Republican Nomination Ethics Points, 1/18/2012

I’m sitting here watching the GOP Final Four debate. Here are some brief ethics observation on a lively day in the race:

  • At the opening gun, Newt Gingrich gave a bravura performance of indignation personified when moderator John King asked him about the looming ABC interview of his ex-wife, Marianne, in which she impugns Newt’s character and claims that he asked her to agree to an “open marriage.” He told King it was a despicable question and said that the issue was not worthy of mention. Good act, but of course the question of character is relevant, and of course Gingrich, who has none, wouldn’t think so.
  • I learned something today: both Romney’s wife and Marianne were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Newt divorced wife #2 after her diagnosis. Romney has continued to support his spouse in sickness and in health, like the marriage vows pledge. I’m sure Newt thinks the contrast is irrelevant too. I don’t.
  • Gov. Rick Perry, who in a previous debate said of Newt, correctly, that a man who would cheat on his wife would cheat on his business partner, withdrew from the race today. Then he endorsed Gingrich, saying that, as a Christian, he believes in redemption, and that nobody is perfect. From this we learn that 1) as a Christian, Perry doesn’t understand redemption, which requires confession, remorse and amends, 2) he apparently believes someone who would cheat his business partner should be trusted to be President of the United States, 3) he doesn’t recognize the difference between normal levels of imperfection and dangerous untrustworthiness, and 4) Perry is a hypocrite, and not very bright. But we knew that already. Good riddance.
  • Weeks after its caucuses, Iowa announced today that, “OOPS! Rick Santorum won, not Romney!” This comes after Mitt Romney rode the momentum of his supposed win in Iowa to another victory in New Hampshire that pretty well ended Santorum’s brief surge. Even the current corrected result from Iowa is half-baked, because a couple of the precincts still haven’t got their counts straight. Iowa, in other words, is a disgrace. It is absurd enough that this quirky state has such a disproportional effect on the presidential nomination process; now we know that it can’t even run its own weird caucus system competently enough to get an accurate result. All that time, all that money spent, all those debates, all that media coverage, all the blather, and Iowa tells America that the wrong candidate won, and can’t correct its mistake for weeks. Now both parties should tell Iowa that its candidates will skip the caucuses in the future. The state’s lack of responsibility and competence is unacceptable, and it is neither fair nor right that it should have the critical role of being the first state in the primary process when it can’t fulfill that role effectively.

8 thoughts on “Republican Nomination Ethics Points, 1/18/2012

  1. I’d nominate the 2012 primary to be an Ethics Train Wreck. Perhaps I’m just young, but I’ve never seen such a pack of snakes and fools in my life, including Obama. Bring on the clown car!

  2. Iowa, and all the early states, use proportional delegates. Romney, Santorum and Paul all got 6 delegates that night. An exact three way tie. Newt got 4. This new count changes nothing but bragging rights.

    The press always tries to make everything a huge problem so they can grab eyeballs, but with only 28 delegates in Iowa, the results are mathematically as accurate as they need to be.

    When the winner-take-all states come up in the last round of primaries in April is when this kind counting snafu would really matter.

    All that being said, caucus systems are a vote suppressing anachronism dominated by the more extreme elements of the parties.

    • But Fred, Iowa is never about delegates. It’;s about an early measure of voter appeal, momentum and relative strength. That’s why the winner and vote order DOES matter….at least until New Hampshire.

        • True, but not really germane.Iowa is always symbolic, not substantive—there aren’t even really “votes.” Thus who wins, who “beats” the other candidate is more important than by how much…a win is a win, and there is a US Senator and a former US President who are living proof of how that .1% (or less) counts big-time. And it’s not as if Iowa had to count millions of votes, either…there were less than 200,000. There were no hanging chads.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.