It’s difficult to fathom we still have almost a year to go in this 2012 election year cycle. I feel like saying, like MacBeth, “Out damned spot,” but there’s no getting around it, we are stuck in one news cycle after another, talking about one candidate or another. I’ve decided to ride the tide out, and keep writing about politics and politicians, and cycle off from time to time listening to music.

Reading my favorite Persian proverb helps me endure when the rhetoric gets almost too boring to bear; it’s worth repeating and others might find it soothing to the nerves. “He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not is a fool – shun him. He who knows not, and knows that he knows not is a child, teach him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows is asleep – wake him. He who knows, and knows that he knows is wise – follow him.”

I play games listening to the candidates, talking, debating, speaking, and being interviewed, by slotting them in one of the first three sayings in the proverb, which changes from time to time. I switch them around. No one yet fits the last line of the proverb.

Aside from comparing them with the wisdom of the Persian proverb, I catagorize them in other ways, which changes from time to time. Listening to Ron Paul, despite the fact he says something that makes sense once in a while, comes across as a “whiner” to me. It’s whine here, whine there, and whine, whine everywhere.

Newt Gingrich comes across as an establishment professional, acting as a cross between a professor and a preacher. Vacillates between feigned charm and a cantankerous mood. But no matter, the politician in him shines through. That is one dedicated to getting in office and staying in office.

Rick Perry portrays himself as one who knows he’s good-looking, acting like he’s in a contest to be Texas poster man of the month. He’s charming enough, his forgetfulness does not bother me. I’m happy he remains in the line-up, because he does have a smattering of charisma. Not much, just a little bit.

Hermain Cain is somewhat different, and his presence takes some of the edge off the boredom of the others. Don’t believe all those stories about his sexual life, and I really did like him, until I read he met with Henry Kissinger, wanting him on his team. That was the coup de grâce, as far as I’m concerned. I thought he was pretty smart, until he started screwing around with that dude. And just amazed he did not know the people of this country had enough of Kissinger some years back. He’s a cancelled check. He would have had a better shot at his goal, going to Disney and trying to sign up Mickey Mouse than Henry Kissinger. Brrrrrr.

Jon Huntsman, I would place in catagory two, i.e.,, “one who knows not and knows that he knows not,” but keeps trying to prove he does by virtue of the fact he speaks Chinese. A rather attractive man with a lovely family.

Rick Santorum comes across like a sophomore running for class president. Has a background in politics, but can’t seem to gain traction in the presidential race. Probably a good man, who should never gotten involved in politics.

Michelle Bachman is politically savvy, attractive and smart. With a smattering of Miss Goody Two-Shoes attitude. One I think should retire back to the free-enterprise system of work instead of politics. On the other hand, when the seduction of politics gets in one’s system, it’s difficult to skake.

Romney, the perennial candidate, comes across with an attitude that he’s a cut above the fray, looking down on all the others. He most likely will wind up as the Republican nominee, but a lot of baggage as a flip-flopper and proponent of socialized medicine. I suggest he will most likely be the one, not because Republicans want him, but the Democrats want him to run against President Obama.

I’ve never liked Newt Gingrich since his early days in politics from Georgia. However, I would like to hear him debate Obama. If Romney is the nominee and could hire Newt as his stand-in to debate Obama, he might have a shot at winning.

President Obama has the worst record as President of anyone I know of in my lifetime. Sometimes I feel like sitting down and having myself a good cry over where his programs and attitude has taken my country, but no amount of tears can fix the damage that has already been done. And it doesn’t matter how I feel, nor anyone else, at this juncture.

Despite his wrecking bar first term damage, I predict he will be re-elected. The majority in this country have bought into the Socialistic system, and secondly, he still emanates a certain charisma. Still a convincing speaker. Poor marks at governing, but an outstanding campaigner. Has a boatload of money behind him, and first-term experience as president with a campaign committee, well-heeled in how to win an election.

As I pointed out in a previous article, the ammunition of the Republican Party is the disenchantment of the majority over Obamacare. If Romney is the party nominee, then that bone of contention loses its clout, because of his history in Massachusetts as Governor, who implemented the socialized medicine concept there. Consequently it only stands to reason the Democrats want Romney as the designated Republican front runner to oppose President Obama because he will be the easiest to defeat.

To tolerate this news domination of a very long election cycle until next November, I play a sort of game with all of it. Sometimes like dominos, sometimes like Texas Hold Em, plus making a guessing game out of it to see who will be the next one set up to be knocked down and out like bowling balls. I created a card game I play with my 6 year-old grandson, Prince William, I named doodly squat. Which means you got nothing. He loves playing that game. And I can relate that game to the slew of candidates, and frequently do during debates. Particularly when they talk and say nothing. I say omg, doodley squat.

I have overcome the boredom of so much political rhetoric, by making a game out of all of it. Which makes it all rather entertaining. And can be quite interesting, as one progresses, to get a better handle on what is actually taking place, because it is a game, and you can pretty much figure what the next step will be, because there’s a pattern to the games politicians play. And not nearly as puzzling as they would like to lead the public to think, because it’s part of their game to dazzle the citizenry with their footwork.

It could also be described as a dance. Sometimes they waltz, and sometimes jazz dance. The seasoned politicians know the steps to whatever dance is being played to the music. Sometimes they dance together and sometimes tap dance or change partners. If one understands it’s all a game and a dance, one can predict and figure out what’s apt to happen next. Because so much of it is orchestrated. It’s all staged, and the curtain opens and closes. Like a three-act play. Therefore if you view it as a staged dance, and a game, you will be better equipped to understand what’s going on, politically.




Share →

One Response to ELECTION CYCLE OF 2012 – THE DANCE and THE GAME of POLITICS (Issue 677)

  1. Betsy Savino says:

    Betsy Savino…

    Thank you ever so for you blog post.Really thank you! Really Cool….