I'm not encouraged by the results last night.
There's absolutely nothing more President Obama and the Democrats want than a prolonged, drawn out primary campaign that spews bad blood and wastes resources..while the president continues to consolidate his re-election campaign unopposed on all fronts.
Obviously a part of Saturday's result had to do with the despicable way the dinosaur media besmirched itself and Newt Gingrich's spirited response. The press launched outrageous attacks on both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and it was refreshing to see them slapped around for it. So the voters of South Carolina apparently surged at the last minute for Newt Gingrich, giving him a lopsided victory over Mitt Romney.
This is all very well, but is 'sending a message' what's wanted or needed? Especially if it means re-electing President Obama, or even worse, putting another unfit individual in the Oval Office?
I want emphasize again that there is no true Reagan-type conservative in this race as of yet. Newt Gingrich in his own words is a Teddy Roosevelt-style progressive , Rick Santorum leans towards 'compassionate conservatism ' ala' George W. Bush and Ron Paul is an isolationist conspiracy theorist fruitcake, while Mitt Romney as I've pointed out before is a pragmatist rather than an ideological conservative, who bends according to what he feels he can get accomplished.
None of them is going to change the climate in Washington significantly, so competence and character take on an increased significance.At present, we have neither embodied in our current president, and it's essential he be defeated.
The simple fact is that in my opinion, Newt Gingrich lacks the basic character and demeanor to be president.
Intelligent and articulate? Definitely so, but much of his career has been a series of questionable and self-serving events. In that, he resembles both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who also saw government as a path to personal entitlement and wealth.The incident of his throwing a tantrum during his tenure as Speaker over being seated in the rear of Air Force One en route to the Rabin funeral and being asked to deplane via the rear exit upon returning is a revealing one.
If you look at the Republican members of Congress he led, not only did they ask him to resign as Speaker but few of them if any have anything good to say about him or his leadership. That says something to me ...as does his personal history.
The thing that bothers me most about Newt's Gingrich's story with both his ex-wives is not the adultery per se - stuff happens, after all - or the 'he said she said' stuff, but a simple, easily proven fact - in both cases, he started sniffing around, found someone willing to cheat with him and dumped wife # 1 and wife #2 once he found out they had become ill, #1 with cancer and #2 with MS.
To my mind, that's simply not how a decent man acts.And again, it says a great deal about how he would conduct himself as president.We had a number of similar danger signs about both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Admittedly, Newt Gingrich would likely squash President Obama in a debate, but only if there's actually a debate. President Obama is not obligated to hold one, and if the president is significantly ahead in the polls,he might use the excuse that he's simply 'too busy' running the country to do so. Meanwhile President Obama's shills in the dinosaur media would be broadcasting every nuance of Newt Gingrich's foibles - and there's quite a bit to get into.
In short, even if he were to win, there's a good chance we might come to regret a President Gingrich for the reasons I outline here. Character is destiny, as a very wise man once said centuries ago.
My preferred candidate chose to sit things out in Wasilla, and I did a great deal of thinking about the GOP field, based more on what I consider character and fitness for office rather than ideology or a chimera like 'electability'. All the stuff about the GOP establishment aside, there are a lot of reasons I consider Mitt Romney to be the most qualified and the best choice based on the field as it exists today.
If Newt Gingrich runs against Barack Obama, I will vote for him, but with my nose held and with a deep sense of foreboding. I simply don't think he's what the country needs at this juncture. People change, but we had better think very carefully before we anoint him.
My good friend Hube also weighs in on this subject here.
12 comments:
To my mind, that's simply not how a decent man acts.And again, it says a great deal about how he would conduct himself as president.We had a number of similar danger signs about both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Obama is a philanderer? That's an interesting accusation. Care to show your work on that one?
Ah, the devils of simple reading comprehension!
I did not accuse President Obama of adultery, ( you read that into it) but of weakness of character and the blatant use of politics as a means to personal entitlement and wealth, just like Mr. Bill..and in my opinion, Newt Gingrich.
As for showing my work, well,I've done quite a bit of it on this blog..everything from supporting what amounts to infanticide in a position ever further out than NARAL to personal corruption, blatant disregard for federal election laws, malfeasance and incompetence in conducting foreign and economic policy...unfortunately, it's like shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel. But then you read this site, since you pop up all the time and even get to comment when I decide to search the spam pile, don't you?
"Obama is a philanderer? That's an interesting accusation. Care to show your work on that one?"
All you have to do is look up Larry Sinclair
I hope you and the establishment Republicans in the RNC are right about Mr. Romeny. I do think you are right about a prolonged battle not being good though. If the RNC has to, they will steal the nomination from who ever wins it to give it to Mr. Romney but, if it came to that, that would create tremendous bad bloos and the Republicans need to be unified if they are to beat Mr. Obama. The only reason the RNC sicked Mr. Romney on us is because they wanted to stick it to the "tea party" and the Conservative wing of the Republcian party. How disgraceful on their part.
You're right about their being no real Reagan style conservative int he race. There can't be. Today's America is a left of center nation politically. As such, if Ronald Reagan or someone like them were to be introduced for the first time today, he or she would have no chace of winning an election.
I couldn't agree with you less about Newt's wives. His ex is celary mentally ill as can be seen in her interview. If anything my problem with Newt on this is that he stayed with her as long as he did. You are aware she left him for four years while she cheated on him. Not important you say! You clearly must be able to tell that she lied about Newt wanting an open marriage. Such an obvious ploy to smear him to the max. She has already done a "tell all" interview and this new twist was invented since that first interview. As for the famous left his wife after she got cancer should he have stayed in an abusive relationship because she was ill??? Should a woman stay in an abusive relationship if the abuser is ill??? But this all ignores the fact that it was the wife who had asked for a divorce in spite of her illness so she could persue other men. Should newt simply have shot himself in the head? Would that make him "how a decent man acts" in your mind? Get a life! Reltaionships fall apart for many reasons and the national pastime is discovering new ways to blame it all on the men.
Actually anonymous,she has multiple sclerosis, MS. The last time I checked, that wasn't classed as a 'mental illness'. And no, I'm not aware of her leaving for four years, nor does it address the point I made about character even if it was true.
The facts are quite simple - in both cases, he was married and in a relationship of choice with both these women. He made a decision to dump both of them after he learned they were both seriously ill, and found someone to begin an affair with before he informed his wives he was leaving.
That has nothing to do with anything that was brought out at his second wife's interview, but are simple facts and fit in quite well with my profile of Newt Gingrich's general character and the other examples I cited - none of which you chose to address.
If you feel like another four years of Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich is definitely a worthy choice.
I don't.
Regards,
Rob
"If you feel like another four years of Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich is definitely a worthy choice."
Rob, wouldn't the battleground states decide who is President rather than what the national poll numbers (the popular vote) indicate right now?
Hello Altalena,
Those battleground states include Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. I don't see Gingrich doing as well as Mitt Romney in those states as things are now.
I also don't fele that even if he wins Newt Gingrich will be a good president.If he wins, I hope I'm wrong.
BTW, did you know you have the same name as a very famous ship?
Regards,
Rob
Rob,
I see your point. I was just saying the national polls don't account to much because it is not the popular vote the candidate needs to win.
I'm from Eastern-Europe so this is not really "my" election, only to the extent it affects the whole world (which it does) and particularly Jews. My preference for Gingrich is because of the foreign policy changes he claims he would make. I don't have a clue whether he would be good for US internal affairs, but I'm willing to believe that there are serious doubts.
Cheers
A.
PS: I chose 'Altalena' as a tribute to Ze'ev Jabotinsky - it was his pen name and it is where the ship got her name from.
A worthy tribute, Altalena!
If the men and arms on that ship had been allowed to land by Ben-Gurion, I'm convinced the Jews could have held all of Jerusalem and perhaps even most of Judea and Samaria in 1948.
As Israel's story unfolds, it becomes more and more evident how right Jabotinsky was about most things.
As to Gingrich versus Romney on foreign policy, one of the reasons I favor Romney out of the current Republican field is because he's obviously given a lot of serious thought to foreign policy matters.Read this and tell me whether you agree that Romney is superior in this area, at least when it comes to his expressed views on the matter.
B'Shalom,
Rob
Rob,
my impression is that Romney utters a lot of the right things but we can't tell if he really knows why he's saying what he's saying (other than it bringing votes) whereas Gingrich tells us how he gets to the conclusions he makes. Romney talks, Gingrich reasons. Gingrich demonstrates that he understands, Romney leaves it to speculation.
E.g. with the Palestinian conflict: Romney says he will reinforce Israel as a Jewish state, but he doesn't say why that is the right approach. Gingrich tells us: because the Palestinian narrative is a fabrication, because they are "an invented people". This is a very big difference in their depth of understanding the situation.
Anyway... obviously whoever has the better chance of kicking out Obama should become the nominee. But Israel needs someone who not only supports her but tears down the wall of lies in the Middle East, so to speak, and that is Gingrich.
Altalena,
I appreciate what you're saying. Respectfully, I disagree.
Look again at the link I posted and do some research on list of advisers and endorsees Romney has, and remember they now include John Bolton. Obviously he's done some very deep thinking about defense and national security - lightweights don't attract those kind of people. Also,if you read his book you get a very clear sense of that.Also, I'm sure anti-Israel Mormons exist, but I've certainly never run into one.
Newt has some wonderful rhetoric, but that isn't going to be enough.You need the practical strategy to make things happen and Newt has never evidenced that side of things. Calling the 'Palestinians' a made up people is one thing. Making the hard decisions and doing the groundwork to make that opinion mean something is something else again.
And remember that you need someone who can get elected for it to mean anything, and beating Obama is not going to be easy. Whom out of the two is more likely?
As for tearing down the wall of lies about the Middle East, that is Israel's responsibility first and foremost. When you have a PM who says he endorses the mythical two state solution, ( and yes, I realize he was under pressure) and Israel continues to 'negotiate' with the Pals even after they ally with Hamas,it's hard for any US president no matter how pro-Israel to treat Abbas and Fatah with the contempt they deserve.
Think about it.
Dash,
Rob
Post a Comment