It looks increasingly like you may get a chance, wherever you may live, to vote for Newt Gingrich in your local primary.

I wasn’t sure he would make it this far, but he has, and he seems to be thriving.

This is curious because most people who have worked with him, especially Republicans who have worked with him, hate him. He is a self-aggrandizing ass, and everybody says so.

In the political world ‘friends’ mean money. So how does a virtually friendless man run a campaign for president? If he was independently wealthy he could pay his own way, ala Ross Perot.

Newt does have a lot of money. He has been peddling Washington insider connections since he left office, even before he left office actually. This always pays well.

But he still doesn’t have Ross Perot/Mitt Romney money.

So what? All you need these days are some crazy-wealthy ideologues to set up a super-PAC in your name. Newt is being carried by the donations of two or three people, literally, who have donated millions and millions to his campaign.

The money has given him a platform, and he is a compelling speaker.

While people who know him hate him, he knows that most people do NOT know him personally. He also knows the masses can always be swayed by his standard ‘fear factor’ and ‘us vs them’ speeches.

Are you fascinated/hypnotized by his pseudo-intellectualism? Vote for him. It’s your right.

But if you choose to support him, please don’t bother to tell anyone that you are a ‘family values’ or ‘sanctity of marriage’ voter.

And you know what I’m talking about.

2012 is an election year. Get ready to be inundated with endless distortions and misrepresentations. The development of Super-PAC’s will take mud-slinging ads to new heights. Ceaseless, endless, unaccountable money.

Are you ready for it?

A ‘big one’ that you will hear from now until the second Tuesday in November is “Obama is slashing our defense spending.”

You will hear this again and again and again. Trust me.

If “facts” are important to you, you will want to know this – President Obama has proposed increased defense budgets every year for the next 10 years.

An increase in spending every year for defense.

The GOP Super PAC’s (and inevitably Romney) will do their best to convince you that our military is being dismantled.

Defense currently accounts for 20% of the U.S. budget.

Does that sound like a lot? Here is some perspective for you. We spend more money on our military than the next four countries combined.

Did I say ‘four?’ I meant to say the next seven countries combined.

Ha! Kidding again! The U.S. currently spends more than the next TEN (10) countries combined.

Really. Combined. Don’t you think some of that would be better spent fixing our roads and bridges? That would certainly put a LOT of people to work.

How many miles of road could we fix for the $70,500,000 that each Trident II D-5 Missile costs? How many people would that put to work?

Additionally, when a road is built, countless thousands of Americans can use it every day. When the missile is built it just sits, a $70.5 million dust collector. And then we make another, and then we make another.

And President Obama has proposed increasing this budget each year for the next ten years.

So why will the GOP say Obama is slashing defense spending? Because they always say that, that’s why. That’s all – tradition.

Remember: Don’t ever tell a lie once, you have to pound it and pound it and pound it, until it becomes accepted as a ‘truth.’

People will tell you, even if you don’t ask, that our president doesn’t care for the military, or the soldiers.

Four years ago they told you that Barack Obama was an African-born, Muslim, terrorist-lover, and some people still believe that.

Throw enough s*** on the wall and some will stick…

The current price of gold is at a three month low, and is still dropping.

Are you still buying?

There are lots of things you can invest in. Even in this recessed economy there are stocks and bonds that will make you money. You can buy commodities like wheat futures and, yes, gold.

Gold is a commodity my friend. The price goes up, the price goes down. Is there money to be made in gold? Yep, if you know what you are doing. That would involve some buying and some selling.

If you do nothing but buy-buy-buy because a guy on a radio commercial said it was a great idea, then you do not “know what you are doing.”

Here is the word from David Frum of the Frum Forum:

“Gold trades as a way to make a statement. That’s simply not a sensible way to invest. A great many Americans are paying a steep price – and may pay a much steeper price yet – for allowing hucksters and ideologues to sway their economic judgment.”

Hucksters and ideologues? Who on earth could Frum be talking about?

Glenn Beck is the guy on the radio commercial. The ‘statement’ Beck is making? “Please keep buying gold, because this company is paying me a hell of a lot of money to convince you it is a good idea.”

Certainly his paycheck would be motivation enough for Beck to hawk this, but I also believe he is so self-absorbed that he hopes some catastrophic event will happen that will make gold an invaluable possession. He is hoping for an apocalyptic moment so he can say ‘I told you so’ in regard to all of his ‘end of time’-type conspiracy predictions.

He has been preaching it for years, and his success and popularity seem to be seeping into his brain, leading him to a sort of messianic complex.

At a bare minimum he is now starting to believe his own B.S.. Why not? So many other people believe it, it must be true.

Sorry Glenn, gold will not buy your way out of a catastrophe. Food and, more especially water, are the first things people will want/need when that time comes.

If gold were a magic bullet in the face of every economic downturn, his company would never sell it, they would just keep it, and buy even more.

But they sell and sell and sell, at inflated prices, to rubes, the type of rubes who think Beck is a wise man, rather than a nutcase.

I hope the gold tastes good.

The Democrat-led Senate passed a two month extension to our current payroll tax cuts, and then went home for Christmas.

The Republican-controlled House chose NOT to vote on it, and then went home for Christmas.

Not voting means the tax will increase effective January 1.

The new-age GOP plays zero-sum politics. All of their efforts, on every topic, are designed to defeat the president, or at least to make him look bad.

They won control of the house in 2010 by promising jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

All of their efforts in the two years hence have been to further limit access to abortions, to limit health care to only those who can afford it, and to give tax breaks to the already-wealthy.

They have done nothing, made zero effort, to create jobs. So the ‘jobs’ talk was all smoke. All lies.

More jobs would probably reflect well on Obama, so no effort is made to create jobs.

It has come to the point where the GOP cannot even vote for a tax cut.

Anything that President Obama supports must be defeated, even a proposal to support lower taxes on working Americans.

This is a payroll tax.  This means that people who work for a living will be getting a tax increase.

A tax increase.  Dictated by the Republican party.

Who is the ‘never raise tax’ party?

Correction: Who CLAIMS to be the ‘never raise tax’ party?   Republicans.

If this tax cut was designed to benefit millionaires and billionaires, the Boehner-led Republicans would have stampeded everything in their path to pass it.

Is there anyone anywhere that doesn’t already know that Donald Trump is a (pardon my French) media whore? **

I am now officially approaching ‘old’ so I can say with some authority that I have never in my life seen someone so self-absorbed. Never.

Madonna seems modest by comparison.

I didn’t live in the days of P. T. Barnum, but I can only imagine Mr. Barnum was an understated version of Trump, but with better hair…

For some reason most GOP presidential candidates crawl to him for validation.

Validation from Donald Trump? Are you kidding? Is Homer Simpson not available?

There is exactly one brave GOP presidential candidate, Jon Huntsman, who had the following comments about Trump;

• “I’m not gonna kiss his ring, and I’m not gonna kiss any other part of his anatomy.”
• “Like with a lot of things he (Trump) says, it’s just pure B.S.”

The rest of GOP field are spineless weasels. ‘The Donald’ says “jump” and they all say “Yes sir, Mr. Trump, how high?”

Huntsman’s poll numbers do not look promising, and I fear he will be gone from this race all too soon. I just wish I lived in Iowa or New Hampshire to give him some of the early support he deserves and needs.

Okay, I can’t vote for him, but I can throw the entire weight of the Winkest Link machine behind him.

The editors of Winkest Link hereby endorse Jon Huntsman as the best Republican candidate for President of the United States. He is the best for Iowa, and for New Hampshire, and for all of America!

Jon, if that doesn’t earn you a couple of votes, I don’t know what will…

———————–

** I also beg pardon from whores everywhere, for lumping them in with Trump. He certainly doesn’t better your image.

Current Republicans, for some reason, have deified Ronald Reagan. This is curious, for certain, because Reagan was way more liberal than any current GOP candidate would dare to admit. Today Reagan would never make it past the Iowa caucuses.

All of that is a discussion for another day. On that day, we will touch on the many ways he differed from every current ‘viable’ GOP candidate for president.

The point here is, in spite of his charming nature, I never supported Reagan. I felt his opponents were more likely to aid the downtrodden.

At the time I also felt he was a simpleton, but I have since altered my view on this. Compared to George W. Bush, Reagan was Einstein. I can now see that Reagan used his impeccable acting skills and personal skills to come across as folksy, which disguised a more calculating side. (Please note that ‘calculating’ is not an insult, it requires brainpower.)

But back to my point (if I ever had one)….

John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan and three others in March 1981, is now asking to be released from prison. His lawyers are making the case that he is no longer a threat to society.

Opposing lawyers are making counter arguments that Hinckley is still dangerous, as evidenced by the fact that he has recently looked at books about Reagan and other presidential assassins.

Whether he is still dangerous or not, I am against his release.

‘Life’ should be the minimum sentence for any attempt to assassinate a president or presidential candidate.

No matter what the motivation of the assassin, be it political (Sirhan Sirhan) or insanity (Hinckley), the end result is the same: The will of the American voter is being undermined.

I did not vote for Reagan, but America did. No one should have the right to violently void an election.

No parole. Ever.

I disagree with syndicated writer Cal Thomas on a number of issues, but I read him all the time. His writing is smart enough that he frequently forces me to revisit my perspectives on different issues.

He recently wrote a charming article about his fondness for Texas.

Good for him. I have been there on many occasions, and enjoyed myself each time. Texas is a nice place with nice people. Smart people.

Thomas couldn’t just leave it at that though. Nope, he had to turn it into yet another article about cultural and media snobs. Seriously, he used the phrase “cultural and media snobs” in the very first sentence of the article.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Cal, you ARE the media. And you are a cultural snob.

In your humble opinion, media-types are painting Texas, or more accurately ‘Texans’ as stupid.

No, Cal, we do not think Texans are stupid. We think the governors they elect are stupid.

Governors George W. Bush and Rick Perry do not exactly push the limits of the IQ-meter, if you know what I mean.

I don’t know all the candidates who ran against Bush and Perry, some may have been Rhodes Scholars, but we do know who won: Bush and Perry.

That Texans elected Bush and Perry does not reflect well on Texas.

Texas tends to elect those who were never really good at science, and don’t trust science. They don’t trust any of the ‘intellectual elite.’

They are just genuinely uncomfortable with smart people.

I don’t care if Texans ‘talk funny’ (to use Cal Thomas’s words). People can be plenty dumb without talking funny. Some very smart people ‘talk funny’ on purpose to put on a naïve façade.

It is ignorant to assume someone is stupid based on an accent. On this point Cal and I agree.

I don’t care if some Texans talk funny. I do care if Texans, or anybody, ‘thinks funny.’

To declare scientists as agenda-driven is ‘thinking funny.’

Just because you did poorly in high school science doesn’t mean you must deny the significance of scientific discoveries or, worse yet, imply scientists have some liberal bent. That is just idiocy.

To know scientists is to know this immutable fact: Scientist are first-degree geeks. Geeks are always in search of some new discovery. If any geek/scientist can prove climate change is a ‘hoax’ he will shout it from the rooftops. We are still waiting for this…

But back to our Texas governors…

My feelings toward ‘W’ are well documented. He is nice but not a smart guy, and not a leader in any sense. It took him five-plus years to figure that Dick Cheney was the source of all of his problems. To ‘W’s’ credit, once he figured it out he marginalized Cheney, excluding him from any serious decision-making.

So ‘W’ has the capacity to learn, but was not naturally smart enough to sense that Cheney had been pulling him around by the nose.

Rick Perry is, to a clichéd extent, a tall-walkin’ big-talkin’ Texan. More than once he said Texas should secede from the United States. That doesn’t seem very bright to me, and it sure isn’t patriotic, but it sells well in Texas.

Sorry Cal. Many Texans are very bright, but not ‘W,’ and not Rick Perry

Herman Cain has been accused of multiple counts of sexual misconduct. I am confident this charge could be leveled on any number of corporate executives. Sometimes money, power and adulation can go to your head, and not everyone is above abusing that power.

Can I prove that he did any or all of these deeds? Nope, but I have little doubt that he could have done them, and the ever-increasing number of allegations lends one to believe that at least some of them may have credence.

Mr. Cain has decided to play this two ways: First, “I didn’t do this, but if I did it was the National Restaurant Association who paid the women off to remain silent, not me.”

But his second point is my favorite. He feels that this whole issue has been brought up by Rick Perry and/or supporters of President Obama.

Who knows? Maybe the Perry campaign had something to do with this. Like military campaigns, all political campaigns do lengthy research on opponents. They prod and poke for weaknesses to exploit because winning is the only goal.

When Cain started to gain some traction in the GOP polls all the other candidates went after him, not just Perry.

But here is one thing I am sure of: The Obama people had nothing to do with this.

Who does Obama NOT want to face next year?
1) Romney. Mitt Romney does not excite the GOP base, but he is smart and a good campaigner. It would be harder for democrats to paint him as a right-wing nut. Romney is very conservative but, compared to every other declared GOP candidate, he seems like a moderate. A moderate will have a better chance against Obama than any of the flame-throwers.
2) Perry. He often looks and acts like a goober, and his IQ is only a couple of points north of Sarah Palin, but Rick Perry has charm and exudes a toughness the other candidates don’t have. This sells well in general elections.

That’s it. That is the whole list.

Maybe Cain’s rising poll numbers scared his GOP opponents, but they humor Obama.

Mr. Cain, if you are searching for the source of your ‘women’ problems, you can blame the women who are accusing you of these misdeeds, or you can blame your GOP opponents. Better yet, look in the mirror.

But you can’t blame the democrats. They would LOVE to see you as the opponent next November.

Maybe by then you can name the leader of Uzbeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

You have heard about the $16 muffins, haven’t you?

Some government organization somewhere held a conference at a nearby hotel, and they were charged $16 for each and every muffin that they ate. Sixteen dollar muffins! Horrible!

This is a classic story of how all government is wasteful, and all tax dollars are wasted.

Rush, Fox and the Teabaggers have had a field day with the $16 muffins.

This would be a good story, maybe a great story, were it true.

Sadly, it is not true, but since when has ‘not true’ prevented Rush/Fox from blaring a story over and over?

I am tempted to say ‘there are no journalists anymore.’ This story would have been easy enough to research and get corrected.

Here is the problem with that. I would rather ‘real’ journalists not waste time on muffin stories, or any of the usual stuff Rush makes up and throws out to his horde of believers.

It would be time-consuming and ineffective to rebut all the purposeful inaccuracies he spews, since Rush followers believe journalists are all liberal blah-blah-blah…anyway .

The conserve-o-sphere blared this for weeks. Will we get weeks of retractions? No. Will we get at least ‘headline’ style retractions (toward the top of any FOX newscast)? No.

The real gist of the ‘muffin’ report was this: “Government conference expenditures must be managed carefully.”

Well, Duh. We don’t want anyone wasting taxpayer dollars.

Rush/Fox are not really talking about ‘muffins.’ This is just part of the pattern to paint all government as ‘evil’ and ‘wasteful.’ It is just a game. They never stop…

Forty-two years ago Moammar Gadhafi began his ruthless rule of Libya.

Forty-three years ago the Basque ‘ETA’ movement in Spain began a violent campaign for sovereignty.

The ETA has been decreed a terrorist group by Spain, the European Union and the United States.

This is well-deserved.

Since the late 60’s, in an attempt to gain independence, the ETA has staged hundreds of shootings of police and politicians, and occasionally even bombed civilians. They have killed 829 people.

The untimely (in this case meaning ‘too delayed’) death of Gadhafi garnered big headlines world-wide. Because of this, on the very same day, important news regarding the Basque ETA movement was shoved to the back pages.

After declaring a cease-fire a year ago, they now have officially called an end to all hostilities.

This can only be described as a victory for humanity. While the rest of the world focused on Gadhafi, the Spanish headlines regarding the ETA were certainly banner-width.

Peace breaking out anywhere is cause for real celebration.