Newt and Romney are the same - establishment candidates. Newt is merely the backup for he establishment if Romney falls on his face. Newt is 2nd string establishment.
Any conservative in their right mind who is not incredibly intellectually lazy would do 5 minutes of web search on Newt and quickly surmise that Newt is smart enough, politically crafty enough, and compromising enough to do enormous damage to the country, since they could not help but come across his decade-long lobbying career since he left the House, which perhaps only he and Republicans fearful of “losing” the election, refuse to admit was lobbying.
Romney, of course, was the Republican “heir apparent”, meaning all the kings horse’s and men would line up behind him to continue on the path of Rome (grand scheme of global finance and laissez-faire morality that ends in national destruction).
It’s a question between those two of which would lead America further down the road to destruction in 4 years. And both, contrary to what some conservatives think, would be on a par with Obama.
Homeland Security overreach would continue as would islamic, leftist and homosexual appeasement, etc. Newt purporting to come out “hard right” in terms of the judiciary, etc., would simply be used by him with Democrats as a bargaining chip to get his legislation passed. A President, he would say, has to govern from the center.
Of course, I’m a Bachmann and then Santorum person, I know you’re a Perry person. And Perry does not have the laser-like wit or smoothness of N and R. I see Perry as not being able to stand up to lobbying pressure as well as Bachmann or Santorum, IMHO. It is interesting though to me as one who desires restraint of the Federal beast, that Perry’s support is so concentrated in Texas. All in all, he could be much better at blocking the progress of the beast than Newt or Mitt, both of which are quite scary, IMHO.
Let’s face it; any Republican administration will face 4 years of having everything including the kitchen sink thrown at it in an attempt to block it at every move and disparage the convervative and even more so the Republican brand. IMHO, we might as well gain some yardage for true conservative principles since we’ll be taking the flak anyway. A compromiser President will not look to gain yardage on such issues, but simply to make the economy look and feel better after 4 years. If the President is not a die-hard conservative and not actually advancing the right issues but negotiating them away in exchange for trade legislation, etc., America would be sliding into the pit of secular-humanist socialism anyway as it is now.
I’m still a Bachmann supporter, but Perry, IMHO, is certainly preferable to Newt or Romney.
Thank you for a thoughtful post.
Here is a bit about Gov. Perry you many not recognize but this is pure Perry (I’ve posted much about him but mostly the threads were hijacked to drive people away). But these two incidents are instruct of a broader governing style.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276264/vetoes-rick-perry-katrina-trinko
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2787263/posts
A Postscript to that second link is that the group who opposed Perry and supported his opponent because of his veto, The Texas Medical Association, endorsed him for president, and its members are helping him raise money and make connections with medical groups in other states.
Gov. Perry stands on principle and brings people along (maybe not at first but in time).