{"id":3993,"date":"2016-05-09T00:42:31","date_gmt":"2016-05-09T00:42:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/?p=3993"},"modified":"2016-06-23T02:16:24","modified_gmt":"2016-06-23T02:16:24","slug":"is-this-deja-vu-all-over-again-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/?p=3993","title":{"rendered":"Is this “deja vu all over again?”"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

This post tries to answer the musical question<\/a>\u00a0 – \u00a0“Is<\/strong>\u00a0there a new\u00a0Maverick<\/a>\u00a0in town? \u00a0<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

<\/h1>\n

This post follows up<\/a>\u00a0the last one,\u00a0\u201cIs there a new \u2018Maverick\u2019 in town<\/a>?”<\/p>\n

\"\"The inspiration for both<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0these blog-posts came when I found an old – November 1998 – copy of\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/a>\u00a0magazine. \u00a0(At the bottom of a\u00a0dumpster<\/a>.)<\/em> \u00a0The cover showed Bill Clinton – looking “befuddled<\/a>” – in the middle of the\u00a0Monica Lewinsky<\/a>\u00a0scandal. \u00a0(She’s at left.)<\/em><\/p>\n

But inside – starting on page 92 \u2013 I found an article “much<\/em><\/strong> more relevant to today\u2019s political scene.” \u00a0It noted a candidate – 18 years ago<\/em><\/strong> – who showed a “malignant understanding of how angry words, more than real ideas, can be deployed as weapons of power:\u201d<\/p>\n

He knows that repetition \u2013 invoking the same foul claims over and over \u2013 can transform outrageous lies into popular understandings. \u00a0He blithely changes his facts, positions and personae because he is making it up as he goes along and assumes no one will catch up with the contradictions…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"DonaldBut here’s the strange part: \u00a0It\u00a0wasn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>Donald Trump!<\/p>\n

So here goes: \u00a0Page 92 of the 11\/12\/98\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/a>\u00a0featured two headlines. \u00a0The larger one read, “The Stink at the Other End of Pennsylvania Avenue.” \u00a0(That is, the stink from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

Page 97 included this tidbit, about<\/em> that 1998 presidential candidate: \u00a0\u201cThe man sounds delusional, and probably he is. \u00a0He sounded the same twenty years ago\u2026\u201d \u00a0(Which seems to verify that\u00a0history repeats in cycles<\/a>.)<\/em>\u00a0 Also on page 97:<\/p>\n

The demagogic style of politics is still present in the man\u2026 \u00a0A lot of [his] harsh rhetoric has the quality. \u00a0It may sound loopy at first\u2026 \u00a0But if you assume [his] eye is really on the White House, reckless declarations may make sense for advancing his agenda.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Page 97 also featured a side note about an assistant – on the campaign staff – who quit “as the [candidate] got more and more detached from reality.”<\/p>\n

So just who was this guy? \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Who was this arguable\u00a0precursor<\/a>\u00a0to Donald Trump? \u00a0(With his\u00a0take no prisoners<\/a><\/em>\u00a0style of campaigning?) \u00a0<\/em>You could see the answer in the smaller headline. \u00a0(Just above the lead “Stink at the Other End of Pennsylvania Avenue.”)<\/em> \u00a0Just above that lead headline, in slightly smaller type, read these words: \u00a0“The Real Scandal in Washington is\u00a0Newt Gingrich<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

Which brings up the subject of “The Newt’s” powers of\u00a0prophecy<\/a>. \u00a0In 1998, Gingrich meditated on one thing quite often. \u00a0(Aside from his own presidential run.)<\/em>\u00a0 That one thing?<\/p>\n

How will America look – in 2017 – “after two consecutive two-term Republican presidents (possibly including himself) have transformed America.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"NewtAs to how Newt’s powers of prophecy<\/em> turned out, try an experiment.<\/p>\n

Type “newt” into your search engine. \u00a0One result that I<\/em><\/strong> got\u00a0quick\u00a0was: “newt gingrich scandal.” \u00a0That “other teaser” led to links like\u00a0Newt Gingrich Lacks Moral Character<\/a>. \u00a0(According to “second ex-wife Marianne.”<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Another link:\u00a0\u00a0Newt Gingrich’s Congressional Ethics Scandal Explained<\/a>. \u00a0(According to both\u00a0Mother Jones magazine<\/a><\/em>\u00a0and – in 2011 – the “pro-[Mitt]-Romney super-PAC\u00a0<\/em>Restore Our Future<\/a><\/em>,” which said “Newt has a ton of baggage<\/a>.”)<\/em>\u00a0 A third link-title read,\u00a0<\/span>Newt Gingrich Affair – Huffington Post<\/a>. \u00a0That third link led to a host of other links on this apparently-robust topic.<\/span><\/p>\n

Then there’s the fact that we didn’t<\/em> <\/strong>have “two consecutive two-term Republican presidents.”<\/em><\/p>\n

But we digress!<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n

Getting back to the\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/a>: \u00a0Page 124 noted that Newt – in 1998 – “will \u00a0become anything and ruin anybody else in order to achieve his goals.” \u00a0That page also featured a quote from one victim – a Democrat – who noted ruefully: \u00a0“Gingrich developed a vocabulary of poison, which he injected into the political dialogue.” \u00a0(All of which sounds eerily familiar…)<\/em><\/p>\n

Then came page 125, with this note:\u00a0 “Sure it’s difficult to imagine the nation electing someone disliked by two-thirds of the electorate. \u00a0But it’s easy to imagine Gingrich scoring well in Republican primaries, where right-wingers can crowd out moderates.” \u00a0And this:<\/p>\n

Newt Gingrich poses a greater threat to the Republican Party than to the republic itself. \u00a0The GOP will not become the governing party as long as leaders like Gingrich hold the reins. \u00a0And more and more reasonable Republicans are beginning to realize this.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One response to that “reasonable Republicans” comment could be: \u00a0Apparently not! \u00a0<\/em><\/strong>All of which arguably leads to this prophetic<\/a>\u00a0cartoon, by\u00a0Charles Schulz<\/a>\u00a0back in 1961:<\/p>\n

\"5d5d8f10f87f013014e9001dd8b71c47\"<\/p>\n

One response to that 1961\u00a0prophecy<\/a>\u00a0could be: \u00a0“There seem to be plenty<\/strong> of openings in the\u00a0lunatic fringe<\/a>, and more and more of those openings are being filled these days!<\/em>”<\/p>\n

But once again we digress. \u00a0The topic at hand is whether Donald Trump’s appearance – as the darling of a large segment of the conservative electorate – is\u00a0something new under the sun<\/a>? \u00a0Or is it instead just a case of deja vu all over again<\/a>…<\/p>\n

Interestingly enough, the 1998 article noted – on page 125 – that Newt Gingrich was the “Bill Clinton of the\u00a0GOP<\/a>. \u00a0He’s a manipulator – flexible and malleable, willing to grab any opening to be a winner.” \u00a0(Which also<\/strong> sounds chillingly familiar<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

But on the page before – page 124 – there was some wisdom the “Grand Old Party” may want to pay more attention to. \u00a0The page noted that the party’s “intramural crosscurrents are fierce and difficult to manage.” \u00a0On the other hand, the Democratic<\/em> Party’s ability to manage just such fierce crosscurrents did<\/em> <\/strong>allow them to be the “governing power for decades – a willingness to deal and compromise among its contending blocs and interest groups.”<\/p>\n

\"SarahOn that<\/em> note see\u00a0Sarah Palin vows to campaign against Paul Ryan<\/a>. \u00a0As an aside,\u00a0Ryan is the current\u00a0Speaker of the House<\/a>. The article noted Palin’s\u00a0decision was “sparked by Ryan’s bombshell announcement … that he wasn’t yet ready to support Donald Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee. Palin endorsed Trump back in January.”<\/p>\n

On a related note see\u00a0Devouring Their Own<\/a>. \u00a0<\/em>But again<\/em> getting\u00a0back to the subject at hand: \u00a0Is “The Donald<\/a>” indeed\u00a0something new under the sun<\/a>, or just\u00a0deja vu all over again<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Which leads us to one last quote:<\/p>\n

One result of these tactics [by many conservatives, back in 1998] is the brittle, bitter climate of distrust in national politics today: \u00a0the loss of civility amid endless personal accusations, the stalemates that develop on issue after issue when both sides are unable to approach the grounds where reasonable compromise can occur. \u00a0Possibly this nasty atmosphere would have developed anyway… \u00a0But Newt is the guy who poured poison in the stream.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Then of course comes the real\u00a0kicker<\/a>. \u00a0Donald Trump is considering Gingrich as his vice-presidential candidate. \u00a0Or that Gingrich is actively seeking the post. \u00a0(Or both.)<\/em> \u00a0See for example: \u00a0A Trump-Gingrich Ticket: \u00a0So Crazy It Just Might Make Sense?<\/a><\/p>\n

\"FailureSo “what we’ve got here<\/a>”\u00a0is either\u00a0something new under the sun<\/a>, or\u00a0deja vu all over again<\/a>. \u00a0Or maybe – instead – it’s\u00a0just another\u00a0failure to communicate<\/a>.<\/p>\n

According to\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/a>, Newt Gingrich sounded the same in 1998 as he did – politically – in 1978. \u00a0And what Newt said – and how he said it – seem eerily similar to Donald Trump’s style of campaigning today. \u00a0So whatever “problem” there is with Donald Trump goes back at least 40<\/em> <\/strong>years.<\/p>\n

It may have been for that very reason that there weren’t<\/em> <\/strong>“two consecutive two-term Republican presidents,” 16 straight years with a Republican in the White House.<\/p>\n

Maybe it was the\u00a0scandals<\/a>, or maybe it was the\u00a0ton of baggage<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Or maybe it’s just easier to win a local Congressional race with a “vocabulary of poison” than it is to win the presidency. \u00a0And who knows? \u00a0Maybe Donald Trump<\/em><\/strong> is the new\u00a0\u201cBill Clinton of the\u00a0GOP<\/a>,” a master manipulator “flexible and malleable, willing to grab any opening.\u201d<\/p>\n

But is Donald Trump willing “to deal and compromise” enough to navigate the “contending blocs and interest groups” within the Republican Party? \u00a0(If not the country itself?)<\/em><\/p>\n

History seems to show that Newt Gingrich was not<\/em><\/strong> able to do all that. \u00a0Which makes Trump’s flirting with the idea of Newt as his VP candidate all the more intriguing.<\/p>\n

And all of which leads to\u00a0another set musical questions: \u00a0Is Donald Trump simply another case of\u00a0deja vu all over again<\/a>? \u00a0Or is he “crazy?” \u00a0Or is he instead\u00a0crazy like a fox<\/a>?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Charley<\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

The post-title alludes to the phrase “taken from a famous (attributed) quotation from Yogi Berra<\/a>: \u00a0‘It’s like d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu all over again.'” \u00a0See\u00a0Deja Vu All Over Again – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

D\u00e9j\u00e0 vu<\/a>\u00a0is\u00a0the “phenomenon<\/a> of having the strong sensation that an event or experience currently being experienced has already been experienced in the past.” \u00a0So Yogi Berra’s saying “its like deja vu all over again” would be similar to saying something was “redundant<\/a>\u00a0redundant<\/a><\/em>.”<\/em><\/p>\n

The upper image was borrowed from the last post,\u00a0\u201cIs there a new \u2018Maverick\u2019 in town<\/a>?” \u00a0In turn the\u00a0image is courtesy of\u00a0Maverick (TV series) \u2013 Wikipedia<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

As for the phrase “answers the musical question” see e.g.\u00a0Carol Brady – Quotes – imdb.com<\/a><\/em>: \u00a0“Carol Brady: \u00a0‘Yeah, the show that asks the musical question: Can eight average people make it in the big time?'” \u00a0See also\u00a0“Bibliographia” – Verbatim, Vol. 29, Issue 1, Spring 2004<\/a><\/em>\u00a0(“A Decade-by-Decade Guide to the Vanishing Vocabulary of the Twentieth Century”), which included this:<\/em><\/p>\n

In the postwar years, young people became increasingly anti-authoritarian in their behavior. Blame it on Marlon Brando in The Wild Ones. \u00a0One way to keep the old folks at bay was to cut them out of your communications… \u00a0“Kids,” a song from the 1960 musical Bye, Bye Birdie, asks the musical question<\/strong>, “Who can understand anything they say?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You could also\u00a0Google<\/a><\/em>\u00a0the term “‘answers the musical question’ phrase.”<\/em><\/p>\n

The article at issue – starting on page 92 of the\u00a0November 12, 1998\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/a>\u00a0– started:<\/em><\/p>\n

The obsession with Bill Clinton’s scandal covers up a stink at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue – that other Washington scandal known simply as Newt. \u00a0If Clinton were forced from office, the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich – a man loathed or distrusted not only by the public but by his own Republican colleagues – would be a heartbeat from the presidency. \u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The next sentence: \u00a0“‘President Gingrich.’ \u00a0Not likely to happen, but truly frightening to contemplate.”\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The Donald Trump image was featured in\u00a0On Reagan, Kennedy \u2013 and \u201cDick the Butcher<\/a>.” \u00a0In turn the image<\/em>\u00a0is courtesy of\u00a0businessinsider.com\/donald-trump-has-been-fired<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Re:<\/em>\u00a0Mother Jones magazine<\/a><\/em>\u00a0and the “pro-[Mitt]-Romney super-PAC\u00a0<\/em>Restore Our Future<\/a><\/em>,” agreeing that Newt Gingrich has baggage. \u00a0See also\u00a0<\/em>Politics makes strange bedfellows<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

Re:\u00a0Lunatic fringe<\/a><\/em>. \u00a0Wikipedia<\/a><\/em>\u00a0noted that the term was “popularized by Theodore Roosevelt<\/a>, who wrote in 1913 that, ‘Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.'” \u00a0See also\u00a0Lunatic Fringe<\/a><\/em>, the “song by the Canadian<\/a> rock<\/a> band Red Rider<\/a> from their 1981 album<\/a>.”<\/em><\/p>\n

The \u201clunatic fringe\u201d cartoon is courtesy of\u00a0Peanuts Comic Strip, April 26, 1961 on GoComics.com<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Sarah Palin image is courtesy of “aol.com\/article\/2016\/05\/08\/sarah-palin-says-paul-ryans-failure-to-endorse-donald-trump-is-unwise\/21373081.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: “devouring their own.” \u00a0The link in the text is to Saturn Devouring His Son – Wikipedia<\/a><\/em>. \u00a0That article told of the Greek god who, “fearing that he would be overthrown by one of his children,\u00a0ate each one<\/a> upon their birth.” \u00a0For other examples see\u00a0Republicans Begin Devouring Their Own – LA Progressive<\/a><\/em>, and\u00a0Republicans devouring their own – Democratic Underground<\/a><\/em>. \u00a0But see also\u00a0COMMENTARY: Democrats are devouring their own<\/a><\/em>, a website headquartered at\u00a01400 East Nolana, McAllen, TX.<\/em><\/p>\n

The “What we’ve got here<\/a>” image is courtesy of the\u00a0<\/em>Wikipedia<\/a><\/em>\u00a0article noting the phrase “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate<\/a><\/em>,” featured in the 1967 film Cool Hand Luke<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The lower image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article, “Crazy like a Fox (1926 film)<\/a>, a 1926 film starring Charley Chase.” \u00a0The caption reads: “Charley Chase as Wilson, the groom:”<\/em><\/p>\n

Crazy like a Fox<\/b><\/i> is a 1926 American short film starring Charley Chase<\/a>. \u00a0The two-reel silent comedy stars Chase as a young man who feigns insanity in order to get out of an arranged marriage, only to find out that his sweetheart is the girl he has been arranged to marry… \u00a0The film features Oliver Hardy<\/a> in a small role filmed shortly before his teaming with Stan Laurel<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which may bring up the fact – again<\/strong> – that sometimes\u00a0history repeats in cycles<\/a>. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post tries to answer the musical question\u00a0 – \u00a0“Is\u00a0there a new\u00a0Maverick\u00a0in town? \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 * This post follows up\u00a0the last one,\u00a0\u201cIs there a new \u2018Maverick\u2019 in town?” The inspiration for both\u00a0these blog-posts came when I found an old – November 1998 – copy of\u00a0Rolling Stone\u00a0magazine. \u00a0(At the bottom of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3993"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3993"}],"version-history":[{"count":97,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3993\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4359,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3993\/revisions\/4359"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3993"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3993"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3993"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}