Lincoln-Douglas or Obama-Gingrich?

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack


One Man's Opinion

The victory of Newt Gingrich in South Caroline and his victory speech alluding to seven Lincoln-Douglas style debates with President Obama evokes a number of stark parallels between the issues in 1858 and the issues we face today in the 2012 election.

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln was the Republican challenger to the Democratic incumbent, Steven Douglas. The debates highlighted the issues that would come to the fore in the 1860 presidential election.  The debaters agreed to debates in all seven districts of Illinois. The debates were recorded word for word by stenographers from all the nation’s major newspapers, and the public followed every debate, reading every line of text, analyzing the meaning of every word like biblical scholars deciphering scripture.

The first parallel to the 2012 election is the physical similarity of the debaters to their predecessors. Though Gingrich is older than Douglas he resembles him in height and shape, Obama has been said to resemble and admire Lincoln.

Although Lincoln was the Republican in 1858, he represented the anti-slavery position. Remember, at this point the argument was not to abolish slavery, but whether or not slavery would spread to the North by virtue of the ending of the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery in Kansas and Nebraska and the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. Lincoln expressed the fear that the next Dred Scott decision would make Illinois a slave state.  White America was born into a culture of bigotry which plagued the nation from its birth and from which the nation has never completely extricated itself; the parallel is stark.

In 1858 the issue was to stem the spread of slavery, preaching to a constituency that believed that all men were equal under the constitution, except for slaves. Today, the issue is class warfare; the right of the poor and middle class to retain the benefits that they have paid for versus the threat of austerity aimed at limiting these benefits.

As in 1858, the rich exploited the poor and middle class to further enrich itself, buttressed by a renegade supreme court, unabashed in their conviction for entitlement. The Romney camp marketed him as an advocate for the rich, using his life as an example, touting the evil of envy and the purity of capitalism. But this last week his strategy was exposed as a canard. No matter how hard he tried he could not identify with the southern electorate that he faced.

But Newt Gingrich, who had been brought up in Georgia, a state whose people have similar values as South Carolina was able to seize the moment. He was a desperate caged tiger, one inch from elimination. He was willing to say anything, do anything to stay alive, as he ever so gingerly tiptoed into the realm of playing to the audience's prejudices disguised in an idealistic framework called work ethic. That was his opening gambit in South Carolina, and Newt pushed the pieces with great precision. He called Williams a liberal, but some South Carolinians had a different word in mind. Just as Douglas did 154 years ago, Newt is set to exploit prejudices by rhetoric, statesmanship and debate.  He has proclaimed that he’s the only one who is snarly enough, vociferous enough and pugnacious enough to “put Barack Obama in his place.”

From the perspective of a liberal, I say, let’s do it! I’m willing to suffer the tedium of seven debates. I have two reasons. The first is that an epic struggle of good versus evil defines history. Second, shrinking from this challenge  for any reason would only strengthen the argument of Gingrich, namely that the Democratic platform is weak and deserves to be exploited. So, “Lay on McDuff, and damned be him who cries, hold, enough!”

NEWT, NEWT, NEWT

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Now that Newt has ridden the second wave of popularity back to the top of the polls in the fight for the top spot in the GOP ticket come this fall, it begs the question, just who is Newt and what does he really stand for?

It reminds me of the story of how one would answer the question “how much is 2 plus 2?”. A mathematician would reply 4, an economist would reply 4 plus or minus 1, while a politician would reply “what do you want it to be?”

Newt is first and foremost a politician, so it is difficult to know what the real Newt’s positions are on the issues. Moreover, Newt is always posturing, always thinking of alternatives, always throwing ideas out there without having thought them through. So, who knows if even Newt knows how he really feels on the issues. It varies like the weather and it varies by what town he is stumping in that day. Of course, one could say, with even more conviction, the very same about Mitt.

So then, we will have to examine the record to establish some past history of how Newt stood on issues when he was Speaker and when he made public appearances through the years prior to becoming a serious presidential candidate.

Joe Scarborough knows Newt from his days in Congress. He told David Gregory, after the SC primary, on Meet the Press, that the problem with both Newt and Mitt is that neither are true conservatives. Both were for the individual mandate on health-care and both have held moderate to even progressive positions on many issues in the past.

We all know Mitt’s record as a moderate to liberal governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts. But we have to turn the clock back further to examine Newt’s record in Congress. For his rather erratic voting record see the excellent post by Steve Jordan in Anna Janek’s blog on November 26, 2011. While Newt has taken many conservative positions during his tenure in Congress, Mr. Jordan points out that he has voted favorably on bills to substantially increase Federal education spending, support NAFTA, and use Federal tax dollars on abortion programs.

My point is that Newt has a long history of voting his conscience on the issues rather than according to strict party lines. In my opinion, I respect any member of Congress who has the guts to vote his or her mind whether or not I agree with the position. The problem that I do have with Newt is that he has sometimes strayed too far from the norm.

He would like to fire judges who differ from his point of view. According to a Reuters.com article on Dec. 28, 2011 during a campaign stop in NH Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich threatened to have U.S. judges arrested if they disagreed with his policies as president, ratcheting up his attacks on the judiciary. This follows earlier comments he made on Face The Nation that he would subpoena a judge that disagreed with him stating, “if you had to or you'd instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshall” if necessary to bring the judge in. In my opinion, this has to be in the .001 percent of mainline thinking regarding the judiciary.

His remarks about child labor also seemed several standard deviations from the norm when he first enunciated them, however, he has placed them in a better context during the SC debates. Newt is a tough old codger and we need a tough guy in the White House, one who is not afraid to stand up to foreign leaders and one who will demand their respect. But at the same time rationality is critically important for the position of President of the United States of America.

In my mind, Newt has many attributes that make him the best of the four candidates left standing in the GOP race, but some of his liabilities are very troublesome.

Despite his liabilities, Newt would be my choice to oppose Mr. Obama partly because I believe that his conservative convictions are not cast in stone, but are more opportunistic. I believe he will move more to the center and could actually be a bridge builder between the two parties. My hope is that if by some miracle he makes into the White House, he will rise to the occasion and sober up to the realities of the responsibilities of the office.

 The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

Newt’s landslide win in SC was a great moment for the Democratic Party and for the progressive movement. The personification of angry, white Conservatism has a new breath of life from Gingrich’s victory. A serial adulterer, a man who has violated his religious beliefs, shown himself to be a hypocrite on family values, cavorted with another woman while his wife was ill with cancer, and was exiled from the House of Representatives has overcome his past transgressions because he is willing to play  to the underlying  bigotry and naiveté of the American electorate. Should such a man be elected President of the United States of America?

Could a man with a sixty percent disapproval rating make so strong a case against the Presidency of Barack Obama that he can overcome his long dirty laundry list? Was this win in SC a testament to a great politician with superior skills as a statesman and debater or was it an anti-Romney, anti-establishment protest? Mitt Romney has said that Barack Obama divided America by pitting class against class. Newt Gingrich has proposed that Mitt would be a great target for Barack Obama’s class warfare.

What may have made Newt’s comeback possible was his promise of staunch support for Israel. It bought him the support of right-winger and casino mogul, Adelson, who may has written a check for at least 5 million dollars to support his super PAC.

All of that aside, if Newt Gingrich ever became president, the social safety net which saved America would be dismantled. Those on Medicare would likely have to pay more. Those going onto Medicare in the immediate future would be means tested. Social Security would be altered to allow for private accounts that can be dwindled away by the vicissitudes of Wall Street.

Economic austerity would likely follow just as it did in the states that elected Republican governors and as it did in Europe with disastrous consequences. At a time when 50 million people are without health insurance, do we wish to designate their fate to a private market that serves profit over their health; that excludes people on the basis of existing conditions; that throws children off of their parent’s policies at age 21?

The acrimony towards Gingrich extends as much to Republicans as it does to Democrats. He is universally hated by Republicans who worked with him. Even Boehner has stated his misgivings. Why? What is their reason? Could it be they regard him as a psychological time bomb? Like I said, the Newt win in SC was a great moment for Democrats.

Mitt: Show us your tax returns now!!!

The Left by Y.I.Wearblack

I don't often agree with Newt Gingrich, but at least he is going to show the American people his tax returns. Why can't the front runner, Mitt Romney?

When Mitt Romney stumbled through the answer to the question posed to him at the Fox debate in South Carolina regarding the release of his tax return, I didn’t think too much of it. 

I knew he was rich and that he probably didn’t want to let everyone know just how rich because it might work against him in the general election-the “envy” factor. It isn’t a particularly ethical choice, but in the world of ethical choices put before presidential candidates this isn’t the one I’m going to call him out on. 

When he sheepishly admitted that he pays, “oh, about 15 percent” I did not think it was a heinous crime, but it did cause me to raise my eyebrows. After all, most of the hedge fund guys pay 15% and so does Buffert. Let’s face it, everyone takes advantage of the tax code and comfort their consciences by assuring themselves that it is perfectly legal. So, that makes it okay. Well, sort of.

However, if it is shown that Romney or Bain Capital knowingly shielded gains in off-shore accounts to avoid paying taxes; even if legal, that is something which should disqualify him as a candidate for President. We expect a certain ethical standard of our candidates, especially when it comes to the responsibility to pay one’s taxes. Why should average citizens pay taxes if rich people don’t pay them? 

If the President of the United States doesn’t pay them and thinks it is all right to cheat the tax code, that is a game breaker for me.  If tons of Romney moneys are growing tax free in Cayman bank accounts without any taxes being paid on an annual basis, legal or not he should hang his head in shame.

Newt vs. Juan: Is there an implicit message being sent in SC?!

The Right by Dwight Cameron

On MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews talked about the nuance of Newt’s remarks that the Speaker made during a heated response to Juan Williams' questions in Monday’s SC debate. 

Newt defended his advocacy for putting poor kids to work in roles such as janitors as well his repeatedly dubbing President Obama the “Food Stamp President”. Matthew’s implication is that Gingrich played to the audience who was eating up the hidden message of bigotry as evidenced by their repeated applause to the Speaker’s remarks.

While I think Newt is a very skilled politician and can play a crowd as well as anyone, and while some in this particular crowd may have held underlying stereotypes about African Americans, I do believe that he was truthful and consistent in his message. He does believe that young people benefit from learning a work ethic at an early age, citing his daughter as an example. 

Furthermore, he is sticking to his guns with respect to stressing the fact that more people have been put on food stamps during the Obama administration than ever before. Of course, he conveniently does not factor in the greatest joblessness that we have experienced as a nation since the Great Depression.

The follow up question that Juan Williams didn’t ask is Mr. Speaker, “What would you have done with the millions of Americans who are at or below the poverty level and are having trouble putting food on the table for their families? Would you have denied them food stamps?”

I am certain that Newt would have finessed the question by replying that he would have done something similar to what President Clinton and he accomplished with Welfare Reform in the late nineties.

The bottom line is that there were five candidates on stage and each of them were desperately trying to score points and to eat away at the front runner Romney’s slight lead in the polls. Newt, in my mind, succeeded to do just that. I predict that it will go down to the wire on primary day, Saturday, January 21^st with Newt pulling off the upset.


The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

The way I see it, as a postscript to Newt’s hidden message about the poor being lazy-anyone who asks his second wife for an “open marriage” shouldn’t be running as a “Christian conservative.” Nor should he be playing to the platitudes of the so-called  “social conservatives" in South Carolina just to get votes. He should take the high road for once in his life and do what Perry did, leave the race.  Sarah, come back!

The Super PAC: Are our elections fair?

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Many in the media have made an issue out of how the super PACs can spend multimillions of dollars supporting a candidate and hide behind a mask of anonymity. Sheila Krumholz in the opinion pages of the New York Times asks: "Where did they get the money for that?" 

The answer, of course is the “Citizen’s United decision,” in which the gang of four: Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts plus the proverbial “swing justice” Kennedy proclaimed that the first amendment was written “in terms of speech, not speakers” and that “its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker.” 

Voila, the Super Pac. Any organization, inclusive of corporations, can now spend any sum they like, through a political action committee without having to disclose the donation.

Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion:

"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

The argument that speech should be free regardless of who is speaking seems cogent but is in fact, spurious. The reason is that access to “speech” in modern society is restricted to those with money, at least if you want to be heard by a large audience. The constitution was not designed to insure the rights of the moneyed class at the expense of all others; in fact, it was designed to protect the rights of those who have an unfair disadvantage. 

Since the nature of “speech” has changed with the advent of the modern media, the flow of money from private interest groups needs to be restricted to protect the right of individual speech. Just as Justice Stevens argued, the election system and democracy itself has been threatened by this inane decision. And now we see it playing out before our very eyes.

So, disclosure is one thing; the very existence of such entities-the so-called super PACs—may be the real issue, worthy of revisiting. There cannot be a level playing field when entities can spend countless of millions of dollars to get their candidate elected. It is no accident that each of the remaining six candidates are multimillionaires in their own right. 

I have heard it said that it is no longer possible for a man or woman of modest means to become President. Arguably, some of our greatest presidents, including Lincoln, Truman, and even Ronald Reagan, would probably not have been president if they ran today. They would never have even been able to launch a campaign. In fact, today's elections are bought rather than earned.

When voters were left to making their own choice based on the debates, which may have had their own set of biases, there was a semblance of a level playing field. In fact, the man with the least money behind him emerged as the clear-cut winner, surging in the polls to open a big lead on the rest of the field.

Guess what, that man is not Mitt Romney, nor Herman Cain; it is Newt Gingrich, who, hands down, won every single debate so far, with the possible exception of the NH ABC debate where I thought his performance was mediocre. 

My point is, however, that how a candidate fares at the polls and the primaries should not be directly proportional to the amount of money spent. PACS and super PACS aside, every candidate for president should be allocated X amount of money to spend campaigning and not be allowed to exceed X, neither through direct nor indirect spending.

Our elections lack integrity and are hardly more relevant than some around the world that we critique as being "rigged". 

Election Map Analysis:Obama vs. Romney

Election Map Analysis by Y.I. Wearblack

Nine months out from a Presidential election is way too early to make credible predictions, but since it now appears that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, it isn’t too early to lay out the range of possibilities in order to track the progress of the campaigns. Placing a state in one candidate’s column or the other depends on the strategy and execution of the two campaigns, the course of events and the debates. So let’s begin by carving up the map, making certain underlying assumptions. First, assume that the geopolitical situation remains static: no confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz; the EU survives its financial crisis; and no major unrest in the rest of planet earth. Also, assume that we are not hit with an exogenous event like a major earthquake, hurricane or other natural disaster and that the stock market doesn’t crash and the unemployment rate remains stable. Based on past history and demographics we can color states such as New York blue and Nebraska red.

States securely in Obama’s column: New York 29; Connecticut 7; Rhode Island 4; Massachusetts 11; Vermont 3; New Jersey 14; Delaware 3; Maryland 10; DC 3;  Illinois 20; Minnesota 10; Wisconsin 10; Michigan 16; Pennsylvania 20; Washington 12; Oregon 7; California 55; Colorado 9; New Mexico 5; Nevada 6; Hawaii 4

Total 258

States securely in Romney’s column: Indiana 11; Kentucky 8; West Virginia 5; Tennessee 11; South Carolina 9; Georgia 16; Alabama 9; Mississippi 6; Louisiana 8; Arkansas 6; Texas 38; Oklahoma 7; Kansas 6; Nebraska 5; South Dakota 3; North Dakota 3; Montana 3; Wyoming 3; Arizona 11; Utah 6; Idaho 4; Alaska 3; New Hampshire 4; Maine 4; Iowa 6

Total 195

Toss ups; Virginia 13, North Carolina 15, Florida 29; Ohio 18; Missouri 10

Total 85


To see in map form click here

Iowa Caucus Results: Where does that leave us now?

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

The precipitous decline of Newt Gingrich and meteoric rise of Rick Santorum were two unforeseen events. Though not entirely unrelated they speak to the tenuous nature of our present political landscape. But this account of the Iowa Caucuses shall begin at the front entrance of good journalism, the doorstep of accountability. I picked Ron Paul to win thereby missing the primary political dynamic which determined the outcome. But let us sort out the results, their significance and what it portends for the future.

 First let us start off with Ron Paul. He fell about four points in the last week. Those voters most probably went to Romney and were voters who believed that Romney’s prospects of victory outweighed Paul’s radical agenda. But Paul picked up points since 2008 and his support was strong. They came mainly from younger voters who do not want to pay taxes, support entitlements or go to war. That is logic I can understand, and that political dynamic can and will play a strong role in the general election. Paul cannot be President for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is his age. It is simply too stressful a job for a man 78 years old and I believe too stressful for a man who is ten years younger, Newt Gingrich. Also, counting up the constituencies of those who could never vote for Paul similarly disqualifies him. But he is a viable third party candidate who would draw significantly from any Republican ensuring a Republican loss, and he may be inclined to do so because his support will continue at this level.

 Next let’s examine Rick Perry’s showing. Ten percent was very disappointing considering the amount of time and money he spent in the state. He performed so poorly in the debates; in both form and substance he virtually eliminated himself for consideration. He didn’t put forth a vision for the country; he depended on platitudes which he could barely express or remember. However, this poor showing does not eliminate him. If he can get Newt Gingrich to drop out and support him, he might beat Santorum in South Carolina and reanimate his candidacy. Although this seems unlikely, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility because Newt realizes he has little chance of winning the Presidency and this move could stop Romney who he now despises for breaking Reagan’s eleventh commandment.

And how about Newt? Newt’s performance in the debates catapulted him into the lead, so much so that he declared himself the ultimate nominee. But the instant that happened, every conceivable Republican of any significance came out against him. But it was Romney’s ten million dollars in ads, and the 3.6 million by his super pac that did in Newt; the most powerful ad of which was based on my posting of “Would Newt’s baggage fly for free on JetBlue?” Check out the archives. I don’t mind being ripped off, but helping Mitt Romney in any way gives me a queasy feeling, to say the least, and it took a good bath and two full days before I could forgive myself.  National politics has told many stories of redemption, but Newt was already riding the wave of repentance because of his multiple marriages. So his revival isn’t likely. He has only two reasons to stay in the race, the first being to get Mitt Romney for depriving him of the nomination, and the second is keeping himself in the picture so he can sell his books and memorabilia. The smart political move would be to go after Romney in this week’s debates, weaken him for South Carolina, then throw his support to either Rick Perry or Rick Santorum. But for all of his supposed intellect, which in my opinion is highly over-rated, his behavior will be governed by his self-interest.

That brings us to Rick Santorum. Forget it! The country is not interested in going back to war any time soon. That sentiment is not only coming from the young, it is coming from the old. A major event could change that sentiment but I am not betting on it. Rick has no money and isn’t likely to get any. The big contributors don’t like him. He won’t be able to travel to all the counties in New Hampshire or South Carolina as he did in Iowa, and his social conservative agenda won’t sell anywhere else like it sold in Iowa. Also, Rick Santorum carries a ton of baggage. He was “senator earmark” and admitted it. His family value mantra only applies to Democrats. He was eager to urge Anthony Wiener to resign, but was quite reticent when it came Senator John Ensign, his friend, whose situation Santorum was well aware of before it became public knowledge (as per Rachel Maddow show January 4, 2012). Furthermore, Santorum does not come across well on television; he lacks the aplomb of Romney, Perry and especially Obama. I don’t think there is enough steam in his campaign to sustain it and I am writing him off.

And then there is Romney, the 8 vote winner in a state in which only 5% of the citizens turned out to vote. His staffers bragged that they could not imagine a scenario, given the current group of candidates, in which Romney would not win the nomination. I am inclined to agree. Once Perry eliminated himself, Gingrich was the only real threat, and simply highlighting his past was enough to neutralize it. Romney’s problem is that seventy-five per cent of his party strongly dislikes him. That lack of enthusiasm might hurt him in the general election and could conspire to beat him out of the nomination, I just don’t see how.

One more postscript: I won’t miss Michele Bachmann. I hope she has faded from the political scene permanently. I find her “annoying!”

The Center by Jerry Morgan

The results of Iowa are somewhat of a disappointment for a moderate, someone who aims for the center of the road, who believes in change, but slow thoughtful change, governed by sanity and compromise. I want to keep the American Dream alive; I believe in free market capitalism; I do not think America should be the policemen of the world; I believe that medical research should not be hampered by religious fanatics. Yes, it is difficult to walk down the middle of the road without teetering to one side or the other and at times, I find myself walking down the left side of the road while at other times I veer off inexplicably to the right. I have an opinion on most every issue, so the question in mind, after Iowa, is which candidate comes closest to satisfying my set of beliefs among the remaining 5 viable candidates: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich or Huntsman? Huntsman was not a player in Iowa so he will be eliminated from my analysis, Bachmann is out and Perry is all but out.

That leaves the top 4 vote getters from the Hawkeye State: Romney, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich.

First, I will eliminate the candidate who I feel would be most detrimental to the health and welfare of this country if elected president and that is Ron Paul. While I agree in principle with many of his fiscal and libertarian views, the reality of putting real policy into practice would be destructive to the fabric of our society in its current form.  Further, while his non-interventionist foreign policy platform is progressive in the sense that it allows for open and free trade with all nations, it is dangerous when it comes to hiding our heads in the sand with respect to dealing with potentially explosive situations in parts of the world like Korea, Iran and the rest of the Middle East, India and Pakistan. We cannot merely implement the libertarian perspective of maintaining armies to protect our shores and not worry about potential threats abroad.

Second, I will eliminate Mitt Romney, partly because he rubs me the wrong way. Yes, I resent anyone being able to buy an election, to throw money at a problem in order to make it go away, to bet ten thousand dollars like it is penny. But that is not why I am rejecting him. If he was consistent in his views; if he, like Newt Gingrich suggests, were to admit that he is a Massachusetts moderate, then I could, perhaps, support him. I liked the Mitt Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts, but I don’t like the flip-flopper who is now vying inanely to compete with Santorum and others for the support of the right-wing base of the Republican Party. This man, the man seeking the candidacy of the GOP for president of the United States of America, I can no longer trust because I am convinced that he is not the Mitt Romney of 1994 when he was trying to move to the left of Senator Ted Kennedy on issues such as gay rights, nor is he the Mitt Romney of 2002 when he ran for Governor of the state of Massachusetts and I doubt that he is the Mitt Romney of 2012 who is vowing to expel 11 million illegal immigrants and defines personhood as beginning at the cellular level so that a test tube zygote would have legal protection as a person. The bottom line is that I don’t trust Mitt Romney; I don’t think he knows who he is or what he stands for anymore.

Third, I will eliminate Santorum mainly because I view him as a war-monger and that makes him a dangerous choice in my mind. In addition, he is too much a social conservative for my liking. Levels of sanctimony to which he ascribes rarely if ever meet expectations, resulting in a very demoralizing valley of hypocrisy. His economic plan is limited to bringing back manufacturing to our shores which sounds nice but is very difficult to accomplish, at least not enough to make a significant impact.

That leaves Newt. I cannot believe that I am writing in support of Newt Gingrich, a man who I did not particularly like when he was Speaker of the House and a man who has often rubbed me the wrong way with his abrasiveness, arrogance, and his spewing out whatever gibberish may enter his mind. However, I find myself agreeing more and more with my colleague on the right, Dwight Cameron who endorsed Newt on this blog, shortly after the Manchester Union Leader’s endorsement. I think many of the same reasons for endorsing him back then make sense today. In addition, he has acquitted himself well in the debates, showing the illogic of his opponents’ positions on illegal immigration as well as other issues. He won each of the debates hands down and is clearly the brightest of the candidates. He also has a history of being able to compromise, having worked well with President Clinton to pass critical legislation on welfare reform while adhering to the principles of his contract with America. His foreign policy is principled but a little rough around the edges as is his general personality. Nevertheless, he has proven himself to be the most middle of the road candidate left standing and worthy of my support.

The Right by Dwight Cameron

 I do not trust Romney.  He seems to have big government instincts--not my cup of tea.  The last thing we need is another W.  'Electability' is what carried him to a three way photo finish victory in Iowa. To me that is irrelevant. I want a candidate who has the qualities of leadership and the ability to right the course that Obama has steered us down. Mitt is simply not that man. 

Newt knows how Washington works and knows how to compromise; he and Bill Clinton had a plan to save Social Security until Bubba scuttled it.  He later worked with Clinton on pushing through important legislation on welfare reform. He is also an excellent debater and would do much better than Mitt facing off with Obama one on one.  He has good ideas, expresses them well and can think on his feet.  Four years ago he wrote Real Change, a book where he outlined his ideas which, he claimed, may garner support among the majority of Americans. I agree. For instance, we obviously have a great many energy resources which could be developed to make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.  The Republican slogan of  "drill, baby, drill" was one of Newt's ideas that he outlined in his book.  Other than Rick Santorum who I do not find overtly objectionable, and Ron Paul who also has some redeeming qualities that I like (see my post on Paul), the other Republicans have either flamed out or could not get the support of the main-stream of the Party. I believe Newt is a small government conservative at heart and like the Manchester Union Leader, he has my endorsement. Click for the endorsement of the paper.

Sure,  Newt has heavy baggage but not sooo heavy. Go Newt!