I couldn’t help but make this association today as we head into what some suspect could be the last debate among GOP contenders.
Per WikiPedia: He was known for his neat grooming — hiding his shallow and sneaky character. Typically, Eddie would greet his friends' parents with overdone good manners and often a compliment such as, "That's a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver" …
However, when no parents were around, Eddie was always up to no good — either conniving with his friends, or picking on Wally's younger brother Beaver. Eddie's two-faced style was also typified by his efforts to curry favor by trying to talk to adults at the level he thought they would respect, such as referring to their children as Theodore (Beaver's much-disliked given name) and Wallace, even though the parents called them Beaver and Wally.
Tell me if this doesn’t work for the Slickster by changing a few details:
Mitt Romney is known for his neat grooming — hiding his shallow and sneaky character. Typically, Romney would greet conservative’s friends with overdone good manners and often a compliment such as, "That's a lovely redress you're declaring, Mrs. Tea Party" … However, when no conservatives were around, Romney was always up to no good — either conniving with his RINO friends, or picking on Reagan’s younger revolutionary Beaver. Romney’s two-faced style was also typified by his efforts to curry favor by trying to talk to conservatives at the level he thought they would respect, such as referring to their philosophy as ‘Severe Conservative” (a never used description).
Again only slight changes in the WikiPedia entry reads:
Ricky is an intelligent, teenage boy, who is trusted by his parents, popular with his social conservative peers, and liked by his religious organizations. He is an advocate for anti-abortion, family values and traditional marriage being his three favorite topics. …Unlike his brother Gingrich (who thinks unions are "creepy"), Ricky has had many pro-union votes during the course of the Senator’s run. The humor of the character rests in Ricky’s teenage perspective. He occasionally makes blunt or inappropriate comments that are bewildering or embarrassing to other Republicans. He slips into religious slang occasionally, which upsets his party. He sometimes humorously regards his competitors as clueless squares.
Unfortunately WikiPedia doesn’t summarize the character traits the same as the other minor players. They do say this which certainly could be applied to Gingrich’s propensity to wander into liberal enclaves and get in trouble with his own party:
Beaver prefers "messin' around" with his pals and reading comic books to attending church or taking dance lessons. Most episodes in the series feature Beaver getting into some sort of trouble at home, in school, or around the neighborhood and then receiving timely and appropriate moral instruction from his father regarding his misbehavior.
My take would be this: Gingrich is the roly poly good natured character with big ideas who is often unafraid to try new adventures, even despite warnings of his much more “square” brother Ricky. He hates Mitt Romney because he can see right through the fake veneer, and is often the target of Romney’s pranks and derision. At heart, Beaver is often misunderstood by his friends and parents although we know that he is genuinely a conservative and will always come around to the right position in the end.
But we would be remiss to not have an honorable mention for “Lumpy” aka/ Ron Paul. To paraphrase wiki:
(Lumpy) lives somewhere in the conservative neighborhood, which gives Ronny the opportunity to bully the conservative boys on their way to the nomination. Although a touch of the bully never leaves Ronny, he eventually becomes Romney’s friend. They are in the same class together at school, in spite of a three hundred year age spread between the two.
Perhaps tonight’s debate will be much more enjoyable as we see our cast of characters through these eyes. Below is an analysis of tonight’s debate by TheRightGuy":
The American Majority
Written by TheRightGuy
Let me preface by saying that I support Newt Gingrich. I will get to that at
the end. I am however not a Republican in the current sense nor a Democrat.
First and foremost I am an American, which means that for the last 12 years
my government has failed me. I work hard, plan, save, invest in myself, my
future, and generally try to not do anything to negatively impact those
around me. I wish my government could do the same. My criterion for
government success is not high. I simply want the government to work for the
Tonight features what may be the very last republican debate. I certainly
hope that is not the case, but the powers that be are trying to get this
over with and avoid taking this all the way to the convention. At this point
in the game it is hard to know what to expect. Well, we know we can expect
Mitt Romney or at least his surrogates to go out of his (their) way to paint
Santorum as a religious nut (What does Romney believe in again?), but other
than that it is a tossup on whether the candidates will spend more time
talking about the problems facing this country or the problem of trying to
sell republican voters that they are the most Reaganesqe, Conservative,
managerial or what have you. They do all of this in the pursuit of the
But what is the majority and how do you define it? Watching the debates and
the primary results, it appears that the majority are evangelicals brought
from their churches by the bus load to polling places. Watching Obama and
his policy making, it appears that the majority is the 99% of workers who
want to raise taxes on the rich. It is true that the majority of Americans
are Christian and do not make 1 million dollars a year. Does this
demographic really constitute a true majority? Have we become so divided by
the soap opera of Washington politics and the 24 hour news cycle that the
real majority, Americans, have sacrificed their core beliefs in pursuit of
social or economic extremes?
The government across all branches has popularity ratings below 50%. How
then is it possible for any politician to keep a job these days? The simple
solution is that they have taken to a divide and conquer approach. Study the
American people, find the most divisive stances that pit a majority of
people against a minority, and run on those issues. The result is selfish
politics and extreme partisanship. Why is the result selfish? Imagine if
your candidate’s opponent won and their divisive stance was forced upon
you. Would you would be outraged?
I’m reminded of two stories:
- “The Lottery” is a popular short story written by Shirley Jackson. In
the story a small town holds a lottery every year. The winner of the lottery
is stoned to death. Every year all the families in the town gleefully
participate in the lottery. Every year the winner of the lottery pleads for
mercy. The majority hurl their stones.
- “1984” is a famous dystopian novel written by George Orwell. While a
discussion on this work could rage on endlessly, one quote stands out:
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
Think critically about the above and about present politics. Have the
politics of both the left and the right devolved into the sacrifice of one
individual for the benefit of the other? Republicans and conservatives seek
to enforce social conformity and economic freedom. Democrats and liberals
seek to enforce social freedom and economic conformity. When faced with the
choice of the above, Americans must choose one issue that matters most to
them while at the same time sacrificing the other. Sadly both issues are
important yet there is no box to check that allows a person to choose
responsible social and economic freedom. I emphasize responsible, because
without responsibility, freedom of one can become tyranny on another. Too
much economic laze resulted in the current economy, the ousting of the
republicans, and majorities for the democrats. In turn too much social
liberation and economic redistribution caused Americans again to balk and
groups such as the Tea Party displaced many on both sides of the isle.
I know of several instances in 20th century when the U.S. Government worked
for Americans. The first and greatest example is WWII. Others are the space
race, the cold war, and the fall of communism. These subjects are too far in
the past for most Americans to remember or fully understand. Furthermore,
each of the above periods of unity was brought about because of exterior
There is however a more recent instance when the government worked for the
majority of America. I am talking about the Contract with America. The
contract was not created under the threat of war or based on pitting one
group or party against the other. The issues of the contract were issues
favored by more than 60% of Americans in both political parties. To be
succinct, the issues targeted the American Majority. In 1999 the members of
both parties forced Newt out of government. The charges against him all
proved erroneous, but he still committed a crime; He made the government
successful. So successful that it didn’t matter which party was in
control, because both parties were forced to concentrate on the issues and
values held by the American Majority instead of the divisive politics used
to win elections. Without means to divide Americans, it became impossible
for an unfavorable politician to maintain office. In order to save the
political class, Newt was displaced, and divisive politics resumed and
There are those that will say that Newt is divisive, but what is he really
dividing? My support for Newt is not based on party affiliation. My support
isn’t based on my disapproval of the other candidates or the current
president. I support him because I firmly and emphatically believe that he
wants to see Americans succeed without consideration of party, creed,
status, or beliefs. I support him because he is for the American Majority.