So Gingrich Won South Carolina With…

… A flawless record? A history of business success? An unblemished political career? Exceptional debating abilities? Maybe on the last one; one could argue that. But is that why he won? No. I don’t think so.

I hate this, but I need to throw in a caveat here: I don’t support any of these guys. Not Romney, because of his record of flip flopping. Not Santorum, because… well… I should spend some time on that, but suffice it to say that ideologically, I can’t support him. Not Paul, because to probably most Americans, he’s about half way ‘round the bend.

But this is about Gingrich, and his win in S. Carolina.

Gingrich, in my opinion, is not a charismatic person. He can argue well. He’s politically cunning. He’s an historian and it shows. And he has a quick mind together with all of the previous attributes, makes him a great debater. And, like all of us, he has a past. He ushered in the contract with America that most people on the right think was a good thing. It certainly won him the speakership of the house.

But he also was the first and only Speaker of the House ever to be reprimanded by congress – and for ethics.

Again, I hate this, but I have to point out again that I am not for anyone – yet. And I am certainly not for Gingrich – yet.

A little more than a week ago, Gingrich led the charge against Romney that many, many people on the right, pundits as well, said was tantamount to an attack on the soul of the right - capitalism. Perry, and Perry supporters especially, were disparaged everywhere for their attack on “the foundation of conservatism” capitalism. How it happened I don’t know, but the one who led the attack this dastardly attack on capitalism, Gingrich, managed to survive his anti-capitalist bent virtually unscathed and he began to beat the drum for Romney to open his tax records.

This, to me, is astonishing. What are Romney’s tax records going to reveal about Romney? That he’s rich? That he successfully manages his money according to the tax law that allows people at his level of wealth to do? And this is an indicator of his being bad for the right in what way exactly? Is this not just another attack on Romney for being a… gasp… capitalist?

When it comes right down to it, even we on the right don’t like rich people. We are just as envious of them as people on the left. The main difference between we on the right and they on the left, is that we are less hypocritical about our hope to one day be one of those people that both the right and the left hate – rich.
So, Gingrich knocked Romney back on his heels and leveraged everybody’s envy of the rich by clanging the gong of tax returns. But is that why he won S. Carolina?
Everybody knows why Gingrich won S. Carolina, but not everyone is going to emphasize too heavily the reason. Gingrich won S. Carolina because of a one and a half minute verbal slamdown of the CNN debate monitor who, like other debate monitors in this primary campaign have done, wanted to be the memorable event of the debate. He acted the idiot and got what idiots deserve.

And we on the right awarded that slamdown with S. Carolina.

For the third freaking time; I do not support anyone. But I really don’t support Gingrich. I don’t support Gingrich because he is the first and only Speaker of the House ever to be reprimanded by congress. For ethics.

I was a Perry supporter. Was – keyword - dammit. I read in many places to the effect that Perry had a good record, he just couldn’t articulate it. You know, I disagree with that assessment a lot. There’s a truism in our culture that a record speaks for itself. Perry’s didn’t for some reason.

But neither is Gingrich’s record speaking for itself, not because it is out there, like Perry's, but because it isn't. It's hidden.

It’s possible that I could be brought around to supporting Gingrich, but not until his record is laid on the table. Not until I know what it was in those ethics – repeated – ethics hearings that caused him to be reprimanded by Congress and to go down in history - you know – like Clinton – second President in history to be impeached. Gingrich was the first in history in his position. Until Gingrich can say what it was that he did to deserve reprimand, I will not support him.

So what was it that won S. Carolina for Gingrich?

I think that the talent of the collective left is their ability to first sell, and then to believe with passion, a losing argument. I believe that by-in-large, the entire philosophy of the left – that those with less are inherently entitled to that which those with more have eventually impoverishes everyone, in many ways – is the epitome of a losing argument that the left through history, has been able to sell to a relatively large segment of society. Snake oil.

But if S. Carolina is any indicator, then we on the right have our own unique demographic locked up.

Gingrich won the debate, and then S. Carolina because of a sound bite. And with that, we’ve cemented our lock on the coveted ‘fickle’ demographic.

Oooo Baby, That Was Awesome!... Now What?

Really, admit it. That's kinda how it was, right? Fiery debate. Get the juices flowing. Almost a sexual afterglow... Now what?

Indeed.

This will not set well with almost anybody, but it's the truth... maybe.
Republicans have almost forgotten about the campaign of 2008, except for that faint, yet ever so disgusting aftertaste. Still there. This one promises to be every bit as bad, probably worse.

Why? Because last time we were left with a choice when everything else percolated out, a choice between a hero and a flip-flopper. This time what we are left with is a choice between a person who will be able to beat Obama in the debates and the person who would, in all likelihood be the better President.

The truth is that Newt is a great debater, but another truth is that he isn't a good leader. Several of his peers have said so and others have sharply intimated that. I know that people will point to the contract with America and to that I would respond, "Yeah. And your point is?" Newt is an opportunist. He read the tea leaves of voter sentiment and he became Speaker of the House. And that is the same thing that he is doing now.

But the wrinkle in the story this time is that Newt has a lodestone around his neck that will eventually bring him down - potentially. Newt has done things. Newt has repented of those things and has been forgiven. And that makes things ok. Clean slate. Alz cooool.

The reality is, alz not cool. For many people these flaws aren't forgiven. For many, especially women, who have been betrayed and abandoned by those they trusted and relied on, he’s not forgiven and never will be. Their children maybe feel the same way. How big of a demographic is that? You know people like this. Guess. My bet is that it is less insignificant than we allow ourselves to think it is.
Here we are then; the party that was revolted to our core by Bill Clinton’s philandering as President and now we are going to give a pass to Newt because he repented and was forgiven. How very Christian of us. Problem is, not everyone buys into that. For some, this might appear to be just a touch… a little more… no just a bit mo… come damnit! A lot hypocritical.

And there is other “stuff”. Nancy Pelosi alluded to it. Come on, really? This is not going to get out? And how much stuff is out there, anyway?

The truth is that Newt is a crapshoot with an IED for the winner.

With Mitt, his problem is that he is viewed as a flip flopper. And he is. And what does this reveal to us?

Mitt is a very successful man. How did he get that way. He got that way by working with people, people who didn’t necessarily agree with him on everything, so he compromised. Everyone wins. In business, when everyone wins, everyone is happy. Sometimes, rarely, it’s even like that in politics.

Take Romneycare for example. We on the right look at Romneycare and we see Obamacare light – Obamneycare. The people of Massachusetts look at Romneycare and they see something they like. Something they want to keep.

But we on the right still hate that. The same way we continue to hate the Texas version of the dream act, notwithstanding the fact that the vast – let’s say that again – vast majority of people in Texas wanted it - liked it - advocated for it.

We on the right say we are all about states rights. We’re all over it! Come on, you can admit it! That’s not really true - is it? The truth is that we know what we know and we believe what we believe and if you have a problem with that…

So there we go. Guy who will wipe the floor with Obama in the debates, the guy whose presidency will likely be every bit as controversial as Clinton’s, with the possible exception of an utter lack of charisma; or a guy who people refuse to accept because he’s the establishment candidate, who we refuse to like for a lot of reasons, but who, of the two, would very likely be a much better President. *Probably not the President we need in these times but who ya gonna pick?

Santorum? Paul? We tossed the others already – remember?

Yeah. Unfortunate that.

Oh. And by the way, I'm not a Romney supporter. The sentence above, the one with the *. That's why.

Why Do You Support Him?

Many on the right view Obama and what he has done and what he is attempting to do as an existential threat to this country, but not all of them or even maybe most of them. For many on the right, this is just another election – a chance to replace a Democrat President with a Republican. I believe it's easy to see this by looking at the Republican candidates and their standing in the polls. To a certain extent, you can tell by what you see in the primaries, from the TV coverage and to a degree, by how the candidates conduct themselves.
By in large, there is no discernable sense of urgency or depth of concern perceptible from the voters interviewed on TV. Those TV commentators who aren’t openly hostile to all Republican candidates, have accepted that the nominee is going to be the “establishment” choice. Hell, even the term “establishment” candidate is thrown around as if it were a totally passive term. Rush freaking Limbaugh, for crying out loud, has even joined the parade.
So my thought is; maybe the existential threat that I'm afraid of doesn't really exist. Maybe the direction this country is headed won't really lead to decline and fall. Perhaps the $15 trillion plus debt isn’t unsustainable at all. What if all of the DOOM crap that we have been hearing is really just so much hysteria?
If this is the case, then of course, the candidate whose life and professional record is reflective of a person who will say anything and do anything to whomever and whenever as long as it results in a win for him, this candidate is a harmless choice. We know that he will work with the other side to get things done that both sides want and that the labels conservative or liberal in the grand scheme of things are really not that relevant. In the end, we are members of a group and he is the choice of the ‘establishment’ of that group. Going along with the establishment makes the group more cohesive. As long as the country isn’t in any danger, what's the harm?
So things are pretty bad, but not that bad. We didn’t get here through any fault of a single party, after all. So a candidate who was a member of the institution that got us here – an insider if you will – that candidate wouldn’t be a bad choice either. Even if he used his connections to that institution as a basis for enriching himself wouldn’t be that bad. That's how the system works. The problems have evolved over time and it will take time to fix them. We should just let the system work.
So what if we were to choose a social conservative with a less than conservative history of voting in congress? As long as there is no need to focus on existential problems this person would fit right in. Many people feel that a return to traditional values is long over due and would be good for this country and like I said, if the economic future of the country isn’t at stake, this would be a good thing.
But what if those who think that this nation truly faces an existential threat are correct? What then? Would choosing any of those candidates still make sense?
Look, I don’t pretend to be absolutely right about this, but to me, given the circumstances this country and the world find themselves in, we should be certain that we have a solid basis for selecting the candidate who would have the best chance of saving this country or at least preventing its continued decline.
It’s obvious if you have read up to this point, that I am a Perry supporter and I believe I have a strong basis for that support. But let me go down the list of candidates and give, what I believe to be, a fair assessment of each candidate's strengths and weaknesses.
First Romney. Romney possesses some strong attributes such as the fact that he turned the Olympics around when they were facing really catastrophic economic circumstances. This, by anyone’s standards, was a major feat. He has also had stellar success as a venture capitalist and he was Governor or Massachusetts. One might include that he is very wealthy if that is a criteria that makes sense to evaluate. That to me is pretty much it. Now for the negatives: Many people would give Romney credit for being a successful Republican governor of a strongly Democratic state. But how did he do it? He did it, in my opinion, by giving his ‘opponents’ everything they ever wanted. I would have to say that Romney was one of the most successful Democrat governors that state has ever had. From this, and his work as a venture capitalist, Romney appears to be all about success – his success – and damn any other consequences or considerations. It is clear that Romney will work with the left to get things done, but would he work against the left to undo things if it meant that he wouldn’t be able to put a ‘W’ up in the win column? I have my doubts. He is the establishment candidate. Most people see that term as neutral, at worst. I don’t. I think that the establishment thrives in the status quo and to me, the status quo, at this point in time, sucks.
Gingrich – Newt, regardless of how he wants to portray himself, is an insider. He is student of history and political genius, in my mind. He knows how to operate within the system because he helped make it what it is. With Newt, it’s harder to separate his negative attributes from his positive ones. The fact that he wants to portray himself as an outsider tells me that like most politicians, he has no issue with deceit. Being a student of history, the fact that Newt recognizes this time as historically significant could work to his favor. He might actually do the things that need to be done so he can go down in history. Newt also knows how to work within the system. He made a lot of money out of politics by leveraging that knowledge. My fear of Newt is whether he’s in this for history; for going down in history as President, not necessarily a good or a bad President. Is he in this for the benefits that accrue to the holder of the office? We all know that win or lose, Newt will write a book about this experience. If he is elected, he’ll have material until the day he dies. There is some good and some bad in all of this, but for me, the fact that Newt’s character and his ethics have been called into question on multiple occasions, I simply can’t bring myself to trust that he will do the right things.
Santorum – Santorum was a liberal Republican senator from a highly Democrat state. He’s also a strong social conservative. Santorum bills himself as the conservative choice. That’s good – as long as you think that we need a strong social conservative as President and as long as you think that social conservatism will cure the ills that face us. His voting record as senator was liberal. Santorum to me, is the candidate that I like least in this election. As a liberal Republican, he lost in a landslide to his rival in PA which to me signifies that even the moderate Democrats had serious issues with the way he represented them. For me, Santorum is the wrong man, with the wrong record, at the wrong time.
Paul - Ron Paul would be my second choice in this election. He has a reputation as being off the rails on a lot of issues. For anyone who has really researched his positions on issues, they will know that his positions are significantly mischaracterized. Let me give you an example: His position on Israel. For me as a Jew, this is more important than it may be for many non-Jews. His position is that we should not be giving Israel the more than $3 billion annually that we give them in aid. From his critics, this is all that you know about it. What they don’t tell you is that he believes that giving this aid to Israel at the same time we are giving $20 billion a year to Israel’s enemies, is screwy policy. To me, it's hard to find fault with that. He has other more Libertarian positions on issues that appeal to me as well that make him a better choice than any of the other candidates except for one.
Perry – I’ll start with his negatives. Gardasil – most people fault him as a big government interventionist on this issue. Maybe he shouldn’t have sought to make it manditory. But I, and I think many others who have seen how cruelly cervical cancer kills women, can understand why he might have taken this position. The next negative is that people see the Texas version of the dream act as a program totally at odds with Republican doctrine. That position is indefensible in my opinion. The people of Texas, a huge majority of them, wanted it. Anyone supporting state’s rights should not be at odds with it. Oh - I almost forgot. Perry can’t debate. Perry can’t answer largely irrelevant questions from moderators who for the most part, want to portray all Republican’s as either radical, out of the mainstream, or kooks. I would have liked him to have performed better, but the truth is, Perry, speaking extemporaneously about relevant issues, without practice and without the aid of a teleprompter, is unrivaled in his ability to speak to them. Nobody in the field, with the possible exception of Gingrich, can touch him. Perry has had more than a decade of “vetting” by the media and by his rivals, and he is unassailable. Period. His character is unimpeachable, as are his ethics. The most important consideration to me is for this time especially, his record of success governing Texas, a state with a world class economy that is performing extraordinarily well while the economies of states and nations around it flounder.
That’s it. That’s my assessment of the candidates and that is my basis for my selection.
What’s yours? Is the basis for choosing your candidate sound? Is it fair? What is influencing your decision?
All I am saying is this: If you truly believe this country is at a crossroads in its history, then it’s my opinion that you owe it to yourself and those that come after you to have a sound basis for supporting your candidate.