Tuesday, December 06, 2011

How Ron Paul Nominates Newt - And Elects Obama

This started as a tangent in the Senate 42 post but now needs its own space.

Ron Paul, now running in a dead heat for second with Mitt Romney in Iowa, may do just well enough to nominate Newt Gingrich.

Scenario: an Iowa finishing order of Newt, Paul, Mitt. Quite likely. The flavors of the month, Bachmann and Perry and Cain, all tanked because they were full of surprises. After all these years, you think Republicans, especially active, caucus-type Republicans, are going to learn something NEW about Newt Gingrich?

Yeah, they all know about the three wives. And they don't care. He literally wrote the playbook and the language of the present Republican Party and the modern post-congenial era of government, all from a backbench seat in the House a decade before he was Speaker. He's still the Contract With America guy who won back the House after 40 years. Even in his downfall, caught in a trap of his own hypocrisy, he was STILL a conservative hero, escalating the dynamic of Politics as Total War to include impeachment.

(And by poisoning "impeachment" with partisanship so it couldn't be used when Bush and Cheney actually did impeachable stuff, he indirectly saved them, too.)

All that stuff still makes Gingrich a hero to the base, in a way that winning one election in Massachusetts doesn't. It also excuses decades of flip flops more than having to run in Massachusetts does. Remember, despite the wave of 1994, the only two Republicans who lost anything that year were Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush.

No, the only thing that sinks Newt in the next 27 days is if he trades in Calista for Wife #4. And as for Paul, he's going to overperform. He might even win if the weather's bad enough. (The other candidate who'll overperform is Santorum, but that only gets him from 5 percent to 8.)

So after that third place in Iowa, Mitt starts to tank in New Hampshire. The entire GOP establishment throws him overboard and flocks to Newt to block Ron Paul, because they'd rather lose than let the libertarians and isolationists take over the party. You think the neocons will sit still for a guy who only wants to send troops to congressionally declared wars? And don't even get me started on the gold standard...

So it's gonna be Newt, and the opposition research takes care of itself. 35 years of outrageous on the record quotes for Davids Axelrod and Plouffe to play with. The only hard part is choosing which ones make the top ten list. And the real winners are the comedians. Four more years. Watch it happen.


Chris said...

I'm surprised more people aren't comparing Romney's position with Hillary Clinton's four years ago. He's the candidate of the party establishment, with all the endorsements and lots of money, yet he seems headed for a third place finish in Iowa because of that one little detail of getting actual voters to vote for him. I think the demographics of New Hampshire favor him, but that didn't save Clinton.

mmeholdings said...

Is this article serious or meant as a joke?

First, we have learned new information about Gingrich: he got paid off by Fannie Mae to the tune of 1.6M.

Second, Congressionally declared acts of war ARE THE LAW IN THIS COUNTRY. Why are you implying that is somehow incorrect thing? You rarely (but unsurprisingly)state any reason to support your (ignorant) conclusions.

Further, Ron Paul offered ANOTHER Constitutional response to 9/11: Letters of Marque and Reprisal. You don't want to talk about those do you?

Ron Paul's foreign policy is clearly still above your head. Isolationism and Non-Interventionism are different. In short, we trade with everyone and fight with the ones who pose a direct, imminent threat to us after our most thorough diplomatic efforts.

Gingrich will plummet when people REMEMBER this guy is nothing more than a self-interested globalist purposely undermining the sovereignty of this nation. You can't talk about that?

Start talking about THE conservative hero.

Gingrich is a hero? Haha.

My initial question still stands.

John said...

I don't take sides in GOP fights; I'm sticking with my guy.

Fannie Mae is not, to Average Voter, new information. New information is Perry=dumb as box of rocks or Cain can't keep his hands off women. Fannie Mae is just Newt lining his pockets, which we knew way back when he was speaker with the book deal.

As for Paul's foreign policy views, I find them better than the rest of the field, but then again that's irrelevant since I'll be down the hall caucusing for the president. But Paul's views unacceptable to the still dominant neocon wing of the party.

mmeholdings said...

Your article takes stances on GOP candidates. It also misinforms. You are speaking to an important audience and if you truly 'don't take sides' then you should have accurate research.

How is Gingrich getting paid off my Fannie Mae not new information for the "Average Voter"?

The only thing you seem to implicitly conclude is the Average Voter (1) doesn't know; (2) doesn't care; or (3) already knew, Gingrich was in on the scheme to defraud the American taxpayer. I believe most people will reject Gingrich after fully considering the implications of Gingrich using his publicly-granted, political influence to poison our economy while he profitted to the tune of 1.6M-1.8M.

NEWSFLASH: Pelosi recently stated she possesses apparently news-worthy information about Gingrich she is just waiting to reveal. But you're right, Newt can't possibly implode at the drop of the hat...

In sum, please stop saying we all know and love Newt and we have accepted him and forgave him and he is a "conservative hero" when he STILL clearly reflects his inability to act in good faith as a public servant to the people of our nation. He has not upheld the Constitution or core "conservative" values. Until you prove otherwise, don't say otherwise.

Your conclusion about the dominance of neocons is also on unstable footing. The Republican party's foreign policy is unteneable economically. Thus, our current economic climate is forcing people to re-evaluate the need for war in lieu of our serious financial problems. US Military expenditure on the recent 'wars' is ~4 Trillion.

Why does the USA TODAY report Ron Paul receives more military donations than all other GOP hopefuls COMBINED? Why does he receive more than your "guy"?

Because the military understands the difference between DEFENSE versus MILITARISM. The former is Paul's position. It is the Constitutional, moral, economical, and peaceful position.

That message is the only sustainable in this volatile race for the Presidency.

How long can the neocons openly deny/reject the military's allegiance to Ron Paul?

And it'd be nice if you could write further about why you don't favor the idea of a commodity-backed currency as opposed to the current debt-based fiat, electronic currency?

This is an important time for all these issues to be discussed. Thank you for engaging in the conversation.

John said...

In the immortal words of Sergeant Hulka: lighten up, Francis. I'd forgotten since 2008, never feed the trolls in the Ron Paul thread.

I. Don't. Care. Who. The. Republicans. Nominate. I'm a Democrat. It's none of my business.

All I'm saying is... nah, just read it again and try to get the analysis. I ain't pickin' on poor Ron. I'm just saying the GOP establishment would rather lose than let him take over the party.

And I'm not up for a serious discussion of the gold standard this late. Us Democrats are all Free Silver types anyway.

mmeholdings said...

So a troll=a person who reads and comments on your position?

Or does troll status apply when weaknesses in your position are pointed out?

I just want to open the discussion. You reach an important audience and you clearly care about politics--including the Republican nomination. If you didn't, you wouldn't publish political articles on the topic. Plus, the Republican nominee is hugely important to brittle Obama in terms of match-up. (Maybe a future articles could compare current GOP hopefuls against O?)
I simply ask you to reconsider your position and your understanding of the candidates, namely Ron Paul.

You seem to support Paul's foreign policy (as do the majority of Americans and military).

Your problem is economics? How much longer can you deny the shortcomings of the Keynesian model? The private acts of the Federal Reserve? Did you hear the recent reports that the Fed dished out 7.7 TRILLION DOLLARS--in secret--in addition to the 700+ Billion Dollar Stimulus? You cannot expect an efficient, productive, adaptive market when there is so much government intervention.

If anything, the bailouts, stimulus, debt, borrowing, and inflation does nothing but crush the middle and lower class. Our cost of living rises while our wages stagnate.

It doesn't have to be this way. Under Free Market economic theory, the federal government should only support an environment that allows a market to coordinate and discoordinate effectively and efficiently. Supply meets demand, and we vibrate closer and closer to equilibrium. Voluntarily. This model does not assume some perfection. In fact, it believes in the discoordinating role of the market--the "bust" as it is commonly known. This resets the markets, clears inefficiencies, and ultimately better meets the demands of the end user. Exhibit A: research the stock market crash of 1921 you never hear about.

Obama has increased our militarism around the world. Obama has supported, passed, and is still proposing to pass more federal intervention into our economy. The last thing the economy needs is another misdirected shock from the federal government. They shocked our housing market into collapse and they want to keep shocking.

And this is somehow your "guy"?

If you want to support Obama on blind faith then I guess I understand. But remember you are an American before a (D).

If you prefer to defend your position, I'll be trolling...

Sick of Spin said...


Have you considered that Newt Gingrich is the Republican version of Bill Clinton? If Republicans have come to terms so to speak and have accepted Newt's flaws, then that means Independents have already done so.

In today's political environment, the character issue takes a back seat to somebody who is viewed as able to steer the goverment ship.

Sick of Spin said...


Newt has baggage, no doubt about it, but it's Bill Clinton kind of baggage. Think about it, Newt is the Republican version of Bill Clinton. It's true.


Eric said...

the funniest part of this post, outside of how wrong the author was regarding Iowa, is his complete ignorance regarding Newt also supporting the gold standard

John said...

Yeah, well, in 2007 I wrote "McCain isn't dead but neither was Terry Schaivo."