by Bill Simon
Process of Elimination
Fellow Republican political travelers, do you sometimes find yourself at a point of dismay at having to make a choice among multiple candidates for a primary?
I must admit, as I grow older, I look for ways to decrease the amount of information and data that I have to go through in order to make a decision on things.
SO, luckily, I have a fall-back technique in which I can rely on: the process of elimination (“POE”).
Now, for you folks who actually attended any college not named “UGA,” whereby you likely took real multiple-choice exams (i.e., more than one potential choice on the test question…and, no hints given), you learned how to narrow your choices on multiple-choice exams via POE.
So, using that same skill-set developed through my grueling years at Georgia Tech, for me personally, I will now apply that technique to the 2014 Georgia U.S. Senate Primary to reduce the number of choices I have, and, therefore, increase the amount of time I can spend on more carefully examining the remaining choices…until I can further reduce the pool of choices.
First, the choices currently announced and in the race:
[Note: At the time of this publication, David Perdue has announced he has formed an exploratory committee, but he is not officially “in” the race]
Due to the following facts, I am eliminating one of these choices from any potential of me voting for them in the Primary. If this person makes it out of the primary and becomes the candidate on the general election ballot, I’ll revisit his potential at that point.
So, my first candidate removed by POE is Phil Gingrey. In two distinct, documented recent cases, Gingrey has demonstrated himself to be someone who has clearly lost his ability to reason as a “conservative.”
After the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in late December 2012, “Conservative”-“Republican”-“2nd Amendment Rights” “Defender” Phil Gingrey stated the following at the early January 2013 breakfast of the Smyrna Area Council of the Cobb Chamber of Commerce:
“There are some problems, and maybe these huge magazines even for someone who says, ‘look, I just use an AR-15 for target practice,’ but do you really need to be standing there shooting at a silhouette a shot a second or even quicker with that kind of weapon? For what purpose?” Gingrey asked. “I would be willing to listen to the possibility of the capacity of a magazine.”
What sticks in the craw of my throat the most about these comments by Gingrey is this part in particular: “…but do you really need to be standing there shooting at a silhouette a shot a second or even quicker with that kind of weapon? For what purpose?”
THAT kind of question is a demonstration that Phil Gingrey THINKS he has the right to question what other people may choose to do for no other reason than they enjoy doing it. What’s the purpose most people who have absolutely no intention of EVER committing a crime with a gun have for shooting at a silhouette?
Because, perhaps, they find it “fun”…”enjoyable”…whatever the reason is, as long as they are not interfering with someone else’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, no one (much less a frickin’ moron of an elected official) should be allowed to prevent them from engaging in that activity.
For Phil Gingrey to ask that kind of question is to demonstrate to us that HE is an authentic statist ..someone who thinks the State should control what people do and tamp-down on free will.
Why do people go out and eat at restaurants and consume far too many calories than their body can possibly use at one time? Because they enjoy it. And, despite what idiots like Mayor Bloomberg of NY City thinks, people are allowed to enjoy their own choices in what they consume.
My point here is that Phil Gingrey thinks HE has the right to JUDGE what other, law-abiding citizens choose to do…and, as a legislator, I think that what was clearly in Gingrey’s mind to make that statement was that he had the right to, not only judge someone else’s leisure activity, but decide how someone else should choose to pursue their own, God-granted right to happiness.
Think about this: If Phil Gingrey thought that the solution to madmen using guns to murder people was to limit the magazine capacity of guns, then…by that same line of logic, we, as a society, should really…REALLY look at other issues too.
How about “surfing the Internet,” Phil? You know, Phil, people lookup on the Web how to make meth in their own home…they also lookup how to grow marijuana…or, make pipe bombs….or, they look at pornography….I mean, seriously, Phil, if you want to stop ALL crime perpetrated in America, you would seek to cut-off the people who can find out all this info on the Web, right?
So, knowing Phil and how his brain now works, I’m betting that he would be inclined to pass legislation to start fining anyone who looks-up a keyword on the NSA hit-list ..because, like someone standing-up in a gun range shooting at a silhouette while holding a legally-purchased AR-15, what legitimate, practical reason would someone have for doing such a thing unless it could possibly lead to a crime of some sort, right???
Now, the 2nd reason I will not support Phil Gingrey is his OTHER idiotic statement in support of Todd Akin’s demonstration of how stupid he is with regard to rape.
In this same breakfast meeting held back in early January 2013, Gingrey further demonstrated this ability to cram his foot into his mouth (which, when you consider where his head had to be to have made the first statement I discussed, signifies that he is quite flexible in the physical sense of the word) when he addressed the issue of what came out of Todd Akin’s mouth back in the election of 2012 when Akin made a comment about (paraphrasing) “legitimate rape does not lead to pregnancy.”
Though I know lots of people jumped all over Akin’s use of the phrase “legitimate rape”, I understood the point he was trying to make, though he clearly used the wrong word…my problem was with the CONCEPT that Akin (and several others, one of whom was Georgia State Senator Don Thomas several years back) had that forced vaginal sex would never (to rarely) lead to a pregnancy.
Phil Gingrey supported Akin’s beliefs regarding the concept, and he bolstered his position by stating that he had been a OB-GYN for a number of years, and yady-yady-yah, and therefore he was an “expert” in these matters.
Well, he’s not. He may be an expert in delivering babies, but he’s not an expert in what causes pregnancies. Because…well, we have the most recent case of the cruelty demonstrated by this guy in Cleveland, Ohio named Ariel Castro, who is accused of kidnapping and holding 3 women in captivity for 9 years…who repeatedly…forcibly…violently…raped these women who, in turn, got PREGNANT over and over and over again.
When I read that story, I realized just how big of a liar people like Gingrey, Todd Akin, Don Thomas, and other “pro-life” doctors really are who claim this kind of bullshit. And, I don’t think Phil Gingrey is any kind of “normal liar”…I think that anyone who uses their supposed professional, “medical knowledge” to put forth a medical claim that is not true may be a pathological liar.
If Phil Gingrey still has a medical license, I think it should be revoked. Seriously. Since he has been demonstrated to be incompetent in knowing the truth about the fact that forced-rapes CAN AND DO lead to pregnancies, then what else has he claimed in the past about medically-related issues that are categorically false, and that he made these claims on the basis of making political points?
Phil Gingrey is hereby removed from my list of qualified candidates for the 2014 Republican Party Primary.