Gingrich Disappoints, Probably Can't Win

Per my last post, I was squarely in the Gingrich camp. In fact I was there before Newt's stunning rise in the polls. I was convinced that he had the conservative chops, the Constitutional grounding, the smarts, the wit, and the political experience and savvy to whip Obama soundly in the general. I still think so. While his and Romney's records have been grossly mischaracterized by pundits on both the left and right--each is a solid, mainstream conservative and either would lead the country in the right direction and out of the economic malaise we find ourselves in under the Euro-socialist policies of President Obama and the Democrats.

But here's where I now part with Gingrich and find myself tilting towards Romney: Newt has failed to create a viable political organization. He created an exploratory committee in the LAST election cycle. He's had over four years to organize and raise funds for a viable campaign. But he's failed to do so. In fact, much of his organization defected to the Perry camp (an indictment on their judgment!), presumably because Newt wasn't serious about his candidacy. Perhaps they were right. The Speaker is unprepared. Come to find out, he barely made his filing deadline in Ohio (meaning he wouldn't have shown up on the ballot) and is currently scrambling to amass the required number of signatures in Virginia, where he LEADS IN THE POLLS, to obtain ballot status there!

How can his ineptitude as Chief Executive of his own campaign translate into a winning formula for the highest office in the land--especially against the presumed billion-dollar assault that will be hurled at him by the Obama camp? No, it's not Newt's political baggage, his controversial personal attributes, or even some of his wild hair ideas (like executive judicial review) that will eventually sink him. Ironically, and perhaps appropriately, it's his deficiencies as an executive that will prevent him from becoming America's CEO. Fortunately for Romney, the "turn-around king," that's where he truly shines. And it's why, despite his unfortunate lack of appeal to misguided Tea Party conservatives, Mitt's helmsmanship remains our best shot at turning around this storm-tossed ship of state and returning to more prosperous and libertarian waters.

Let the Debates Begin...

Now that the election cycle is ramping into full campaign mode, I guess it's time for me to revive my rational views. A few observations on last night's Republican debate in Las Vegas:

Rick Perry is a gonner. If it weren't for his money machine and political connections, he wouldn't stand a chance. His cheap shot at Romney's immigration scandal (the inadvertent "hiring" of illegal immigrants employed by his lawn care service while Mitt was running for governor of MA), his indefensible "magnet" to illegals in the form of education subsidies, his weak-kneed "apology" for his campaign's slam on Romney's religion, and his misleading comparison of job creation statistics in Texas vs. Massachusetts made him look small and angry. While some pundits lauded his new "fire in the belly" he continues to lack appeal, fall far short of presidential, and will not rally voters.

Despite the folly of taking Perry's bait and allowing himself to be dragged into petty name-calling, Mitt Romney, overall, continues to improve his stance; in his articulation of issues, his strength and passion about the key conservative levers of economic revival, and therefore, his viability as a legitimate presidential contender. Romney will continue to solidify his base of support and gradually pull in more conservatives who will begin to trust the conviction behind his rhetoric and policy positions. While less charismatic than Herman Cain, and less principled than Ron Paul, Romney has a center conservative core and pragmatic understanding of government along with considerable capitalist chops that will continue to make him attractive to America's center-right.  Not to mention his financial war chest. All this despite the "Mormon problem." Romney IS the man to beat and come Convention, most Republicans will feel fairly comfortable hanging their chad on an "electable" Mitt.

Herman Cain, I believe, has peaked. His 9-9-9 plan, while cleverly appealing at first glance, lacks the substance and clarity to attract voters, nor is it a practicable solution, as Newt Gingrich adroitly pointed out. While Cain is attractive from his "outsider" perch, he seems too far from the window to be an effective Chief of State. He fumbled badly both in defense of his plan (perhaps because it's simply indefensible in the current political climate) and in his command of affairs both foreign and domestic. He seemed relatively inarticulate and simplistic when discussing international affairs ranging from military to immigration policy. Cain is simply not ready for prime time and I, for one, lost confidence in his candidacy last night. He may evolve into a legitimate VP contender, however.

So much for the top tier contenders. One has to be completely dazzled by Ron Paul's consistent, frank and unflappable ability to articulate the Constitutionally principled approach to governance at the Federal level. "The federal government is pretty much incapable of doing anything right," he whinnied at one point, as the crowd burst into cheers. Paul GETS IT! If it were 1787 he'd be the man! Paul's view reflects, almost exactly, my vision of the perfect America. A nation where the general government exists to protect the people in the free exercise of their individual liberties and most of the social problem solving occurs at the state and local levels. Where markets and free enterprise are the engines of prosperity and the state has, at best, a minimal role in the financial welfare of the people.  Paul's voice is perhaps the most important, articulate, and valuable on the American scene today because it jolts people (who listen) towards a more sound understanding of the principles on which the Republic stands and how they account for our remarkable success as a nation and incomparable contributions to humankind. In a word, FREEDOM. Sadly, however, we are so far removed from those fundamentals, that Paul is and will ever be considered fringe--and the re-implementation of those pure principles would unlikely be achieved under his leadership. He has never demonstrated great capacity to lead though his influence has doubtless proved a stumbling block for progressives. Paul is about 98% right but about 98% unelectable. And at this critical time, that may be a blessing as a more pragmatic transitional character may be needed to unite the nation.

That person, in my view, is Newt Gingrich. Gingrich consistently demonstrates the finer qualities of statesmanship. He is complimentary of his colleagues but draws clear, rational, principled distinctions between himself and his policies vs. other candidates and most especially, the presiding regime. He has a command of both domestic and foreign policy that is head and shoulders above any in the field, including the current Commander in Chief. Newt is an idea man who has articulated specific, pragmatic actions he could and would take as President that would immediately release the pent up potential in the American economic engine and kick it in gear. He's a principled pragmatist who knows how to get things done in Washington and has a proven track record of actually implementing conservative policies (the famous Contract with America) including welfare reform, balanced budgets, and job creation being cases in point--even while working with a Democrat Executive. Gingrich has an incomparable command of American history and policy and he would eviscerate Obama instantly in any debate. A Gingrich/Cain or Gingrich/Romney ticket could be VERY interesting. But Newt has the "Gingrich Problem." I don't know exactly what that is. Perhaps his scandalous affair and remarriage or maybe his million-dollar book deal. For whatever reason, Newt is perceived as unelectable, so perhaps he is.

The remaining two candidates, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann have a narrow appeal to the most socially conservative among us. Of the two, Bachmann seems more appealing although Santorum has a unique track record for defeating incumbent liberals while articulating "hard core" conservative views. Both are uncompromising but somewhat less consistent. They would both, it seems to me, use the power of government to "do the right thing" as they see it. Whether that means preventing abortion, drug use, or gay "marriage," or maintaining an American military presence around the globe--even where it's neither welcome nor essential for US security. They (not Mitt Romney) hold the moral "religous" high ground which is why they occupy the electoral low ground.

In fine, my man is Newt but my money's on Mitt. At least at this stage of the game.

Finally, A Rational Voice for Progressives

I read an article in Raleigh's far-left leaning INDY magazine today, entitled "How the Democrats Lost Their Way." (http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-the-democrats-lost-their-way/Content?oid=1739423) It includes possibly the best, most rational and concise (not short) explanation of contemporary "rank and file" progressive thought that I can recall ever seeing in one place. To gain a better appreciation of the progressive's world view, I highly recommend it. If you are a conservative, however, fair warning: you will subject yourself to some of the typically annoying Republican stereotypes and liberal elitist dogma. Still it's worth a read. Once finished, you can either come back and view my comments here, or at the end of the article. They follow:

Despite the plethora of mischaracterizations of conservatism herein, this article offers the most clear and succinct explanation of rank and file idealogical progressivism I think I have ever seen. There is much on which righties and lefties can agree. And that's important for a productive outcome. If these ideas were put forth boldly and in a straightforward manner by politicians and pundits as the author suggests, we could have rational debate. The American people could then decide for themselves whether they prefer to see the future America look more like the tepid and tumltuous European socialist states of today, or the rough and tumble libertarian capitalist "monster" that defined the American exceptionalism of our past. It's a fair debate. The problem is, global socialism requires America's capitalism to survive. If you remove the battleship from the bathtub, the water level falls for everyone. And whether or not rank and file progressives know it, or understand it, or admit it, the powers that lead them on the left have no ambition for a parochial American egalitarianism. They are focused on global management and redistribution in a utopian view that places a ruling elite in control of the world's resources and peoples. There is no upside to this for the US.


.

Hypothetical Politics: "Jobs Created or Saved"

I've long maintained that liberals live in an alternate reality. Now, the evidence of their hallucinations is becoming ever more clear.

Here's the thing: Never before has an administration tried to take credit for "jobs saved." What kind of a metric is that? It is impossible to calculate or substantiate. What constititutes a "saved" job? One that would have been lost if it hadn't been saved? How do you measure a hypothetical?! How do you know if would have been lost if it wasn't?! Therefore, how was it saved? How was it calculated or counted? And since the "created or saved" numbers are always combined, exactly which were created and which were "saved?" You see, this is nothing more than a cynical manipulation. A phantom metric. A fabrication. A farce!

In this world of shadows and illusions, the cause and effect relationship is lost. There are no absolutes. We deal in feelings and dreams rather than facts and figures. Bits of data are related in irrational ways to invent unsubstatiated and unsubstantial crises and solutions solely for the purpose of manipulating people and property for personal and political gain. Hence, the sunny propaganda of the "Summer of Recovery" and the extolled virtues of jobs created and saved.

But if the Obama administration is to take credit for jobs that owe their salvation to TARP, bail-outs, stimuli ad nauseum, green jobs, healthcare reform, et. al., should they not also take blame for all those directly lost or destroyed as a consequence of their policies? It's only rational, of course.

From coast to coast business owners--employers--say they are not hiring due to uncertainty about the uncalulated or incalculable effects of Obama policies from healthcare to financial reform. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-CEOs-cannot-stand-obama.aspx?page=2

The investment class are camping their cash. Looming tax hikes and punitive policies that threaten to dramatically increase costs or dampen demand for an array of services and goods have paralyzed capital and created a menacing cloud of uncertainty over the economy. The demonizing of Wall Street and government takeover of industries (banking & credit, student loans, auto, and energy) have frozen capital and consumer markets leaving banks unwilling to lend, consumers unable to borrow, and pretty much everyone unmotivated to buy. And we have 7.2 million LOST jobs to show for it. Yet to listen to "right direction" Obama, Biden, and the progressive pudits in their tank, you'd think the "roaring tens" were in full swing. That's reality?

But the economic malaise isn't the only fantasy fueling foolish liberals. They've got a million of 'em like, we can 'absorb' terrorist attacks, wealth redistribution works, global warming is man-made and cap 'n trade will cure it, border enforcement is racist, 'green jobs' are the way out of recession, oil is evil, extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, the government can spend us out of recession, Social Security and government pensions are solvent and sustainable, Obamacare will cut healthcare costs, and capitalism is evil.

It's time to get a grip America. At best, you're being led by a bunch of hallucinagenic hippies on a romp through the eutopian tulips. At worst, you're being deliberately manipulated and systematically dismantled by malevolent marxists whose aim is global government by compulsively "redistributing" your wealth into the hands of the 2nd and 3rd worlds in the name of equality and charity; while THEY siphon the gravy off the top. Either way, the ends are the same. You lose, they win. Is that rational?

The Voters Have Spoken...

It's not at all surprising that the left is up in arms about the recent electoral upset in Deleware that nominated conservative underdog Christine O'Donnell as the state's Republican US Senatorial candidate. After all, she soundly rousted the 40-year veteran Congressman, Mike Castle (also a popular former Governor for the state) a politician frequenly wooed by the entrenched establishment powers in Washington. The decisive victory underscores the power and effectiveness of the Tea Party movement in activating their base and the vibrant anti-incumbant sentiment that has old-guard elements in both parties shakin' in their boots.

What is surprising is that after the fact, conservative pundits and party leaders came out swinging as well. A cacophany of high-profile, so-called "conservative" Republicans like Karl Rove and even the revered Charles Krauthammer, not to mention a thundering herd of no-name talk show hosts, quickly repudiated the candidate and castigated Tea Partiers for selecting and "unelectable" Senate candidate.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Republican establishment was rocked by the upset. But I am rocked by the aftershock. Since when do we, WITHIN the party, so disrespect the clearly stated will of the majority of voters at the local level who chose their preferred candidate fairly under the legal and ethical terms of engagement?! It smacks of the same kind of intellectual snobbery and elitism that has become the hallmark of the American left. In effect, "You idiots! Just look what you've done." Democrats, however, are wise enough to shut up and show solidarity despite their internal discord.

The nature of INTERNAL party politics is that the debate comes BEFORE the election, not after the fact. Once the candidate is selected it's time to unite behind him or her, regardless of how dissatisfied you, personally, may be. The only appropriate response is, "the voters have spoken. Now how do we win?"

I'm not sure whether the backlash in this case (and others like Charlie Crist in FL or Joe Miller in Alaska) is a mere yelp by the wounded establishment in the GOP, or whether it reflects the need for some pundits to be seen as "fair minded" or impartial commentators. Perhaps it's a self-protection reflex for those fearful of being associated with the ignorant, trailer-trash, racist, religious zealot image of "right wing tea-baggers" that has been painted by the mainstream media; never mind the fact that such a creature is effectively a myth within the movement.

What I am sure of, is that such disunity and self-abuse is of no constructive value to the conservative cause, to the Republican party, to the candidates who won, or to the voters who courageously stepped up to the plate and pulled the lever to make an unconventional choice. Their action, when all was said and done, reflects exactly the kind of courage and activism in the electorate that is required in our republic to keep it vital, participatory, and FREE! It should be embraced, not condemned by the party leadership and the party faithful.

Liberals and the Democrat Party will prey upon this weakness and pry open the fissure while their own candidate, Chris Coons, a self-avowed Marxist and fellow Black Liberation Theology Anti-Capitalist (along with BHO) will go unscrutinized by the liberal media. Conservative pundits should be using their airtime to expose Coons for who and what he is--not to denegrate the Republican candidate and her supporters with petty complaints, demoralizing and dividing the base.

We've seen some of this same kind of Republican self-abuse in Nevada where greenhorn, Palin-backed Sharron Angle is taking on the formidable Goliath of the Senate, Harry Reid. An even more egregious example of this self-defeating behavior is on display in both Florida and Alaska. The candidates themselves, in a nauseating show of arrogant self-importance, have chosen to continue their races on their own, either as third-party or write-in candidates after primary voters soundly de-selected them from the ballot. I can almost hear Ursula bellowing, "You poor unfortunate souls! You dare oppose me?!"

It's time for Republicans to unite behind the candidates the people have chosen--whether you're enamoured with them, or not. If you want to armchair quarterback, do it after the general election when it's too late to do any real damage. You'll save yourself the embarrassment of being wrong, or be able to revel in "I told you so's" if you're proven right. But don't make your gloomy prophesies self-fulfilling! No candidate will please all the people. Each will be too conservative for some, too liberal for others, or have weaknesses that opponents will try to exploit. However, they ARE the people's choice. We can get behind them now, or let the Democrats dictate who our representatives will be and in what direction our republic will move. I'm not a staunch partisan. But I am a pragmatist. That's two-party politics in America and that's rational.

The Truth...and ONLY THE TRUTH...Shall Make You Free

In our united quest for a better, freeer, more just Republic we must seek out and build on truth--whether or not it squares with our world view. Only in truth are we empowered to bring about unity and virtuous ends.

This morning I was made aware of an email which apparently has been circulating for years impuning the President (Obama) for expressing blatantly caustic and anti-American sentiments during an interview on a Sunday morning talk show. Among them:

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides." And, "there are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.." "The [National] anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."

Obama is proported to have continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'... " and further, "It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments."

A few minutes of research, not surprisingly, reveals this story to be a complete hoax that has it's roots, at least in part, in a piece of conservative satire by a columnist for the Arizona Conservative during then Senator Obama's Presidential campaign.

To bring unity out of the enmity and chaos that is American partisan politics today, we all must stop trading in inuendo, invective, half-truths, and outright lies. Seek the TRUTH! Gather the facts. Verify your sources and THEN form, propagate, and act upon your findings. There is much on which we can unite and agree. For us to succeed as a nation, we must come together on these vital eternal principles of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A body politic built on any other principle is destined to fail and to fall.

Libertarians & Conservative Republicans: United We Stand

I read this interesting (albeit verbose) article debating the merits of Libertarians uniting with "mainstream" Republicans. http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/where-do-libertarians-belong/

Philosophically, I identify strongly with Libertarian principles. I first voted for Ron Paul in 1988. But I also maintain a so-called "Christian Conservative" bent in favor of a traditional definition of marriage; that the right to life is the preeminent right and that abortion is a blight on our society; that drug abuse is not victimless and therefore can legitimately be subject to appropriate limits and controls by the consent of the governed; and that in the spirit of the Founders, religious expression has a positive, if not necessary place in the public square. It saddens me that people who fundamentally agree on the big issues i.e. fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, limited government, states rights, etc. would be thwarted in their purpose by petty divisiveness and intellectual snobbery. Here's my response to the Article by Brink Lindsey:

"Oh boy! Sadly, this Libertarian's view carries the same condescending elitest stench that is characteristic of so many of the self-proclaimed "intellectuals" on the extreme left. Having "done the Libertarian thing," myself, some 30+ years ago and reading some of this article today, it's easy to see why the L party has gone nowhere since then. Success in returning the country to a free enterprise, capitalist, secular republic with a limited federal government will only happen when subsets on the right learn to work together.

Like it or not this is a two party country. From a pragmatic standpoint, that's not going to change anytime soon. Diminishing so-called Populist Conservativism by denegrating those who feel strongly about moral social values ALONG WITH libertarian socio-economic and Constitutional principles will only consign both to a permanent seat in the bleachers while progressives reform America into just another Euro-styled socialist state. Now is the time to unite in defense of the principles and policies upon which we can agree. Not to engage in intellectual snobbery and petty name calling. Lindsey may have some legitimate points, but his divided approach is disastrous both for Libertarians and mainstream Conservatives."