Black Elk! I’m honored that you would reply to one of my screeds. Let’s go over your points one by one.
“Sarah Palin, Jesus Christ and Ronald reagan decided not to run this year.”
In my view, this election ended for conservatives when SP decided not to run. At this point we’re just making (bad)tradeoffs. I’ll go further and say that I’m more interested in putting down my markers for 2016 at this point than arguing over what choices remain in the 2012 disaster. See tagline.
“Rick Santorum (regrettably) has never gotten traction and is simply dividing the vote of the Republican Wing of the Republican Party and hindering the all-important demolition of the Mittwit.”
I agree that Santorum is a good candidate philosophically, albeit a somewhat weak candidate from an electoral perspective. To wit, losing his own Senate seat. His SoCon credentials are impeccable. Economic, notso hotso. Your logic as to him dividing the Republican Wing of the GOP cuts the other way as well; if Newt were to drop out, Santorum would probably emerge as the anti-mitt candidate.
“PaleoPaulie is the unquestioned leader of the George McGovern wing of the GOP (all three members of it) and relies on left-wing college students, dope-smokers, abortion lovers and pervert marriage wannabes as his base. Did you note that he was the only “GOP” vote recently to retain an accelerated schedule for taxing gun dealers and gun makers. Only five Demonrats voted with the Galveston space alien on that vote including his pal Dennis Cuckoocinich and Jerry “Pizza the Hut” Nadler. Paul is an absolute crackpot.”
This the part of your post that I find the most interesting. Particularly given that both you and I have a history of activism within the LP, and both of us eventually left. As you probably realize, I am a RP supporter, where you obviously are not.
I think the important thing with RP is not his own candidacy, which will not be successful. RP is not quite as crazy as you would suggest; he has to realize that he won’t win the Presidency. And he has as much as said so. Yet he will continue to plug away. Which points to another agenda. I think part of it is to bring small “L” libertarians into the GOP. But bigger picture, I think he is trying to change the philosophical perspective of the GOP. And in my view, that *has* to happen if the GOP is going to continue to be relevant. RP may or may not end up being successful, but I would certainly prefer more of his influence over the GOP’s philosophy than that of say Megan McCain or mitt romney.
“That leaves Newt Gingrich who is certainly imperfect but most resembles Teddy Roosevelt’s famous man in the arena, covered with blood and mud but fighting on nonetheless.
There aren’t going to be any perfect candidates arriving at the last moment to lead us to the political promised land. Newt is it. The rest did not run or withdrew. It’s Newt or Obozo.”
Calling Newt imperfect is the understatement of the week. He is a poor candidate that can appeal to about 30% of the population. What about the other 70%? Outside of that, this is not a winning candidacy in my view. While much hay has been made of his remarkable debating skills, what else does he bring to the table? A willingness to fight? That’s nice. The LSM and barky will, successfully I might add, characterize him as an extremist. He has little demonstrated ability to reach out to those who do not already support him. If the choice does become Newt vs barky, then plan on four more years of barky. While I will vote for Newt if he is nominated, that’s gonna be about it. If it’s mitt, I’ll stay home or vote 3rd party.
“If, God forbid, Mittwit buys, bullies and bribes his establishmentarian way to the nomination, I won’t vote for him and neither will enough social conservatives to guarantee that he loses.”
Much as I hate it, that might end up being the best case scenario. Have you considered what will happen to conservatives within the GOP if Newt is the candidate and then loses?
We are likely to part ways on your tagline too! Rand Paul will have the very difficult job of proving to me that he is not simply a much more polished stealth version of his father's insanity. I don't blame him for supporting his father given the blood tie. OTOH, no one I could ever support would have the combination of Neville Chamberlain's surrendermonkey foreign policy, Timothy Leary's chosen policy on drugs, Log Cabin's view on permissible perversions (even to be subsidized with tax dollars or with private corporate funds which like corporate taxes are derived from the customers without seeking their opinions), and NARAL's and Planned Barrenhood's eagerness in slicing, dicing and hamburgerizing innocent babies. On abortion and perversions posing as "marriage" I am looking not for dishonest lip service but for tough legislation on a federal level since the evils arise from federal court decisions and I don't care about namby-pamby arguments based on their views of the Ninth or Tenth Amendment. The fedcourts started this fight and have cowed state courts into surrender based on the Judicial Supremacy clause. Congress will just have to step up to the plate and punch the judiciary's ticket among other things.
That Santorum is "notso hotso" on economic matters does not phase me since I am less and less economically conservative but more and more Roman Catholic as I grow older. What does phase me is Rick's seeming inability to gain traction. Get back to me on him when he takes a poll lead but we need but one of Rick and Newt and it looks like Newt's the one.
As to Ron Paul, I cannot imagine anyone on the Right finding acceptable his foreign policy, his DO NOTHINGness on abortion and perversions posing as "marriage," his support for gays in the military (I am wiling to keep them from wars and from divorce court). Auditing the Fed sounds like a fun blood sport and quite worthwhile and he has the subcommittee chairmanship to do it in this, his last term in Congress, but, true to form, it is just too much trouble for him to bother backing up his words with action. Earmark king. His idea of returning to the gold standard would trigger the French Revolution American style complete with mobs manning guillotines in the streets and brushing aside severed Paulistinian heads by the dozen (not a bad idea in itself but it scares the children). The GOP badly needs a massive injection of Jacksonian (Andrew) populism not further dallying with libertarianism of the Paul sort. Those college cadres of his, if inclined at all to Republican futures, will become actually Republican when (if?) they marry and have kids.
My departure from the free-thinking ways of libertarianism came on the day when I read the freshly decided Roe vs. Wade and grew up. When I was a state officer of the Libertarian Party, no one in my state's LP leadership favored the Viet Cong or Uncle Ho in the then current war. No one despised the troops or their mission. The party was libertarian (of course), favored legalization of gold, the individual freedom to smoke pot and hashish (not sympathy for hard narcotics), favored slipping between the sheets with one's significant (opposite sex) other while taking due care (hey, we were hormone-ridden kids), school vouchers, attacking the funding sources of the welfare state and deconstructing the Great Society, defending the RTKBA since we trusted no government that did not trust us with guns. Herod Blackmun and Roe vs. Wade ripped it.
Since Roe, libertarianism has evolved into a menace to Western Civilization (defined in the Vatican but also by various Evangelical authorities, Scripture and Orthodox and Chassidic Judaism). Indulging in youthful pastimes like dope-smoking and unmarried but otherwise normal sex turned out to be a sort of sociological gateway drug leading to abortion and perversion as new norms. Not for me! Then there was the growing anti-militarism and canoodling with anti-American anti-war movements. On all these counts, see ya, LP! Far, far from me. I also grew a lot less thrilled with La Rand when pondering her infamous lifestyle and non-political opinions. If I had not previously departed, her specific support for (spineless Attila) Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan because Reagan was pro-life and Rand thought abortion a secular sacrament would have done it.
Our choices for influences on the GOP are hardly limited to El Run on the one hand and Mittwit and Miss Piggy McCain on the other. First of all, each of them is effectively an enthusiast for baby-killing and perversion, which puts all three on the same side other than mere lip service. I'll take Princeton Professor Robert P. George, former academic Dean of Yale College Donald Kagan, Norman Podhoretz or Midge Decter, Phyllis Schlafly, President Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Seattle radio talk Show host Kirby Wilbur, Professor Hadley Arkes, Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry (but not on Gardasil), Michelle Bachmann, Marco Rubio (but not on the subject of Gingrich or Romney), Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, Mike Pence, any GOP Congress Member voting against the increase in the debt ceiling of 2011 not named Ron Paul, Walter Jones or Jimmy Duncan, Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York, (Rev. Mr. ?) Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Conference, Rabbi Yehuda Levin of New York City, Jeffrey Lord of American Spectator, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, and a lot of similar folks whom I am not remembering but you get the picture.
Newt will appeal to a lot more than 30% of the public if nominated and he stands the best chance of winning of the remaining candidates. Populism is his long suit and he is playing it well. Sexual history? House rebellion against him (by the likes of Hastert, Boehner, by pro-abort Susan Molinari of Staten Island and Bill Paxon her hubby from Buffalo)? Fannie, Freddie, K Street? Newt is one of us. Mittwit and Ron Paul are not. Santorum is one of us but he has no apparent chance. We are fed up with candidates being chosen by the LSM and the Elites. We will no longer listen to either. Newt's the one, whatever his flaws. He has a set of enemies a man can be proud of. We know how to hate and we will not hate one of our own. We have his back. Whether you wish to be part of us is up to you.
I guarantee you that a nominated Mittwit will lose and it will be the social conservatives who finish him off. McCain was the last stand of the mushheads for us. Never again!
Libertarians don't seem to get just how dead meat Ron Paul truly is. We really don't need him to do the thinking for us.
Oh, and I have been called an "extremist" all my life and I am proud of it. The day I am accused of moderation is the day I double check my premises.
God bless you and yours.
He’s trashed conservatives, like Congressman Ryan, when he thought that’d curry favor with the media by calling Ryan’s policies right wing social engineering. This is the sign of an opportunist, not a party stalwart or a straight shooter committed to conservative ideas. Ego matters too often to Newt more than conservatism.
Newt has personally contributed to the false charge of hypocrisy and image that conservatives can talk the talk on family values but not live them. No one can deny that he’s on his third wife and that while he was leading the charge against the whoremonger Clinton Newt was acting with the same recklessness and sinfulness. Newt tries to stir up passions against Romney for being rich even though Newt has a half a million dollar at Tiffany’s for whenever he needs a piece of jewelry. Most freepers don’t shop at Tiffany’s, nor do we have a half million to leave there for whenever we need a present. I’m glad Newt’s rich, but he should not play the demagogue against Romney because he is too.
Many of us have said for years that character matters. I’d prefer we could be consistent in this belief. Liberals maintain that it’s situational based mostly on party. Joining Liberals now on this subject will mean we get indignant when it suits and turn a blind eye when it doesn’t. That’s one of the awkward positions Newt’s personal infidelities put us in. And just mouthing conservative shibboleths isn’t enough to convince me that Newt won’t abandon our conservative goals either. The toxic and insatiable ambition of Newt made him nearly impossible for other conservatives to work with when he was the Speaker of the House. That too is a big part of the reality of Newt’s character that we’re being asked to ignore.
Finally, I know and agree that Romney is a politician with all of the typical flaws they have and I don’t trust him either to steadfastly support conservatism anymore than I trust Newt. He’s a johnny come lately to much of what we care about, but he’s flopped our way. I believe Newt or Romney will be the next president.