Speaker Gingrich IS Volitile-Isn't That What it Will Take To Get the Government off the Dime; and its duff?

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jan 23, 2012 at 12:15

It has taken more than 40 years to develop my own political understanding of things in American politics; and for the record I am not conventional in my perceptions of things since the time of Kennedy's assassination-which was the first time I was forced to observe how American politics was forced to face reality. While I am not a conspiracy theorist, I do recognize that things are not always as they seem to be.

Newt Gingrich was always in the past observed by me as being someone in the shadows, working behind the scenes on things he was convinced needed his support, changing stature only as his political ambitions gained traction. Politics seemed to have been the driving passion in the early years, taking its toll on personal and political endeavors, some not so well. But in it all, finally resorting to an historical academic regimen, he learned. In that, what he seemed like in the past, is not always what it seemed to be.

Now, to be sure in this, all the candidates have their quite compelling articles of the political beliefs they hold dear, but some more compelling than others. Dr. Paul, as always devout in his libertarianism, defends today what he has always held, that America's politics has built its fortress of government so heavily upon the former politics of the freedoms and liberties and the pursuit of happiness that that the government is now the only visible front on American politics and the former foundations are cracking from the weight. That being said, Dr. Paul's views would force America into isolationism again and we cannot afford another Pearl Harbor or World Trade Center loss at the expense of foreign oil.

Candidate Santorum is an upcoming star, for which the hope is that if he cannot make the potential electorate of this cycle fall in line with his ideals, that he will not give up when the next opportunity for re-establishing conservative ideals in leadership, while not being found too deeply rooted in the intuitionalism that has the government in such a strangle hold that allowed the current office holder any chance to impose his globalist whims.

Candidate Romney is being held up for the institutionalist republican idea of conservative influences, which I have come to the conclusion have become as much of a problem, though not necessarily as bad, as a democratic candidate can make it. His credentials as a businessman are, from a capitalist's viewpoint, impeccable. And from this perspective, that may be yet a reason that we cannot make the break from the stranglehold that has America drowning in financial and ethical debt. It is the business practices that he has held to and has used for his empire building that I have found to be the proximal cause for the extreme retirement losses for uncounted friends and family in a market environment that is allowed to be too exposed for trusting investors to rely upon. It is therefore, for me, a trust issue about Former Gov. Romney. I could elaborate further, but I'll refrain.

So that leaves Former Speaker Gingrich. Yes, he IS volatile; outspoken; direct; unpredictable; and full of complex issues of times past and potentially controversial items of debate. But that does/should NOT disqualify him. Having baggage is not necessarily a bad thing if one looks at the hard things he faced, to be sure some of his own doing; yet having passed through them and have come to the other side potentially a better man for it, showing that he learned and has value to take him to the next level of wisdom. And that's what he has as his best result of that investment of time, more value than all the monetary treasure that one might accumulate-wisdom.

Now which candidate has been touted as the best alternative to make the current officeholder obsolete to the type of Republic the founders imagined? That's the question the debates are supposed to discern; but that's not what's happening. Instead, the divisiveness of the republican partisanship is being used against itself to the glee of the opposition party(ies). The republicans are making the oppositions' argument for them; such as how their tactic of using the republican party's obstinacy of House Speaker Boehner's appearance of not bowing to the Chief Executive's whims as being the reason for nothing being accomplished. That's what is being perceived-that if the republicans cannot get past upholding true conservative values without making all the constituents (both enfranchised and the disenfranchised) feel their concerns are being met, nothing will continue to get done and the perception of NOTHING BEING DONE in deference to the politicking to keep and gain political office will reinforce the negative attitudes about it all; and that's what the progressive democrats are counting on.

Speaker Gingrich's posture is that the campaign is starting to take the shape of trying to distinguish himself from the standard republican rhetoric, something that needs to be defined further and the electorate needs to be educated on. It cannot be republican business as usual and the institutional republican line seems to be wanting just that. Conservative values are indeed the practical core values that America needs to function in its 'exceptionalism' of the past, something that has been diluted from the time of Kennedy, but has been lost in the business as usual mentality of most of American politics. Reagan was the brief wind in the chimes of freedom, but even in his terms, the institutionalists on both side of the aisle made their dissatisfaction felt and heard (opinion: the shooting attempt was no irrational act). Bush senior came as a result of that, but lost it to Clinton. Bush Jr. continued in Bush Senior's path, the WTC notwithstanding.

Now I am not going to say that you, or anyone else for that matter, should take my opinion and do as I say. You have your own feelings and opinions, which are just a valid as anyone else's. But what I am going to say is that America, as I believe all of the republican candidates feel, is at a crossroads that if not properly directed, will result in a catastrophic turn of events, which are shaping up to be in our lifetime. And if anyone feels that is too extreme to contemplate, remember that the Soviet empire rose in 1917 and fell in the early nineties, all within the lifetime of a close family member. America is not immune in its current status. Newt Gingrich, in my opinion, knows that better than many; and appears to better understand it than the other candidates.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".