Well, that came a little sooner than I anticipated, but it's a wise decision on his part: Donald Trump says he's not going to pursue the presidency after all.
His reason: He's sure he could win, and he refers to polls that show him at the top of the field (yeah, but that was 2 weeks ago, before the fall). But, he says, you can't run for president half-heartedly, and he's really a business man at heart and not ready to leave the private sector.
What he doesn't mention is the wide-spread ridicule and scorn with which his antics have brought. I think it really wounded the big narcissist in him. He didn't know he was so unliked and had made such a fool of himself. That's pretty devastating for a narcissist: to have that self-inflated balloon punctured.
So far, Newt/Nut is still banging that bunny's big bass drum of energy and perseverence.
The field just got a little less colorful, and a lot saner.
Ralph
Monday, May 16, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Newt = Nut - #5 - Refreshing honesty
Well, well, well. Newt/Nut is capable of a sliver of honest self-reflection after all. And was it ever refreshing !!!
Today on "Meet the Press," in a long interview that was typical Gingrich, there was this moment of clarity.
That everyone's out of step but you?
Ralph
Today on "Meet the Press," in a long interview that was typical Gingrich, there was this moment of clarity.
David Gregory: "Would you consider the idea of being vice president?Quite true, I'm sure. But what does that tell you, Newt?
Newt Gingrich: "David can you think of a single candidate that would have me on the ticket with them?"
That everyone's out of step but you?
Ralph
Newt = Nut - #4 - How his mind works
Here's the story on Newt/Nut.
If I were not a shrink, and therefore not bound by my ethical responsibility not to diagnose people that I have not interviewed professionally, I would say that Newt is a pathological narcissist with sociopathic behavior.
Newt-Nut is a colossal, grandiose/super-needy ego wrapped around a sharp mind that generates ideas faster than anyone can process them, including himself. And he is dangerous because he can be very convincing, especially to people who don't know the facts and assume his confident manner comes from speaking truth.
It does not.
It comes from what Mickey Nardo calls the defining characteristic of the narcissist: they believe their own ideas: "I think it, therefore it is true."
Newt is also what someone has called "a Versuvius of ideas;" and as those change mercurially, then so does his conviction of rightness. Hence the flip-flops that are hard for him to explain. He actually believed x yesterday, but today he believes y. So was he insincere yesterday? Or is his duplicitious today? From his viewpoint, the answer is no; because at any moment he believes it.
Well, yes and no. It's relatively easy to understand how this must work in his mind. But there is also the odor of willful manipulation of the ignorant masses, putting forth ideas that I do not believe he believes, like saying that Obama's policies are more of a danger to America than is al Qaeda.
So, in addition to the gradiose narcissist, there is the sociopath who will just say anything to pander for votes.
As a potential POTUS, we must hold him accountable for his behavior, not just what goes on in his mind. Do we want NEWT/NUT answering the red phone at 3 am?
Ralph
If I were not a shrink, and therefore not bound by my ethical responsibility not to diagnose people that I have not interviewed professionally, I would say that Newt is a pathological narcissist with sociopathic behavior.
Newt-Nut is a colossal, grandiose/super-needy ego wrapped around a sharp mind that generates ideas faster than anyone can process them, including himself. And he is dangerous because he can be very convincing, especially to people who don't know the facts and assume his confident manner comes from speaking truth.
It does not.
It comes from what Mickey Nardo calls the defining characteristic of the narcissist: they believe their own ideas: "I think it, therefore it is true."
Newt is also what someone has called "a Versuvius of ideas;" and as those change mercurially, then so does his conviction of rightness. Hence the flip-flops that are hard for him to explain. He actually believed x yesterday, but today he believes y. So was he insincere yesterday? Or is his duplicitious today? From his viewpoint, the answer is no; because at any moment he believes it.
Well, yes and no. It's relatively easy to understand how this must work in his mind. But there is also the odor of willful manipulation of the ignorant masses, putting forth ideas that I do not believe he believes, like saying that Obama's policies are more of a danger to America than is al Qaeda.
So, in addition to the gradiose narcissist, there is the sociopath who will just say anything to pander for votes.
As a potential POTUS, we must hold him accountable for his behavior, not just what goes on in his mind. Do we want NEWT/NUT answering the red phone at 3 am?
Ralph
Saturday, May 14, 2011
End of days
I was just flipping through TV channels trying to find Mike Huckabee's announcement that he's not running for president. It's been obvious for a while that his heart just isn't in it, and that's what he said. No news there.
Why I'm writing this is to share what else caught my attention as I was channel surfing. On the "Church Channel" was a very earnest man explaining why Christians should oppose any form of national ID. Here's the gist of what he was saying:
Ralph
Why I'm writing this is to share what else caught my attention as I was channel surfing. On the "Church Channel" was a very earnest man explaining why Christians should oppose any form of national ID. Here's the gist of what he was saying:
We must resist it, because it is Satan at work, trying to gain control and rule the world. Everyone thinks a national ID card is a response to 9/11 as a security measure. But, no, the truth is that Ronald Reagen foresaw the truth in the early 1980's when they presented the idea of a national ID to him; and he said "No Way. This is the Mark of the Beast."I kid you not. That's what was coming out of my tv set here on a Saturday night. Folks actually believe this stuff.
How fortunate we were to have a Biblical scholar as president, who knew the prediction in Revelations 13 that any sort of identifying "mark" is the work of Satan and is a sign of the End Times.
So that's what is happening now with the attempt by the federal goverment to establish a network. States are required to have digital photos on driver's licenses; and these will be networked so that any state can access other state's ID data banks. And then of course the federal government will also have access.
And then they will have control: if you don't have this ID, then you can't buy and sell, you can't get a loan or a driver's license; you can't fly on an airplane, and ultimately you can't get a job. And then they will have complete control of you. And that, my friends, is the work of Satan. It's his way to control the world and gain power over us all.
Ralph
Newt = Nut - #3
Huffington Post's screaming headline was, "Newt's Dirty Little Secret."
No, not the marital infidelities, nor even the fact that, since he married his high school teacher in his late teens, he has never been without a wife or fiancee -- not even for a day. Wife #1 and wife #2 were divorced after he had already proposed to the next one in line.
If I were a shrink, I would be wondering what it is that makes Newt so intolerant of being alone, even for a day, ever since he was in high school. But that's not my job here.
Not to mention the fact that he informed both wives of his intent to divorce them when they were recovering from devastating illness -- #1 in the hospital after cancer surgery, #2 soon after receiving a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. My advice to #3: stay healthy.
No, it's not those dirty secrets.
It's the fact that, running in a GOP primary where "ObamaCare" is about as dirty a word as you can utter, Newt actually has a history -- well publicized, in his own published words, so he can't escape it -- of supporting mandatory health insurance coverage. In the mid-2000s, he and Hillary Clinton together sought to construct a centrist position on health care reform, which included individual mandated insurance purchase.
He wrote in an op-ed for the Des Moines Register in 2007:
It's quite simple. Newt-Nut is now running for president. He's just saying what he thinks will get more votes from the crowd he is pandering to at the moment.
Integrity? He has none. Wife #1 said so, in an interview in Vanity Fair. Consistency? None. Morality? None. Ask him about all the non-profit foundations he has set up to collect money and how much of that money actually goes to charities?
Newt-Nut needs to be in a think tank, where people play with ideas, not in the war room or a cabinet room making decisions that affect other people's lives.
Ralph
No, not the marital infidelities, nor even the fact that, since he married his high school teacher in his late teens, he has never been without a wife or fiancee -- not even for a day. Wife #1 and wife #2 were divorced after he had already proposed to the next one in line.
If I were a shrink, I would be wondering what it is that makes Newt so intolerant of being alone, even for a day, ever since he was in high school. But that's not my job here.
Not to mention the fact that he informed both wives of his intent to divorce them when they were recovering from devastating illness -- #1 in the hospital after cancer surgery, #2 soon after receiving a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. My advice to #3: stay healthy.
No, it's not those dirty secrets.
It's the fact that, running in a GOP primary where "ObamaCare" is about as dirty a word as you can utter, Newt actually has a history -- well publicized, in his own published words, so he can't escape it -- of supporting mandatory health insurance coverage. In the mid-2000s, he and Hillary Clinton together sought to construct a centrist position on health care reform, which included individual mandated insurance purchase.
He wrote in an op-ed for the Des Moines Register in 2007:
"Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it. . . . An "individual mandate" [should apply] when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed."In his 2008 book, Real Change, he wrote:
"Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor."So . . . how is he going to explain these prior positions and his recent joining the conservative rant against "ObamaCare," calling it "madness" and "indefensible," and calling for it to be repealed and defunded?
It's quite simple. Newt-Nut is now running for president. He's just saying what he thinks will get more votes from the crowd he is pandering to at the moment.
Integrity? He has none. Wife #1 said so, in an interview in Vanity Fair. Consistency? None. Morality? None. Ask him about all the non-profit foundations he has set up to collect money and how much of that money actually goes to charities?
Newt-Nut needs to be in a think tank, where people play with ideas, not in the war room or a cabinet room making decisions that affect other people's lives.
Ralph
Newt = Nut - #2
Rarely has a major newspaper run such a damaging editorial in response to the announcement of a serious candidate for the presidency as the New York Times wrote on Newt Gingrich on May 5th. Add to that Gail Collins' column in today's Times, which brims over with sarcasm and scorn, as well as other pundits -- and you get the impression that Newt/Nut's campaign is in big trouble from the start.
Here's what the Time's editorial board wrote on May 5th:
Here's what the Time's editorial board wrote on May 5th:
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and latest entrant in the Republican presidential field, has money, experience and name recognition. His introductory video is all serenity and hope, a deceptively calm way for many voters to meet a splenetic politician with a long history of slashing divisiveness and intolerance.He refers to himself as a historian, but apparently his personal study of history has primarily taught him about the effectiveness of demagogy. Donald Trump, fiddling with birth certificates, is an amateur compared with Mr. Gingrich at sliming the Obama administration — as well as Democrats, Muslims, blacks and gay men and lesbians.
The Democrats who won in 2008, including President Obama, are “left-wing radicals” who lead a “secular socialist machine," he wrote in his 2010 book, “To Save America.” He accused them of producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” And then the inevitable historical coup de grâce: “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.”
The slurs don’t stop there. He compared the Muslims who wanted to open an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan to the German Reich, saying it “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” He is promoting the fringe idea that “jihadis” are intent on imposing Islamic law on every American village and farm.
Last year, he called for a federal law to stop the (nonexistent) onslaught of Sharia on American jurisprudence and accused the left of refusing to acknowledge its “mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” This nuanced grasp of world affairs was reinforced when he said that Mr. Obama displayed “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.”
In his world, advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment, blacks have little entrepreneurial tradition, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a "Latina woman racist." (He kind of took back that last slur.)
Despite all this, not to mention the ethics violation when he was speaker, Mr. Gingrich’s real liability among the conservative and fundamentalist groups that dominate the Republican primaries is his personall history of infidelity that led to two sordid divorces. (Much of which took place while he was denouncing President Bill Clinton for moral transgressions.) That may explain his endless calls to restore Judeo-Christian values.
It is sometimes difficult to know what some Republican candidates stand for, as they pander to the far right without alienating the center. It is not difficult to know what Newt Gingrich stands for, and to find it repellent.
I rest my case.
Ralph
Glitch
My blog server has been down for a couple of days, and a couple of my posts just before the glitch got lost. So I'm going to try to reconstruct them. They were mostly about Newt/Nut Gingrich, his having just announced that, yes, he is actually running for president.
As must be obvious, I am passionately opposed to this man holding any public office. He's smart, to be sure, but it's more of a smarty-pants type smarts.
He is ethically corrupt and completely without integrity. If I weren't a shrink, and hence ethically forbidden from making diagnoses about people I haven't interviewed professionally, I would call him a pathological narcissist with sociopathic behavior. So take that as a layman's opinion, based only on public information about the man.
More later . . .
And for those who tire of my anti-Newt/Nut rants, this too shall pass.
Ralph
As must be obvious, I am passionately opposed to this man holding any public office. He's smart, to be sure, but it's more of a smarty-pants type smarts.
He is ethically corrupt and completely without integrity. If I weren't a shrink, and hence ethically forbidden from making diagnoses about people I haven't interviewed professionally, I would call him a pathological narcissist with sociopathic behavior. So take that as a layman's opinion, based only on public information about the man.
More later . . .
And for those who tire of my anti-Newt/Nut rants, this too shall pass.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
