No one seems to be really happy with this year’s field of Republican candidates for that party’s presidential nomination — except perhaps the Democrats.
The sudden rise, and equally sudden fall, of a succession of Republican frontrunners is just one sign of the dissatisfaction of the Republican voters with this field of candidates.
In this, as in many other aspects of life, we can only make our choice among the options actually available. So Republican voters who want to be realistic need to understand that they are going to end up with qualms and nagging doubts about whomever they pick this time.
Not all voters want to be realistic, of course. Some voters, whether Democrats, Republicans, or independents, treat elections as occasions to vent their emotions, rather than as a process to pick someone in whose hands to place the fate of the nation.
Advertisement
People who think this way tend to vote for someone they just happen to like, whether for personal or ideological reasons, and regardless of whether that candidate has any realistic chance of being elected.
The surprising support in the polls for Rep. Ron Paul seems to be of this sort. Does anyone seriously want to put the fate of this nation in the hands of a man who can casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism?
Barring some astonishing surprise, the contest for the Republican nomination for president boils down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. It is doubtful whether either of them is anyone’s idea of an ideal candidate or a model of consistency.
The fact that all of the short-lived frontrunners in the Republican field gained that position by presenting themselves as staunch conservatives suggests that Republican voters may have been trying to avoid having to accept Mitt Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts produced nothing that would be regarded as a serious conservative achievement.
Romney’s talking point that he has been a successful businessman is no reason to put him into a political office, however much it may be a reason for him to become a successful businessman again.
Perhaps the strongest reason for some voters to support Governor Romney is that the smart money says he is more “electable” than the other candidates in general, and Newt Gingrich in particular. But there was a time when even some conservative smart-money types were saying that Ronald Reagan was too old to run for president, and that he should step aside for someone younger.
Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield said that the people in the Carter White House were “ecstatic” when the Republicans nominated Reagan, because they were convinced that they could clobber him.
Today it is said that the Obama administration fears Romney, but would relish the opportunity to clobber Gingrich because of his “baggage.” CNN has already started digging into Gingrich’s most recent divorce.
Much depends on whether you think the voting public is going to be more interested in Newt Gingrich’s personal past than in the country’s future. Most of the things for which Gingrich has been criticized are things he did either in his personal life or when he was out of office. But if we are serious, we are more concerned with his ability to perform when in office.
Even some of those who believe that Gingrich would devastate Obama in head-to-head debates on substantive issues nevertheless claim that all Obama has to do is come back with questions about Newt’s work for failed mortgage-finance giant Freddie Mac.
But even at the personal, point-scoring level, Barack Obama would open up a can of worms by going that route, since Freddie Mac at least never planted bombs in public places, the way some of Obama’s political allies did.
There are no guarantees, no matter whom the Republicans vote for in the primaries. Why not vote for the candidate who has shown the best track record of accomplishments, both in office and in the debates? That is Newt Gingrich. With all his shortcomings, his record shows that he knows how to get the job done in Washington.
The writer of this article is incorrect and a political hack. Honestly, how much do they pay these people to like Newt and Romney? They make it look like a lucritive business. Ron Paul has the best track record and consistency, and is the only true conservative running.
Has it ever occurred to you that Iran is hostile because we've been in the middle east meddling around in their affairs for more than 50 years? Besides, Iran doesn't even have an air force.
North Korea has weapons but you don't see them blowing everything up. What about the United Nations? Doesn't that even serve a purpose or can we just ignore the fact that exists?
The point is, terrorists can be ANYWHERE. There's no country (ie: Iran, as mainstream Republicans make it out to be) that consists of only terrorists.
Get these scumbags out of Washington and have them stop paying writers like these to support them.
Many conservatives have questioned the wisdom of playing policeman to the world. As we should: we need to take precipitous actions only when vital national interests are at stake. Herr Docktor Paul, however, is delusional if he believes that Iran will be be dormant in the Persian Gulf and will not flex their nuclear muscle once it is acquired.
Nominating Herr Docktor Paul would be like nominating Lindberg in 1940.
Here we go! Of course the smart people like the Newwwwt! He really is the only guy who's gotten things done, with the bully pulpit of his debating skills, and with a Democratic President to boot.
Reagan's America writes:
"Because there's a reason he's been out of politics since 1998."
And, based on your long and intimate knowledge of Newt Gingrich and national politics, that reason is ...?
[crickets chirping]"
Me chirping the reason:
He's been busy being a big Washington insiders. Aside from being a historian, his entire adult life has been spent in government, trying to influence government and enabling others to influence government. For many unconservative things.
He has consistently been an establishment political hack when it comes to policy. He weighed in with Pelosi on global warming and told Republicans they had lost the issue. He vouched for Medicare Part D, telling Republicans they would lose if they didn't support it. Then when Paul Ryan, someone who actually actual challenged the status quo, came along with a daring plan to reform Medicare Gingrich tried to undermine him, insisting it was Right wing social engineering.
Newt's track record, which is a history of milking the Washington lobbyist-legislator connection for great personal wealth does not recommend him to be President.
If the Obama-Gingrich debate format was like that of FOX Network during the recent Republican debate, Newt Gingrich could put Barack Obama in checkmate, I have no doubt. Could Newt run the country? Again, I have no doubt.... The wild card is simply this - are there enough intelligent voters within the electorate that would have sense enough to look past the massive character assassination campaign that would be managed by David Axelrod and aided & abetted by the main stream media, to actually vote Newt into office?... That's my concern.
Now that the controlling money folk have used the media to slash and trash any reasonable true constitutional concervative, Newt is the best choice we have. Ron Paul has only two of the three legs of concervative base under him: religious / family values and limiting the scope of Govt economically in our lives. Great that he wants to dissect the Fed Reserve and learn where American dollars have been funneled. Good that he wants to distroy the Fed Reserve. But the third leg of conservatism is maintenance of military might such that it would be suicide for any two or three of the most powerful nations to collude together to attack us. Ron Paul is off the boat that left the harbor in this issue.
Mitt Romney is just a RINO socialist with a 'presidential' face. If the communists running our nation cannt have Berry O back to finish destroying our nation, they would be satisfied with Mitt who would do the same things but at a slower pace.
Newt is an intellectual juggernaut who bumbles his way through life, much like the rest of us, saying to himself, "gosh, I wish I hadn't done that", or "I should not have done that". Newt is the smartest flawed man in the room. He would mop the floor in a free for all, unstructured by the media, debate. If it came to this, Berry O would back out or avoid such a debate with intrinsic knowledge that between the two of them, he, Berry O is NOT the top of the food chain.
A very useful analysis, Mr. Sowell. It is a real conundrum for Republicans to make a wise choice for its nominee in this most crucial election in recent times. I am a registered independent, of conservative beliefs and inclinations, so I am on the side lines for the primary votes. Mr. Paul (yes, I know he is an M.D., but so what?) is unthinkable as the chief executive of the USA. Mr.Romney's performance as the chief executive of Massachusetts is a plus, and maybe he can get away from the stigma of Romneycare on the grounds of states rights, and his executive career in the private sector is a positive factor, but even if he could beat Mr. Obama (yes, I know he is the Pres of the USA), I would be willing to make a large bet that he will be not be our Margaret Thatcher in a time of undeniable national decline. That leaves us with Mr. Gingrich, if one leaves out the lesser lights among the declared candidats, as I do. Mr. Gingrich had, and maybe still has, very visible character flaws, but I seem to recall an admonition from one of our greatest sources of wisdom that him among us without sin should be the one to cast the first stone. A strong commitment to fundamentalist or conservatuve Christianity or strong feelings of social conservatism are not guarantees of being without sin, and most true Christians would be quick to agree. So, in my opinion, we are indeed left with Mr. Gingrich, and I, for one, would look forward to the Obama-Gingrich debates. Adding a strong, young conservative VP candidate to the ticket would be a wise choice for a Gingrich candidacy, thought taking Paul Ryan out of the House or Marco Rubio out of the Senate would might be a tough "trade off" to make. So, summing up, Mr. Sowell's cogent analysis has made me more confiident that I am backing Mr. Gingrich as the right horse in this race, despite the very cogent reasons advanced by Messers. Ponnuru, Lowery, and others at National Review and NRO, for whose opinions I have great respect. A tough choice to make,
Dr. Sowell,
Alcibiades got the job done; unfortunately he first got it done for Athens, then Sparta, then Athens again and finally Persia.
Alcibiades like Newt was enormously capable, intelligent, and a brilliant speaker but also like Newt Alcibiades was a demagogue for whom self interest takes precedence over national interest.
Thucydides said it best…demagogues push for policies that when successful only brought credit and advantage to themselves, and when they failed hurt the collective interest of all.
A very telling moment was when Newt sought to cozy up with the global warming crowd. He sat with Nancy Pelosi, his Democratic demagogue alter ego who has continually soiled her country by giving far left liberals everything they want in order for her to stay in congress so she can manipulate all government functions for her personal profit.
Newts profiteering from Freddie/Fanny have served to confirm his demagogue diagnosis.
Like Alcibiades, Newt could do great things for this country but at the risk of him imparting great harm upon us.
Yes in all aspects of political life Mitt Romney’s star shines less bright than Newt, but the duller stars do burn longer, are more stable, and don’t end in a supernova. Mitt’s life story is one of a solid, stable, earnest, competent and capable man. Unlike with Newt there is zero concern that Mitt would ever place his personal interest before the national interest and thus he is eminently more qualified to be president.
Alcibiades, 2,400 years ago in ancient Greece, was an enormously capable, intelligent and brilliant speaker.
Newt Gingrich, in modern America, is an enormously capable, intelligent and brilliant speaker.
Alcibiades was a 'demagogue'
Therefore, Newt Gingrich is a demagogue?
In order for this to be true, you'd have to state that every enormously capable, intelligent and brilliant speaker is a demagogue.
Otherwise, in taking pointers on reasoning from the Old Troll, you've done nothing more than scan 2400 years of history, take two individuals, characterize them in an arbitrary fashion, and claim they're the same.
How about this ...
Nikolai Lenin was a reader of books.
Dave in Georgia is a reader of books.
Nikolai Lenin oversaw the starvation of millions of citizens.
Therefore, you have to be careful of Dave in Georgia, because he is liable to starve millions of citizens.
See how easy this is when you eliminate the rules of reasoning?
1. Newt is the quintessential Washington insider yet he is packaging his campaign as an outsider.
2. Newt is for less government spending unless he can make a profit from bigger government thus his support for Fannie and Freddie.
3. Newt buys into duplicitous liberal ideology when convenient as exampled by his global warming shtick with Pelosi.
4. Newt is for smaller government except when its politically expedient to not be and thus he favored health care mandates.
5. Newt trashes Paul Ryan for because he assumed public sentiment was against Paul Ryan. Upon realizing that was a failed strategy he rapidly back tracks.
6. Newt is a proponent of free enterprise until his competitor is one as well, so he trashed Mitts successful free enterprise efforts.
So you see Newt by speaking eloquently and pushing his own interests whether it be selling a book, buying votes or assuaging his own ego meets the definition of a demagogue.
Perhaps if you eliminate the rules of being a smart-aleck you’ll post reasonable comments.
Well, for the record, I wasn't looking for 'reasons', which in your case are little but opinions that you have pulled out of your ... uh ... amazing vault of pure opinion.
I was looking for REASONING.
REASON, REASONING, two different things.
Besides:
dem·a·gogue/ˈdeməˌgäg/
Noun:
1. A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
2. (in ancient Greece and Rome) A leader or orator who espoused the cause of the common people.
Number 1 doesn't apply to Newt since by your own admission, he's a brilliant writer and speaker.
Number 2 doesn't apply since this is not ancient Greece or Rome.
You might think you have given 'reasons', but you've issued nothing but propositions that only lie in your mind.
Make note, characterizations are not facts.
You might think that "Newt buys into duplicitous liberal ideology when convenient..." or "Newt is for smaller government except when its politically expedient ...", but those are characterizations, not facts.
Words like 'trashes', 'trashed', 'politically expedient', 'failed strategy', and so on, are merely your impressions, and unless you're a qualified expert, aren't indicative of anything at all.
It's funny how you and Old Troll seems to think that your emotional impressions have the slightest worth outside of your own head.
I can tell you, your emotional reactions to anything at all have all the weight of a gnat's butt to me.
You have not established any expertise, you are certainly not a master of reasoning, and your arguments consist of ad hominem insults and logical fallacies, like the one I originally spoke of.
Other than that, you might well be good to your mother.
Sorry I guess my little pun twisting your reasoning argument into 'reasons' was lost...
Ok...please do not do a dictionary cut and paste defining 'pun'.
Writing here is meant to be fun and informative, fine if you disagree with me but you are the one getting emotional and directing ad hominum attacks at me.
I don't understand how you can support a candidate that says nothing. Romney is so worried about saying the wrong thing that he refuses to say anything. We need a candidate that is bold, thoughtful and full of ideas. I don't always agree with what Gingrich offers but I appreciate that he puts it out there so we can start discussing his plans. What plans do you hear from Romney? Just vague ideas without substance. Didn't you love Gingrich going after the courts? The man is bold, loud and not afraid to say all the things I wish I could say in a public forum. Yes, it will be an uphill battle to elect Gingrich - the man is not likable, I agree, but he is the man with ideas, with plans and has done it all before. Romney is safe which makes him the wrong choice in this election cycle.
It doesn't matter who gets elected President as long as it satisfies two conditions (1) Not Ron Paul, (2) Not Obama . What is important is getting control of the Senate and maintaining control of the House. Any Republican President would then be at the beck and call of Mr Ryan and the House Budget Committee. At least for budget, tax and welfare, SSI and medicare/Medicaid reform issues.
