Newt Gingrich has already declared war. What would he do if he were President?
His war with the press continues, “I won’t debate Obama if media moderates..” So does his war against Mitt Romney, “Mitt Romney is a liberal and a liar who is no different from Barack Obama.” Newt’s strategy is to leave no prisoners. Gingrich showed lack of wisdom in refusing to allow the media to moderate debates with Obama. In his attacks on Romney’s wealth, Gingrich employs the same of class warfare demagoguery as the President. It seems to me that between the two, it’s not Romney, but Gingrich who is closer to Obama.
In Newt’s wars the winner is Obama. The President has divided this nation as never before since the Civil War. Newt is dividing the Republican Party, perhaps as never before. Nonetheless, whoever wins the nomination must get whole-hearted support or America’s descent into full blown socialism will accelerate under Barack Obama.
Where is the fat lady and when is she going to sing? We want this to be over. But more importantly, we want the choice to be a winner in November.
There is a school of thought that says conservatives will stay home and not vote if the nominee is Romney. We don’t buy it. Too much is at stake in this one and conservatives know it. The risk with Romney is the risk of losing independents who do not share the strong aversion to Obama that is felt by voters who are clearly on the right. Still, Republicans are likely to win with Romney.
Gingrich is another story entirely. There is no doubt that his debating skills are far superior to Romney’s. Newt is tough; he is beyond intimidation and his style at the podium is refreshing to a long frustrated audience. His message plays very well to conservatives with short memories. But can he win in November?
John Hinderaker at Power Line blog doesn’t give Gingrich give a chance.
It is hard to make clear-cut statements about the mercurial and often contradictory Gingrich, but one thing we can say with absolute certainty: he will never be President of the United States.
[I]f there is anyone who ought to be broadly acceptable to conservatives, it is Romney. Certainly not Gingrich, with his earmarks, his disfavor with the conservatives he led in the House in the 1990s, his career as a lobbyist, his support for Medicare Part D, his embrace of global warming dogma, and his attacks on private equity and even free enterprise itself. Republicans have flirted with a number of potentially bad choices this election season, but voting for Gingrich would be the worst of them.
Hinderaker makes a good case. He should; he’s an attorney. But the only thing we would “say with absolute certainty” is nothing is impossible in politics. Didn’t we elect a community organizer whose goal was to socialize America and diminish her standing on the world stage? Then surely we could elect a candidate whose goal is to reverse the socialization and to restore the nation’s standing internationally – no matter the baggage.
Now where in the world is that fat lady??
David Brooks, writing for the New York Times laments, Where Are the Liberals? “This should be the golden age of liberalism” he says. And yet, declared conservatives outnumber declared liberals by a factor of two to one. “How can that be?” he asks.
“The Republican Party is unpopular and sometimes embarrassing” says Brooks, inferring that conservatives and the Republican Party are one and the same. The author is perplexed as to why the foibles of the Republican Party don’t lead more conservatives to join the liberal camp. One has to wonder what he thinks the Tea Party is all about.
Brook’s reasoning is also myopic. The relative popularity of the two philosophies was put to a test in the 2010 elections. The rest of us know who won that popularity contest. And embarrassment? What could be more embarrassing than having to grant waivers to more than 1,200 companies and over 4 million employees to excuse them from compliance with a law that was so poorly constructed there was little other choice? The answer is granting waivers to a law your own Party rammed through Congress against the will of the people; that’s what could be more embarrassing!
“Over the past 40 years, liberalism has been astonishingly incapable at expanding its market share.”
Now I ask what is astonishing about the fact that something that doesn’t work, doesn’t sell very well? Mr. Brooks thinks he has the answer.
The most important explanation is what you might call the Instrument Problem. Americans may agree with liberal diagnoses, but they don’t trust the instrument the Democrats use to solve problems. They don’t trust the federal government.
You can bet your belly button they don’t! And it is not just the instrument they don’t trust; they don’t trust the players either. Holders of the liberal point of view put their faith and trust in the wisdom, integrity and leadership of an elite few, oblivious of the fallibility of man. When it fails they blame the few. Even after it became obvious that the Soviet Union was failing the Russian people, the left didn’t find communism to be at fault. The problem was simply that Stalin was the wrong man for the job.
Finding a better instrument to play the liberal theme isn’t the answer to the problem. The liberal theme itself is the problem.