Sorry about the Romneybot crack. You seem like a reasonable person, just cynical about Gingrich actually performing as a small-government conservative if he makes president. I also have my doubts about that, but think Gingrich would respond to Tea Party Person concerns better than any of the rest of them. For any President to actually reduce Federal Government role and spending, it will take both houses of the congress and the people to hold their feet to the fire.
My perception of Limbaugh’s nuanced negative treatment of Gingrich is simply something that does not seem to register with you, and I know it to be true, but if you can’t feel it, well, ok.
Gingrich and Romney equivalent big-government progressives?Not even close.
Amazing that the two oldest candidates seem to be inspiring the youth the most, isn’t it? But Romney isn’t far behind in age - in fact he would be one of the oldest presidents ever elected if he won also. Which brings me to my point: Romney is absolutely certain to do nothing but try to shore up and continue the blue-model of big central government and best social practices of the last 100 years of the progressive method of governing. We are on the cusp a major change, due to the unsustainable debt and obviously occurring breakdown of the current model, recognized by nearly everybody under age 60. Gingrich and Paul see it, and I don’t think Santorum does, and Romney thinks he can stop it. Rather than fretting about what you fear a President Newt might do about for CO2 limitation, immigration reform, and any number of other BIG government, progressive ideas, you can be sure Gingrich knows better than to fight his contituency and the Congress on these issues if he gets elected. He knows the tide has turned.
Gingrich is best equipped to deal with the big changes that are on the way.
No worries... thanks for sticking with the conversation long enough to find out. Lately, that rarely seems to happen on this forum. :-(
As it turns out... it seem the Abrams article DOES INDEED have a number of serious flaws. Levin did a great job of exposing them... and, indeed, Rush piled on today with further information It's a shame: Abrams WAS a person that I thought had integrity... Either he's lost it completely, or was duped by others. I'm embarrassed to admit I bought into it. I should have trusted my own memory and instincts... I didn't recall Newt saying much of anything "anti-Reagan". That's why I was so shocked by it.
Non-issue to me now... except as, further proof of the depths of dirty-politics being played these days.
As for Rush: I've heard the slams he's made agains Newt. I suppose these register more harshly with you than with me. What I hear is... Rush freely speaking his mind, covering reservations and qualms he has about Newt....and other candidates. But, as I said.. he ALSO often says good things about Newt, and about the importance of FULL-THROATED espousal of conservative ideals... When Rush says that, I ALWAYS assume he's talking about Newt, not Mitt.
I 100% agree with you about the seriousness of the change that is before us... It's the strongest case you make: Newt being the "most capable" of dealing with it. Despite my doubts... I have to admit that this is true.