On the other hand, Speaker Gingrich has done some controversial things. That doesn't bother me. Thinkers do controversial things. Cowards shrink from controversy.
Yep. "Risk is the price you pay for opportunity."
Newt's a risk, but a smart one. The very fact that he has exhibited in front of God and everybody the courage and humility to 'fess up to past transgressions and try to make them right, both politically AND in his personal life -- things I haven't seen Santorum do -- makes him the better risk of the two.
Romney, on the other hand, is a zero-risk candidate, and hear me out on this. With Newt (or with Santorum), there'd be a risk that they'd go sideways and implement statism, the thing we're fighting so hard against. That risk is very real, and it's behind a lot of people's leeriness of both Newt and Santorum.
There is complete certainty that Romney would drive things toward statism on both sides of the aisle. There's no risk at all, because it's certain that Romney would make liberalism and the forces of statism more powerful in both the Republican and the Democrat parties, if he won. The risk of him losing is moot -- the forces working to drive back government and statism would lose either way. With Romney, we're trying to create opportunity without paying the price of risk -- hence either way a race against Obama ended up, we'd be sacrificing any opportunity to make the nation move away from Statism. Indeed, because conservatism would grow STRONGER in the Republican party if Romney lost to Obama, we'd have MORE opportunity, though it's up in the air as to whether it would be enough, and in time.
Romney MOST LOSE if we want to give America a fighting chance -- the opportunity -- to win back its Constitutional liberties. Romney is a zero-risk candidate, hence presents zero opportunity for conservatism.
Excellent post. BTTT
Don’t mind at all! Excellent articulation! Thanks ...