Posted on 11/07/2011 3:00:24 PM PST by St. Louis Conservative
The Republican Party seems to be struggling to find a candidate it can unite around. One impediment may be a mindset common among some of my fellow Tea Partiers, a false dichotomy that if you are in government you are part of the problem, and if you are not in government, you are part of the solution -- whatever those problems or solutions may be.
Herman Cain says, "The folks in Washington have held public office. How's that working out for you?" It's a catchy comeback. But is government tenure, whether recent or not, the reality of the problems in Washington? The biggest problem in Washington today is that we have a president who basically has no experience doing anything important or relevant. And he has surrounded himself with advisors and staff that are inexperienced as well. That's the problem.
This problem can befall Democrats or Republicans. Let me give a Republican example. President Bush's first cabinet had many folks with Washington experience like Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Mel Martinez, Norm Mineta, and Spencer Abraham. All of these, except Mineta, were conservatives. Many of their replacements had no Washington experience. Most folks would agree that Bush's second term was not as successful as his first. Experience was the difference. Next, let's look at the recent Tea Party successes. Two of the biggest successes are Marco Rubio, who had legislative experience, and Scott Walker, who had much executive and legislative experience. I won't belabor the Tea Party failures here. Needless to say, some of them lacked valuable experience. And what about folks in Washington who agree with the Tea Party, like Senator DeMint or Congressman Pence? They predate the Tea Party but they believe the same policies. Are they part of the problem? No, they are not.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
why can’t we have herman cain?
If Paul Ryan’s budget (which doesn’t cut enough) is too ‘extreme’ for him, I don’t see him as a true friend of the Tea Party.
Because Herman Cain is not presidential and he can’t win the general election.
Because Cain can’t be counted on to play the game and might not be willing to screw conservatives for the good of the beltway club.
What’s wrong with Cain?
|
The electability argument got us McCain. Think up something new.
“Electability” is all the beltway groupies have left.
I don’t remember Newt as being a liberal when he was in the house. He was very much the opposite.
Never start out a bogus statement with a false premise. From that point on you are just sucking wind.
Did you not read? Because he has ZERO political experience. And almost as little knowledge. That’s why.
What’s wrong with Cain?
:::::::::::
He lacks government credentials that exude experience.
He has a good business background — but zero inside knowledge of the beltway. Out of all the cadidates on the Repub primary ticket, Newt has the best experience and open anti-Obama attitude. Only Romney comes close but he is a “moderate”, and he cannot fight Obama on Obamacare with any credibility.....(Romneycare). Obama and Obamacare must be voted out and it will take an open fighter who is not going to “soft pedal” anything about Obama and what he has done to this country.
The rest of it is a matter of history.
Let’s review Speaker Gingrich’s foreign policies.
GATT/WTO
“I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.
“I agree ... this is very close to Maastrict [the European Union treaty by which the EU member nations have surrendered considerable sovereignty],and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s,the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.”
—Newt Gingrich,House Ways and Means Committee hearings during June 1994.
NAFTA
As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congressman Newt Gingrich was instrumental in the passage of NAFTA. It is fair to say that NAFTA would not exist without Congressman Gingrich’s support and efforts as Speaker. He strongly supported the legislation, and was critical of those who claimed it would result in jobs moving from the US to central America.
In 1993, Congressman Gingrich spoke on the House floor and stated that the idea that Mexico will hijack our industrial base is a myth. He stated that any impact on US jobs would be small and if whatever effects were felt would be beneficial. He also stated that the US could see large financial benefits from NAFTA in 10-15 years (from 1993). He asserted that a prosperous, stable and democratic Mexico would simply be a better neighbor than a poor, unstable and undemocratic Mexico as higher economic growth would ultimately reduce illegal immigration into the United States. Mexicans could stay home and get jobs.
China
CNN July 3, 1998
Congress has 30 days to respond to the presidents recommendation for an MFN waiver. But amid growing concern about the presidents involvement with another waiver that possibly led to the disclosure of sensitive national security information to China, reaction from Congressional leaders is mixed.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clintons recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.
Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer RTexas and Philip Crane RIll., made his comments in a letter to Clinton.
United Nations
But back in 2005, Gingrich was singing a different tune. He co-chaired a task force on how to improve the United Nations with former Senate majority leader and recently departed Special Envoy for the Middle East George Mitchell, and issued a report written with the help of the United States Institute of Peace.
“The American people want an effective United Nations that can fulfill the goals of its Charter in building a safer, freer, and more prosperous world,” Gingrich and Mitchell wrote in a joint statement at the top of the report. “What was most striking was the extent to which we were able to find common ground, including on our most important finding, which was ‘the firm belief that an effective United Nations is in America’s interests.’”
The task force featured a bipartisan set of foreign policy leaders, including Anne-Marie Slaughter, Thomas Pickering, Danielle Pletka, Wesley Clark, and James Woolsey.
The report did include a great deal of criticism of the United Nations, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and its ineffectiveness in protecting victims of genocide around the world. But Gingrich and Mitchell saw the answer to these problems as increasing funding for U.N. institutions, not withholding U.S. contributions from the United Nations.
They called for more staffing and funding for peacekeeping operations, more funding for the international mission in Darfur, a doubling of the budget for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and more funding for the World Health Organization.
Speaker Gingrich is a great debater. But don’t let him anywhere near power.
You had a “Gingrich” (but better) without the baggage in Thad McCotter. Just as smart, an intellectual, a sharp wit, unsurpassed debating skills and a SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY plan already introduced in the House. (HR2889) Didn’t poll well enough to get into the debates because he wasn’t INCLUDED in the polls. Face it Republicans, the MEDIA picks the candidates and, quite frankly, none of the remaining group are a lock to win.
I’ll stand with Cain.
You had a “Gingrich” (but better) without the baggage in Thad McCotter. Just as smart, an intellectual, a sharp wit, unsurpassed debating skills and a SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY plan already introduced in the House. (HR2889) Didn’t poll well enough to get into the debates because he wasn’t INCLUDED in the polls. Face it Republicans, the MEDIA picks the candidates and, quite frankly, none of the remaining group are a lock to win.
Either do I, Newt was right
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.