Monday, December 5, 2011

Is Newt The Republican Savior?



My opinion to the question is no, however, I don't know who is or who could be.  Newt is not my cup of tea for a number of reasons. He resigned from the House under a cloud, he cheated on two wives, he sat with Nancy Pilosi and agreed that global warming is an issue, he took millions from Freddie Mac and  he is not a conservative.  I have always thought that he had too much baggage to make him a viable candidate and the aforementioned points are just some of them. However, he is better than Obama but in my opinion, but not by much.


We still have nearly a month before the marathon starts toward the Republican convention. Newt and the remaining candidates will have to answer more questions and hopefully this vetting of them will make them better general election prospects.


Here is more on Newt:
Conservative Tom







Newt Stinks, But…, And Other Thoughts

December 5, 2011 by Bob Livingston
Newt Gingrich has been gaining popularity among voters.

A frightening scenario appears to be playing itself out as we march inexorably toward the time when real live voters begin casting meaningful votes to select the Republican candidate who will face President Barack Obama in 11 months: Newt Gingrich might win.

Many of our friends on the “right” seem OK with that. In fact, over the past two weeks in our own GOP Presidential poll, Gingrich has led Ron Paul. The latest results during that period:

Candidate                 Votes In Poll
Newt Gingrich              8,920
Ron Paul                       7,081
Herman Cain                 4,355
Mitt Romney                 2,004
Rick Perry                    1,280


Gingrich’s rise in the polls would make a fascinating psychological study. Here we have a man who cheated on (at least) two wives (once while excoriating President Bill Clinton for doing the same thing), who is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, who has attended the pagan ritual summit also known as Bohemian Grove, who slobbered all over Nancy Pelosi in a television commercial supporting Al Gore’s global warming claptrap, who lobbied (or gave history lessons) for Freddie Mac and earned himself $1.6 million, who has supported cap-and-trade legislation and individual healthcare mandates (just like Romney and Obama) and has proven himself to be a political chameleon and as big a corporatist as any who ever inhabited Washington, D.C. Despite all of those things, Gingrich is climbing to the top of the Republican beauty contest. And people who claim to be conservatives are hopping on his bus.

Gingrich should be anathema to conservatives. In fact, for all the reasons Romney hasn’t appealed to conservatives, Gingrich can go one (at least) better: flip-flops, crony capitalism, would have voted for TARP, supports ethanol subsidies and, as recently as this summer, said he supported Federal mandates on purchasing health insurance (which he first did while lobbying for the healthcare industry) and a lover of wars, wars and more wars — oh, yes, and he believes in stripping Americans of their citizenship if they oppose the government.

In reading comments posted to neocon-supporting websites, the message seems to be, “Newt stinks, but anything is better than Obama.”

Such a meme proves the left/right paradigm remains firmly locked in place. George W. Bush was bad, Democrats love to say, because of the wars, bailouts and budget deficits. Obama is bad, Republicans love to say, because of the wars, bailouts and budget deficits. Gingrich will be better than Obama, Republicans say, because even though Gingrich supports wars and bailouts and budget deficits, his name is followed by an “R” rather than a “D.”

If you are truly a conservative, then Newt stinks — that is true — and so does Romney. But how does placing an “R” after a candidate’s name make the stink any more tolerable than the one we’re getting from the current “D” stinker? The only difference will be which group of corporatists get richer over the next four years. Fascism and tyranny will continue unabated, and government will continue to grow.


3 comments:

  1. Do you have any objection to Ron Paul besides his foreign policy? At worst, he would be president for 8 years. Do you seriously think China is going to start a war with us in the next 8 years? I showed you the data already. W have LIGHT YEARS more military power than them. We spend multiple times more money on military than them. We could cut our military budget in HALF and it would still be more than DOUBLE China's. That's how badly we are overspending on military. We have a military base in Germany to defend the Germans against Stalin. If China started a war with us, it would be a suicide mission -- not only militarily but also economically, since the U.S. is their largest trading partner and they hold our debt.

    On the flip side, Ron is the only presidential candidate who will stand firm against Wall Street. He would also rail incessantly against the Federal Reserve and their monetary policies.


    He can win in Iowa. He is already in second place, and polls show that most Iowans don't yet know about Gingrich taking millions from Wall Street and health insurance companies to peddle his influence. Also, Ron has built a solid organization In Iowa. Gingrich is just getting started. I hope he makes some more dumb statements in that circus show with Donald Trump "debate' on December 27 right before the Iowa caucus on January 3. Ron is not participating in that farce designed for Gingrich and Trump to sell their books. It will be reality show theatre. I wonder whether they will explore Obama's birth certificate.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  2. David, I know this will disappoint you but I am slowly starting to think that he will be the candidate! Conservatives, like myself, respect him in that he has stayed true to his beliefs for years. He doesn't waffle, he is unruffable, and he doesn't apologize for his beliefs.

    In contrast, Romney cannot admit that he has grown and now understands that his beliefs today are part of growing up. Newt has beliefs all over the place and most are not conservative.

    Additionally, the proportional voting system gives Paul a chance. If he can get 20% of the vote in each contest and the other candidates get more and less than that amount, he could enter the convention with the largest number of delegates, if not the nomination. If not getting the nomination, he can be a king maker.

    I do not understand why you (and Paul) are against the Trump debate. It could be the first debate where the questionner is friendly to the Republicans. All the debates previously and after the nomination will be hosted by news people, who are very pro-Democratic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fact--checking: FOX News hosted the Republican presidential debate September 22, 2011. Their organization is about as "pro-Democratic" as you are!

    So far, only Gingrich and Santorum are coming to Trump's thing. Gingrich and Trump are doing it to sell books and promote their other enterprises. I will be surprised if both of them don't make shameless self-promotional references to their commercial ventures. I guess Santorum is coming because he's desperate for some attention and has nothing to lose at this point. The other candidates, such as Ron Paul, who are staying away figure that Trump the "showman" (Gingrich's own description of Trump) will throw in all sorts of zany topics and questions, making the atmosphere more of a side-show than a serious discussion of the issues. You can bet Romney calculated this thing from a risk-reward perspective, and came to the same conclusion.

    Ron is going to have a tough time in South Carolina and Florida against Newt. He needs to at least make a respectable enough showing in his weak states to still be a credible candidate when it comes to the big states like California and New York. It would also help if Newt makes some blunders like Perry and Cain did.

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.