Nonetheless, I've got to say it...
Newt Gingrich is poised to become for the Republican Party in 2012 what John Kerry was for the Democrat Party in 2004.
Meaning that if Gingrich is the GOP's nominee for President, that will most likely assure that Obama will be re-elected.
Part of me is wondering if that might have been the plan from the start, although by whom and for what purpose, I could only speculate.
Can anybody provide evidence strong enough to compel me that there is any significant difference between the "two major parties" running the show in the United States? And that's all this really is: a show. Albeit one that has cost us billionstrillions of dollars, a wasted economy, individual liberty and even more than a few lives.
We, the American citizenry, will never be free until we make the conscious and conscientious choice to turn away from these petty illusions of political grandeur and at long last accept the responsibilities that God has entrusted with we the people.
(Just my .02 that I felt led to share after reading this morning's news...)
I think Romney is more of a Kerry-esque nominee than Gingrich. Lots of flip-flopping, poor ability to explain it, appearance of being an out-of-touch member of the upper crust, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think Gingrich has shown himself to be surprisingly resilient; how many times have we counted him out only to see him roar back? The more one gets to know about and hear about Romney, the less we like him. With Gingrich, it's the other way around...we find he's not as bad as the caricatures would lead us to believe.
And Gingrich will absolutely slaughter Obama in the debates...I think that's a given. Probably better than any of the other candidates.
Personally, I think the level of dissatisfaction with Obama is so high that almost any of the Republican contenders stand a very, very good chance of winning. I think Bachmann and Perry are probably the only ones in the field that couldn't do it, because they won't resonate with the moderates.
Gingrich's biggest liabilities are the caricature of him as a hard-right ideologue (which will evaporate as people learn more about him from less-biased sources, since this has never been true), and the impression of him as a hypocrite due to his personal immorality in the past. He has to address this hypocrisy head-on, which he can do fairly easily with sincere talk about his recent religious conversion and by apologizing forthrightly for his errors.
All-in-all, I think (and have thought all along) that he's a much stronger candidate than he gets credit for, and will likely do just fine against Obama.
A bowl of mashed potatoes could beat Obama. Gingrich is smart and I'd welcome him as president. I hope he'll pick a good VP canidate, such as Huntsman.
ReplyDeleteI think you hit the nail on the head with this, Chris. Yes, Obama is weak right now, but remember why he got elected in the first place - he was young, good-looking, and different. Newt is the opposite of all of that, and America is still in love with celebrity. Here's the scenario I see - Newt wins the nomination, then someone (Ron Paul?) comes in as a third party candidate and splits the vote, and Obama gets a second term. The shame of it is that someone like Ron Paul would be amazing after these last three years, but doesn't stand much of a chance.
ReplyDelete