gingrich The Man Who Would Be Emperor

Newt Gingrich, I beleive, started his campaign for president as a book and video promotion. I don't think he had any intention of really running for the office this election. He saw a golden opportunity to promote his books and videos on the campaign trail, and took it.

Newt has never run a national campaign before, but he's been around politics long enough to know that you have to get a campaign organized. You have to have people on the ground. You have to have a network, promotional items, advertisements, contact lists,command centers, transportation, plus a well thought out strategy. You need endorsements from people that the citizenry holds some regard for. Most of all you need financial backing, and a lot of it. Everything involved in running a successful campaign hinges on the behind the scenes organization. Instead of building such an organization Newt took a Caribbean cruise. Most of the staff he initially had quit in disgust.

What Newt had in his favor was the Fox News network singing his praises at every given opportunity. Let's not forget that Fox News has become the favorite network of most conservatives. Their motto of fair, balanced and unafraid has been sold, and the majority of Republican viewers have bought it. When Newt flopped Fox played it down. Day after day Fox pundits referred to him as the smartest man in the room, the greatest debater that ever was. We were inundated with them, and him comparing his life, his views, and his political career to that great conservative president Ronald Reagan. According to Fox Newt could do no wrong. He practically walked on water.

For years I've heard Hannity explain over, and over on his nightly show on Fox that Obama was never vetted. He has talked incessantly about Bill Ayers, Reverand Wright, and Obama's other questionable affiliations. Sean continually tells us how mainstream media never brought those things up during the 2008 campaign.

By the same token Hannity and the rest of the Fox news network doesn't talk about the things that Newt has said and done over the years. The accusations that Newt divorced his first wife after she'd been diagnosed with cancer to go marry his long-time mistress were skipped over. The fact that his ex-wife and children were penniless at one point and had to receive charitable aid from their church because Newt was a dead-beat dad wasn't brought up in Fox News conversations. No one reminded the public that Newt divorced his second wife after she was diagnosed with M.S. so that he could marry another woman he'd been having a long-time affair with. I don't recall Fox introducing Newt's excuse that having these affairs had made him more electable. Their only reference to the whole affair was that Newt had asked God for forgiveness. They down played the ABC with Newt's second wife where she told her side of the story. Most especially Fox never pointed out that while Newt was in charge of investigations concerning President Clinton's immoral behavior Newt himself a serial adulterer was carrying on his own affair while investigating the president's wrong-doings.

Newt's record as a congressman, and speaker of the house never came under scrutiny by any of the Fox teams. It has been questioned and published by various authors that Newt was brought up on ethics violations by the House. There are numerous accounts via old news footage, and public documents that Newt was found guilty of ethics violations by the house and in a majority vote was sanctioned and fined $300,000.00 by his fellow congressmen both Republican and Demmocrat. He says that it was all overturned, and that the $300,000.00 fine wasn't a fine at all but rather expenses being paid back. Nobody talks about Gingrich and the check kiting scandall. And noone calls a spade a spade when it comes to the influence peddling Newt was involved in during the fifteen years after he left the house.

When information about the real life and times of Newt Gingrich started coming forth via the internet, and other news sources, people began questioning his behavior. It was all brushed off with simple denials by Newt. "That never happened", he'd say. "That is a lie", he'd retort. Peers from his Congressional years began speaking out confirming the stories being reported were accurate. Videos from old newscasts, ads and documents showed up proving the allegations to be true. Newt just made more denials, and nobody, especially Fox, ever pushed him for the truth. Instead they aired campaign film clips of him everyday, and via their many programs kept his name floating in front of their viewers. The man called Newt got more free publicity than anyone I've ever seen.

It took several million dollars of ad campaigns by his opponents, some listless Gingrich debates, some very off the wall comments, and a loss in the Florida primary to force the man who talked himself into believing he would one day be emperor of the United States to expose his true self. By the end of the Nevada caucus he was running on very shaky ground.

He had no real support. His wild and wacky ideas such as starting a moon colony became a joke. He turned out to be a man who can only do well when things are going good. He accused debate moderators of being unfair, he said the crowds were too noisy, or too quiet. He called his opponents liars, accused them of being unconservative liberals, and was never called on the carpet for the lies he was spewing. When things got tough, he blamed it on everyone but himself, made a lot of excuses, and kept on talking without saying anything relevant. Reminds me a lot of President Obama. Newt's main foe in all this became Mitt Romney.

Mitt spent millions on ad campaigns that told the Newt story. His campaign had to spend the money, and redirect their campaign efforts to do the job that the media wasn't doing. Let's never forget that mainstream media in America is in the tank for the left, most especially President Obama. So, Newt had Fox News in his corner, Obama had the mainstream media protecting him, and Paul, Romney, and Santorum basically were on their own.

Speaking of Obama. I see his campaign team behind the rise and fall of Gingrich. I think initially their intention was to build Newt up and then bring him down during the general campaign. He was the ideal opponent for them to campaign against.

Everything there ever was, and ever will be about the man called Newt the Obama team already knew. He would have been the perfect candidate for Obama to campaign against. After a Newt nomination, it wouldn't take too many negative Obama ad campaigns to turn the most ardent conservative supporters away from that egotistical being who carries more baggage than all the airlines combined. Newt's defense would have been fits of anger, allegations of being treated unfairly by his opponent, by the media, by the elite D.C. insiders. He would have ended up standing alone on stage a lost and broken man wondering whatever happened to the idea of selling a few books and videos. In all this the Republican party would have lost another election.

The rise and fall of Newt gave Obama supporters some real entertainment, and welcome confidence. See, they can say, Republicans especially the conservative ones are stupid. It's so easy to defeat them. All you have to do is play the game. And play the game they did. Meanwhile Fox News is still waiting, and hoping their man Newt is going to make another comeback, and restore their faith in themselves. The conspiracy marches on.