Mike RenzulliMore About: Politics: Republican Campaigns
A Choice Not an Echo
It is looking like my pick for the 2012 G.O.P. nomination, Rick Perry, may not make it after all. While I still think out of all of the candidates he has the best record in which to beat Obama, Perry is trying to campaign among undecided voters in South Carolina which demonstrates his desperation to claw back to top-tier status.
I hold out some hope Rick Perry can make some sort of a comeback but must face the fact he may not. If Perry bows out, I will put my support behind my second choice for President: Newt Gingrich. At first I had written Newt off due to the bad taste in my mouth over the collapse of the 1994 Republican Revolution which I blamed him for. I also thought he had way too much baggage that would easily lead to an early demise. Fortunately, my initial assertions were inaccurate and it's turning out Newt might be the best choice among the Republican candidates.
As Thomas Sowell points out, Newt not only produced the first Republican-controlled Congress in over 40 years but also the first balanced budget since 1954 too and brokered very necessary welfare reforms that Clinton took credit for but liberals decried. While Speaker Gingrich was later subjected to House ethics and IRS investigations due to a controversy surrounding the financing of a course on American History he taught at the time of which he was later cleared of all but one of the charges.
The ethics charges leveled against Gingrich were primarily on the part of Democrats and, not surprisingly, were later found to be fabrications. Newt's biggest mistake was not understanding the Machiavellian aspects of the kind of radical changes he wanted to implement and the depth of the opposition he would encounter. Sarah Palin went through a similar scenario as Governor of Alaska and, interestingly enough, Newt has announced he would consider picking her for Vice President. If Newt gets the nomination and selects Palin that would be an added bonus to the 2012 Republican ticket. These two individuals have first hand experience with and can successfully fend off the destructive tactics of the left which nearly brought both of them down while Newt could push for radical changes in tax and spending policy like he did as Speaker of the House.
What is refreshing is not only has Gingrich admitted his mistakes but what is amazing is that his poll numbers are very high in South Carolina. This shows that he can articulate his case to the average voter while having knowledge of the intricate details of public policy. Voters are obviously forgiving Newt for his past mistakes and are warming up to his message since they see him as a competent and capable man.
Gingrich does have a temper and I think he is going after Mitt Romney out of revenge for the negative adds Mitt allowed a Super PAC to run against Newt in Iowa. It was wrong for both Newt and Perry to make an issue out of Mitt Romney's business practices at Bain Capital. However, I think it would be a mistake to write Newt Gingrich off as a serious contender. A friend of mine who used to organize Science Fiction conventions knew author Jerry Pournelle who co-authored books of interest to libertarians such as Oath of Fealty, The Mote in God's Eye and the Prometheus-award winning Fallen Angels. Pournelle is friends with Newt and it is through my friend that I learned more about him and have warmed up to the idea of him being a good choice to be the Republican nominee in 2012.
President George W. Bush bravely weathered criticism of his terrorist policies, and Newt has been steadfast against the criticism of his past while having a breadth of knowledge that would make Thomas Jefferson proud. For twenty years Gingrich has taught war strategy to general staff at the Air University for the U.S. Air Force and at the National War College which would make him a very competent and capable Commander-in-Chief. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has few accomplishments under his belt as Governor of Massachusetts, a record of tax and spend policies as well as appeasement of Democrats that would make any leftist blush.
The fact that Jimmy Carter has said he would be very pleased to see Romney get the nomination as well as his attempts to coverup mistakes of his term as Massachusetts Governor speaks volumes as to why Mitt Romney should not be the GOP nominee. When I look at the contrasts and scuttles between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney the more I am reminded of the clash of ideas between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller. In this case, history seems to be repeating itself and in light of the contrasts in policy and appeal Newt has a record of accomplishment that libertarians can appreciate while Romney's record leaves one wanting. What America needs is a man of action and, unlike Mitt Romey, that is what Newt Gingrich is.
18 Comments in Response to A Choice Not an Echo
You can say whatever you want. But I wonder how this author, Mike Rnzulli, sums up all these explosive comments which his written view had ignited. Did the editorial management strike him down and out that he is now nowhere to be found?
"... help our enemies destroy us ..." -- help our enemies destroy our Government -- this, I do not like. It makes me angry. I always look down at ingrates, and condemn freedom leeches.
Mr. Tan, I don't know you from Adams, but you are extraordinarily intelligent. Thanks for "sharing" your wisdom. I love this country so much that when I read your comment, I almost cry ... Yours truly, P.
Sharing a word of Wisdom …
The world knows that the United States Government, whether under the Republican or Democratic administration, fights terrorist governments. It also supports the people's fight against an oppressive, reign of terror-government all over the world.
Our world record of liberation of people under a reign of terror is impeccable. Just to cite a couple of examples: We subdued the Third Reich, brought down the Berlin Wall, and put an end to those governments of terror.
BUT WE ARE NOT JUST FIGHTING A "GOVERNMENT" or just fighting ANY Government, for that matter. It has to be a Government of Terror.
We have fought and won wars against governments whose venalities and savagery more or less approximate Hitler’s Holocaust. That’s the kind of Government we have to fight. We cannot be that stupid – fight our own Government, the U.S. Federal Government – shoot cops on sight, spill blood to get rid of a couple of misfits or so or because we served our prison terms for tax evasion, and for other vengeful outrage, to get even with.. That’s the life of the Homo Erectus, not even that of the Neanderthals which is more advance.
We may be viewed as a government of terror, but only our enemies suffer that kind of myopia, i.e. Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and those hostile fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East, specifically the Iranian Government that wanted to wipe Israel off the map.
And of course we are similarly viewed by their sympathizers who live here and enjoy the bounties of this country while they help our enemies destroy us.
To PureTrust, Kim Dyer -- Now we are talking ... We have agreed to disagree. But your comments right below showed up in my screen with nothing left to be desired -- these are just perfectly right, approved and welcome based on my What's Right Standard Preference Guide.  I always support ANY fight against any TERRORIST anywhere -- inside or outside the Government.  I always back up ANYONE's right to vote. I support your right to vote for Ron Paul. Even though I truly like him as a person, he is not my candidate for president. But that's beside the point. I have no quarrel with anyone's right to choose any candidate they want. I cannot and will not stand against the comments you two have just made with a raised eyebrow and arms akimbo. For, I want you to know that I have just recorded this rare agreement. I hope that there will be more to come in the days ahead. This way no one can deny that we are serving the interest of the public. JV
Having never held any form of public Government office, I am highly unqualified to hold the office of the Presidency. Therefore, I throw all my support under Ron Paul.
But, thanks for the vote of confidence.
PureTrust, KIM DYER. I nominate you for president. Seriously.
Considering that many of the authorities and officials inside our own Government stand to benefit from terrorism on Americans - they hold interests in companies that manufacture war machines - we now have at least 2 types of terrorists that are out to destroy our rights and our due process:
1. Naturally, the terrorists that are out to completely destroy us and simply wipe us out;
2. The Government terrorists that want us to hunker down in fear and do their bidding, not to destroy us, but to farm us and get all the milk out of us that they can.
If some terrorist wants to come at us and destroy simply for the destruction, we can usually see it, and take up arms and fight. It's the terrorists right in our own Government, the ones whom we think are protecting us, often the ones who campaign for public office right in our streets (but you can see by their corrupt living that they are terrorists at heart), that are difficult to identify and fight.
Any court case that wants to suspend the rights of Americans should be investigated thoroughly. Those who ruled in favor of suspending Americans' rights should be investigated all the way... right down to the whispers that they whisper in their bed chambers.Why? Because, even though their pronouncements might be logical, they just might be terrorists, attempting to destroy the rights of Americans from the inside.
The official 9/11 disaster story has so many holes in it, that it would seem that the whole of the Presidency, the Congress, and the Judiciary all might be inside terrorists, really attempting to destroy our rights from the inside.
"The moral high ground to take is to see to it that terrorists couldn't destroy or murder us at any cost, even to the extent of taking away their individual liberty and freedom they use as a constitutional shield, to do us harm.
"And this is what terrorists coddlers are protesting against, or don't want the Government to do. You can read them in this website, as I call your attention to it."—Courtney
In a time of threat to national security, even the constitutional rights of American citizens to due process – let alone that of terrorists or the enemy of the United States – can be denied. This is enshrined in the landmark ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court … Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), 18 Dec. 1944.
Regarding 9/11, there are those who are considered by others to be "conspiracy theorists." Usually that term applies to those who think Government had a hand in causing 9/11.
It is Government who says that there was an Al Qaeda conspiracy behind 9/11. But, since the majority of the evidence shows that it was really an inside job, this makes the Al Qaeda conspiracy into a theory, thereby causing Government to become the conspiracy theorists.
A point of agreement to start a divergence of opinion.
I agree with PureTrust’s comment below that a morally straight President is what we want. I might even add that it is the common denominator of intelligence and wisdom to make a President desirable. But I doubt if Ron Paul has even the moral right to condemn his fellow Americans and this nation as the ones responsible for the 911 attacks, and absolved Al Qaeda terrorists of responsibility because in his mind it was an expected and even justifiable attack since we "provoked" it.
Note that Islam's jihad to kill us, the "infidels", is in the teachings of Prophet Mohammed [Quoran] which dates thousands of years back. That needs no provocation. That’s where Ron Paul was morally wrong, and in the eyes of the American public, morally irresponsible ["unelectable"].
For those religious assassins, to kill "infidels" is not caused by provocation … it is a question of timing ... of opportunity on their part to do it.
In 911, the hijack of those ill-fated airlines was a good example of such awaited opportunity. This enemy will take the same opportunity anytime it comes their way. Make no mistake about it. Opportunity – not provocation – is what they need.
The moral high ground to take is to see to it that terrorists couldn't destroy or murder us at any cost, even to the extent of taking taking away their individual liberty and freedom they use as a constitutional shield, to do us harm.
And this is what terrorists coddlers are protesting against, or don't want the Government to do. You can read them in this website, as I call your attention to it.
The different admirable traits, like wisdom, intelligence, experience, and even shrewdness, cunning, and just plain "smarts," are all bad traits to have in a Governmental office if they are used to do the morally and ethically wrong things.
What we need is a capable person in office who is pushing to do what is right - moral and ethical.
If the most intelligent, wisest person is morally and ethically corrupt, let's get behind a less wise, less intelligent candidate who is morally and ethically righteous, and then along with him, dig in, and push the nation back into the thing that it is supposed to be.
Is Ron Paul the smartest, most intelligent, wisest, and most experienced? Who really knows for sure? But one thing is certain, he is by far the most moral and ethical - righteous - of any of them. So, let's get behind Ron Paul and push the nation back into a nation we can be proud of.
Will you please stop giving this guy a forum for his statist drivel? He can be published on any one of thousands of msm webpages. Are you telling us that there aren't enough true libertarians writing with the message of liberty to whom you can give space? You are undermining your credentials in this community by posting this junk.
Why do you continue to publish this asshole's articles?
Just one point of disagreement ...
I have one point of agreement in your analysis … that among the GOP nominee-to-be, Newt Gingrich is the most experienced politician in Washington. Add to it a grain of higher intelligence among the rest of them.
However, intelligence and wisdom are totally different gifts one gets by birth. I rate wisdom ahead of intelligence. That’s because the U.S. presidency the whole world looks up to, needs a lot more of wisdom to make a wiser decision than just three pounds of gray matter to make a smart decision but lacks wisdom. By this standard, I pick Mitt Romney over Gingrich.
Let’s illustrate this dichotomy of choice between NG and MR in a way that can be easily understood by the general public – not necessarily in the way each of their supporters want to understand it. Let’s based it on these two candidates’ records, and take exception of their most defining ones.
Romney: He had an outstanding record at Bain Capital. He had turned around failing companies and on record created an astronomical 88% rate of returns, had created "millions of jobs" for the country.
The number fluctuates from "millions" of jobs created, to 100,000 then to "tens of thousands" jobs according to his critics. However, taking such a "high" risk, with small businesses not deserving to survive are folding over, the rest grew to become bigger enterprises that created thousands of jobs. This calculated risk needed a delicate exercise of wisdom. But Romney was not smart enough to make the public understand the excellent managerial process he had introduced. He just said that "he loves firing people" [not a smart thing to say]
The more intelligent way to say it is that he had replaced management and reduced unnecessary head count, to make portfolio companies turn around not only to survive but to even make them grow and create more jobs.
Think of the main issues of this 2012 presidential election -- the economy, followed by security and immigration.. This is where Romney is more relevant than Gingrich, to beat Obama whose management of the national economy is in a shamble.
Gingrich: As former Speaker of the Republican House, he has a good track record of solidifying warring Republicans under his beck and call. The Republican House leadership had boosted the economy to Clinton’s level of economic euphoria by passing capitalist tax legislations that had created jobs. His Waterloo was mean-spiritedness in an attempt to pass an immigration reform law that would "criminalize" illegal aliens, hunt them down as criminals [and Supremacists border patrols would love to shoot them down on a slightest hint that they are resisting arrest], and would cut their children off from welfare benefits.
The loss of Republican leadership in the House owing to this Gingrich "brainchild" Contract with America which undeniably was super-smart, lack the necessary wisdom. Without considering that this country is an immigrant country, the decision made may be a showing of a remarkable intelligence, but was unwise or lacked wisdom.
But I am glad you didn’t mention Ron Paul. We are on the same wave link. The impossibility of his chance of becoming a GOP candidate for president against Obama or of beating Obama is even harder than the possibility of the black crow turning white.
We are both aware that this website supports Ron Paul for a reason that is strictly private. It makes Ron Paul’s name synonymous to freedom.
You know why in the mind of readers this website’s line of advice in supporting Ron Paul is severely questioned? It says: "… strives to create an understanding of the Philosophy of Liberty. Understanding is far more important than agreement -- that will come in its own time." [Ron Paul’s mouthpiece.] To understand what real liberty is, and what real freedom means, this news link shouldn’t have been suppressed: http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/2705/2/ NWS.com January 05/12. This news link was reported to FP.com. It was also sent in the form of a Letter-to-the-Editor. The public was not allowed to view and read it.
You probably have an idea why. But the readers deserve to know. This written report tells what real liberty is, and what real freedom means, which relegate Pauls’ kind of freedom to the "lunatic fringe" [says the NH newspaper].
The suppressed new link was written by a deep thinker, not just written by any ordinary libertarian philosopher anywhere who owns a website and advertises it as the fountain of freedom for revenue purposes. Notorious blogsites or websites of this kind are in the Internet.
As far as Ron Paul’s candidacy is concerned, I understand why in FP.com the personal version of FREEDOM being fed to the public is only that of the Hancocks & associates. It is liberty and freedom interpreted strictly personal to the website owner & co. for a private purpose.
The wild swing of personal interpretations of liberty and freedom is in the news link that was censored. It is not good for Ron Paul’s candidacy.
I am sorry and I apologize that this analysis has to be as long as yours. But we are both "outsiders" [not Ron Paul supporters] and we can see the situation differently than had we been the owners of this website.
Newt Gingrich -- the best choice for mass-murder-loving, faux libertarians.
Well, Perry and Gingrich are the most balanced candidates. They're Mystics of Spirit AND Muscle, instead of just one or the other.
Actually, Perry & Gingrich are echoes. Of big govt, big spending, big regulation...long list.Perry: http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh127.htm
If Newt is the best, we are gone.