Florida's Counting That Right Now-Spkr Gingrich's Electability To be Determined by Wall Street's Effectivity

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jan 31, 2012 at 19:23

Electability is a subjective term in politics at best; and a poor litmus test if all one is looking at is the ability to win based upon whose perspective one desires to back. If electability was all that was needed in 2008, then the current office holder beat all the odds when one looks at his credentials-not too hard considering the slim dossier of accomplishments-yet he got in.

The Republicans are hard pressed to discern what is at stake if everyone agrees that the issues are joined between the institutions of the party versus the ability of the party to govern more than what Wall Street pundits want to be governed and nothing is distinguished. Part of the nation's issues is that too many people rely upon the 'free market system' to bring about prosperity; but that is flawed because it is not reliable for the average citizen. And yet that is what the Republican Party seems focused on-whether government should be more or less involved in market issues and not getting it right.

It is obvious that Speaker Gingrich's electability is being set up to rise and fall on the word put out on the street by the Republican Party's institutionalists who have run afoul of the Tea Party dissatisfaction on the way government is currently run. Once the Tea party was able to shake up the congress in 2010, what happened to the fervor that propelled them into office (pssffiiittt-the sound of a candle being put out)?

Now, the Republican Party's institutionalists seem to have selected Gov. Romney as their favorite-money is apparently not an object to get that message across. After all, he's one of them; a Wall Street operative if ever there was one, making and breaking businesses as is necessary and convenient to achieve the bottom line. Were it not for the fact that people of the general citizenry are not aware of how the Wall Street mentality works against individual prosperity (for every Romney and associate, how many uncounted people are losers when the market dives and sweeps away someone else's retirement cushion-or entire retirement funding overall? Over twenty years ago, it was part of the housing market then-just like it is now). When it becomes apparent that the government seems unable to provide retirement or other protections, is this not among the reasons government gets into trouble right after the jobs are lost? There is nothing wrong with the 'free market' if the raider mentality is curtailed.

Now, jobs are indeed important; but they are evermore increasingly so because business dictates are that whatever makes or breaks the bottom line is more important than the small people upon whose backs the productivity depends. How many jobs were lost to the Wall Street mentality of eliminating better paying jobs for lesser paying ones for the sake of the bottom line? And the institutional government did nothing?

The current office holder of the American Administrative Chief Executive is not F.D.R., apparently left wanting for good ideas for the American common good or is completely focused upon some other means to govern that escapes the American way of doing things. It is definitively not working well with him in charge, now is it? But his electability by the Democratic Party's temperament and war chest does not have them seem all too concerned-I have little regard for the pundits saying that he's a one termer and then sit complacently by while so many unconstitutional acts are being perpetrated on the America public.

Odds are that Gov. Romney will be no more electable in this environment than Dole in 1996 or McCain in 2008, all of whom were moderates following the institutional line. Does that mean I think Speaker Gingrich is more electable that the others? That depend s upon the mindset of the electorate to discern what is necessary to get the U. S. out of the doldrums before it is too late, now doesn't it. And that is what Speaker Gingrich is trying to say, in my humble opinion.

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".