Posted on 03/29/2012 11:47:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It is not often that I rise to the defense of N. Leroy Gingrich, Definer Of Civilization's Rules And Leader (Perhaps) Of The Civilizing Forces, but I think if the man wants to keep running for president, he should keep running for president. I think he should ignore the people telling him to get out so the party can line itself up behind the Romneybot 2.0, because the party plainly doesn't want to do that. Willard Romney is not unpopular because Newt Gingrich is still running against him. He is unpopular because, to anyone not in Willard Romney's income ionosphere, he is an unprincipled boor who speaks as though he learned English backwards and 20 minutes ago. Consider the fiasco he constructed for himself in Wisconsin yesterday, when he tried to relate an "amusing anecdote" about Pater and the groundlings who once worked for him, and ended up sounding like the Grand Duke of the Duchy Of Dipshit.
"One of the most humorous I think relates to my father," he started, going on to tell how George Romney closed a car factory in Michigan and moved the production to Wisconsin. That became something of a sensitive topic when the elder Romney ran for governor, especially when he happened to be out at a parade with a school band that could play the Wisconsin fight song, but not the University of Michigan's. So every time they would start playing ‘On, Wisconsin, On, Wisconsin,' my dad's political people would jump up and down and try to get them to stop, because they didn't want people in Michigan to be reminded that my dad had moved production to Wisconsin," Romney said.
You think this guy is going to become less obviously maladroit just because Newt Gingrich isn't around to heckle him any more? The Republican fixers want Gingrich out so that they can get busy creating a meretricious narrative about Romney that they can pitch to as many of the gullible rubes as will buy it. The less time they have to do that, the better. (Making out of Mitt Romney a plausible human being is not a task that can be accomplished quickly.) So Newt should stay in just to make that job harder because, really, what does he owe to any of these guys? Say what you will about his megalomanical ideas, he at least expresses them in a way that doesn't make you feel you should be trimming his hedge or something.
He should also ignore the people who say he should get out because he has very little money. If that's the scoreboard by which we measure candidates now, the Republic is lost anyway. Nobody's telling cheapskate Ron Paul to get out, even though crazy Uncle Liberty (!) has pretty plainly been absorbed into the force field that surrounds Romneybot 2.0.
Newt should also ignore people who say he should get out because he is firing all the people who worked for his campaign. That's important to approximately 25 people, and they're all sitting around various Green Rooms anyway. If Newt wants to go on as The Man Who Walks Alone -- "...like Caine in Kung Fu." Jules Winnfield -- I say god go with him. At the very least, we will be spared a little while longer from the inevitable campaign film, Willard Romney: My Struggle Upwards From Wealth.
As Newt told the GWU audience this week: ......"“The greatest frustration I’ve had since leaving the speakership is the denseness of Washington in accepting new ideas,” Gingrich told the Georgetown crowd. “We are surrounded by a news media that is cynical, and by consultants who are cynical, and by lobbyists who are cynical.” They think big ideas are “silly,” he complained.
“I haven’t done a very good job as a candidate because it is so difficult to communicate big solutions in this country,” he said wistfully near the end of his talk. “The entrenched structure of the system is so hostile to it.” The students nodded; some clapped. Gingrich didn’t pause. He didn’t smile. He wasn’t looking for a cheer. For what it’s worth, he was trying to make a point." Source
__________________________________
Re Newt's judicial reform platform:
Combating Judicial Activism "The revolutionary idea contained in the Declaration of Independence is that certain fundamental human rights, including the right to life, are gifts from God and cannot be given nor taken away by government. Yet, secular radicals are trying to remove “our Creator” – the source of our rights – from public life. Newt has an aggressive strategy to defend life and religious liberty in America."
And:
Principles to protect life and religious liberty
* Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.
* Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government. (Read an extended white paper on restoring the proper role of the judicial branch here.)
* End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas.
* Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs.
* Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion.
* Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.
* Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom.
* Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the state’s arbitrary decision to terminate life.
You remind me of Churchill, as does Newt:
“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
That famous quote from Churchill’s speech strikes a cord in my heart. And you’ve mightily lifted my spirits by complimenting my English-Irish-etc-etc stubbornness. :) Thank you.
Newt’s right. There are more of us than there are of them, at least for some small amount of time.
There are many of us with that strain of English/Scottish/Irish stubborness, and truly everyone that has adopted this country’s founding principles will NOT go quietly into the yawning socialist nightmare.
We will prevail, as Winston stated, in God’s good time, and restore our republic to the founding principles.
Heard Walter Williams this morning on a local talk radio show. He was asked what he thought was the cause of so many Americans believing things like health care, welfare, etc. was a now a right to be expected, in direct conflict with our country’s founding principles.
His answer was one of the most succinct explanations I’ve heard.
Walter Williams believes 95% of our current problems are due to a failure of morals in the American citizenery.
He said (paraphrasing) “If I pass a woman sleeping on a grate on the side of the street in the dead of winter, and I go around the corner, pull a gun, and rob someone of $200, turn around, go give the $200 dollars to the homeless woman so she can get a meal and a room, I would be thrown in jail for theft. Our Christian ideals make it incumbent upon me to help the needy, and provide charity FROM MY OWN POCKET. This is an admirable trait in an individual. Theft is not an admirable trait. When GOD gave Moses the ten commandments, I’m pretty sure he didn’t say THOU SHALT NOT STEAL UNLESS YOU CAN GET A MAJORITY VOTE IN CONGRESS. Stealing is stealing, and we shouldn’t accept the premise that it’s ok for the government to steal from one person and give to another, just as we do not accept the premise that it’s ok for an individual to steal from one person to give to another. If we simply obeyed the moral imperative that stealing is wrong, we would solve most of our problems.”
Exactly.
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.