Sunday, December 11, 2011

- More Baggage Than Louis Vuitton...

From my perspective it looks like the conservative talking head-o-sphere is in total meltdown panic mode over the concept of Newt Gingrich being the standard bearer for the Republican party. These are people whose opinions I respect, and the list of anti Newt-onians includes several friends of mine. These are most certainly not the kind of people who are going to be upset because Newt is too conservative - quite the contrary. But they are still freaking out.

The fact of the matter is, they are afraid he can't win. They're afraid that when all of Newt's vaguely remembered skeletons are dragged out of the closet and back onto the front lawn by a giddy left wing media, Newt will end up losing to (arguably) the most anti-American chief executive ever elected. And although my personal view of Newt is that if he has learned from past mistakes I could probably get past it, it's getting too difficult to ignore all of whats being said, and all the places people are saying it. Where there is smoke there is usually fire, and I smell plenty of smoke.

Romney was my least favorite of the Republican nominees - as was McCain before him. But if he's the only way that we can get rid of his majesty, then I'm just about ready to sign on. I sure as hell don't want to go through what we went through last time. Newt's boldness has it's appeal, but sometimes the best thing to do is simply stand by and pick up the pieces after the train has wrecked on it's own.

Obama's record is disastrous and he can't hide from the American people like last time. Hi's condescension, his detachment, his profound lack of charm, his delusional economic worldview that is anti-"American interests" even if it may not fully be anti-American itself, and his class war on American business and American success, will leave him on the trash heap of history unless we on the right screw up badly. Newt might do that very thing, while I doubt that Romney will.

What's more - with his abysmal record, Obama has no choice but to run a campaign based entirely on character assassination. Romney's personal life is as lacking in controversy as any presidential candidate since Washington. that takes away Obama's only useful stick. With Romney, there will be no surprises.

Just to be perfectly clear, I'll say it again. I don't like Romney. He's too liberal for me in a dozen areas, and has no core convictions. I'm annoyed at how the Republicans seem to reliably choose the presidential candidate that I like the least. but with all that said, I'd happily cast my vote for Daffy Duck or Pee Wee Herman, if it were the only way I could ensure that America would finally be rid of Obama and his handlers from the labor unions.

I can't say I'm for Romney, but I've pretty much decided that I'm not for Newt.


Anonymous said...

RFNJ: Hope your hunting trip was enjoyable and a recharge.

I've arrived at the conclusion from my rural western living experience, town here <2500, that the right/left divide isn't so much political as it is geographic i.e. rural vs. urban. But I don't mean red state vs. blue state as the red areas have been so infiltrated as of late by urban folk and hence the purple issue... I mean really rural communities where people live, work and think differently than the urban/suburban sprawl areas. These generally "conservative" rural folk seem to be conservative along free market lines i.e. republican or along ideological lines i.e. libertarian, etc.

The urban culture, and I use these terms loosely, is most obviously a social exercise in co or multi-dependencies and unlike us in the rural interior, I sense ill-ease or discomfort with notions of... spending time alone, not being on wi-fi network/4G 24/7... a propensity to turn events into incidents and adherence to editorials in the NYT as a sort of gospel which requires the immediate attention and hopefully [sic] remedy in some form of federal intervention.

Loosely worded, however, if I am right in this estimation we have now, two administrations post-Clinton, gotten to the point where I believe a true conservative is unelectable. If my fingers are on the pulse, like I think they are... there is no way this nation, now thoroughly post-modern, post-religion, post-industrial, and just plain postal... is going to put someone in office who isn't going to give handouts, bailouts, mail outs, etc...

As proof of this I would offer Ron Paul who is the only challenger out there who would REALLY SHAKE THINGS UP and that we are waffling between Newt, Romney and whomever else just testifies to my supposition that real conservatism is unelectable and clowns are all you can expect when your country has been turned into a circus.

And while I'm on Newt and since Paul won't be elected... people are complex creatures. I don't have an issue with his perfidies as I think in his case its moot to how he will govern. I can tell you this... prior to winding up in the middle-of-nowhere America I spent a lot of time in the Middle East and to my knowledge, Newt is absolutely right... there is no such thing as a historical Palestinian people though I'm not refuting that post-'48 there is.... that's another discussion but that Newt knows the history and says as much?!?! That takes balls and he just went a couple notches up in my estimation.

RFNJ readership.. If you care to look there's a great book that blows the "Palesitnian" myth out of the water, it's called:From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine by Joan Peters © 1984, it's back in print and available on Amazon. I am in no way involved in the sale of the book but it opened my eyes and will yours as well. Great reading for this crowd.

Thank you RFNJ.

frithguild said...

Time immemorial is the date Richard the Lion Heart crossed the English Channel, returning from the Third Crusade. Ron Paul would not have approved.

Tom said...

If I could only vote for one man for the position of Supreme dictator, Ron Paul and his son both would be among the very few people on my list. The irony in that statmeent is exactly the point.

But in a world controlled by democratic institutions, he would get only enough of what he wants done, to be dangerous. Although I think he knows more about economics than most congressman, I also think I know more than he does. And the things that people would let him do, would probably do more harm than good.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

I wouldn't have a problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy plans if the world was filled with countries, people, and ideologies as threatening as say what you would find in Lichtenstein.

Such a world does not exists.

Tom said...

Our enemies are not as incorruptible as you may think. Under the libertarian philosophy first you try to buy them off. Then you take a careful accounting of the costs and benefits and if it doesn't look like they will stay bought, then you nuke em from orbit and try to make a deal with the next guy.

They'll come around quickly I think. One, maybe two countries permanently irradiated - tops.

I'm less worried about his foreign policy and more worried about the difference between what he wants, and what he'll end up getting.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

We tried the buying off part with Islam multiple times in the past. It just emboldened the enemy. In the end, we ended up having to use force.

The British had a similar experience (though theirs started with building an empire while we were trying to avoid so ourselves). Peace only came through brutality. To the point where Lord Kitchener used the skull of his vanquished foe, the great Madhi, as a paperweight and inkwell.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

Edit: The Madhi was already long dead.. my error

Tom said...

For the record I'm a subscriber to the Derbyshire school of foreign policy. "Buy em, bomb em, or leave em alone."

Simply inform the Muslim world that none of their orphanages had better look anything like a terrorist training camp on the satellite photos or we can all be in for a horribly tragic surprise.

They don't like it? Why exactly should we care one way or the other about what they like or don't?

But again... my concern about Dr. Paul isn't about his foreign policy.

Anonymous said...

Continuing... Paul's philosophy, to the degree I understand it, re foreign policy, is to stay out of other people's affairs. I couldn't agree more and I think it forms a good moral foundation for a truly conservative view point.

For a good "neo-con" view point we can have more George Bush Jr's with misguided wars and foreign debacles and I think Romney and Perry are definitely in this vein. Newt's comments re the "Palestinian Myth," forget the academic arguments... He had to have known he was going to invoke a firestorm from the left and he said it anyway... I kinda like it...

"Buy em, bomb em, or leave em alone." is real politic. Seems like what we've been practicing all along.

Re Paul's domestic policy... I'm ready for a paradigm shift. I've been ready since Sept. '08 when I thought the paradigm was going to shift dramatically. They wouldn't let it. We have the chance now for another one vis a vis the Euro but they're not going to let this one go either... unless it truly gets away from them.

No, you're right, no one wants real change, there's too many dependents, too much gravy train, so we've got the Perry's, the Romney's, the real team players.

I wrote in Paul's name in '08 but I am a "Progressive," and I will vote for Newt if he get's the nomination.