BloggeRhythms 1/9/2011

In almost any walk of life, you can tell when folks are in trouble when they become incoherent and grasp at straws simply hoping to stay in the game. And that certainly seems to be the case with Newt Gingrich, who's down to slinging any kind of mud he can dream up.

Apparently, during a debate on, Meet the Press, Sunday morning, Newt Gingrich found fault with Mitt Romney after Romney quoted his father, Michigan Governor George Romney, who said, "never get involved in politics if you have to win an election to pay the mortgage."

Gingrich said, "When Governor Romney made the comment that you shouldn't run if you have to win in order to pay your mortgage, I thought that that was very much the opposite of the American tradition historically. We want every day, normal people to be able to run for office, not just millionaires."

After reading Gingrich's comment over several times, I'm not sure it makes any sense. First of all, Romney didn't say anything about having to be a millionaire to have a mortgage, and I haven't checked the statistics but I believe that most homeowners who are current on theirs aren't millionaires either. Consequently, I think what Mr. Romney actually meant is that if folks are having trouble paying their debts; they likely aren't the best candidates for public office.

Nonetheless, as I sit here and type about the subject, I can think of quite a few folks who arrived in the White House damn near broke and made zillions after they left. Names like Clinton, Johnson and Nixon readily come to mind.

 But, going back to Gingrich's cheap shot (pardon the pun.) As a practical matter, governance is a profession that comes with considerable responsibility and need for knowledge and experience. And, as the last three years have clearly illustrated, the presidency is especially not the place for folks who need training wheels because they haven't the skills or abilities to handle the tasks.

Therefore, since in our society money earned is usually the sign of success, its absence demonstrates the reverse. So then, why should someone who can't even handle their own obligations properly be given responsibility for the well-being of others, be it financial or anything else?

 In the end, however, I think Gingrich has given us all some valuable insight. Because if he's happy with mediocrity, and giving folks a chance who've proven they're not worthy, I'd suppose that he'd select his cabinet and staff exactly that way. Which says to me, here's a guy who'll gamble with everyone else's security and future because it's apparently wrong to him to expect superior performance from others, even one's at the very top of the ladder.

That's it for today folks.

Adios