Newt and the Next-in-Line Problem

The Republican presidential nominating process must break out of its "next-in-line" syndrome.  The party establishment, unable to comprehend the depth of voter angst, the desire for genuine change, and the true extent of America's current dire predicament, is still stuck in that rut as it continues its unenthusiastic but overt support for Mitt Romney, the current "next-in-line" candidate.  

This is not the United States of the past sixty years, wherein it mattered relatively little which party occupied the White House or dominated the Congress.  While the most dramatic steps in setting the nation on the course that has brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy were launched during the years of total Democrat control, the Republican Party, with the exception of Ronald Reagan and the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives in 1995, has been content to simply slow down the statist policies of the Democratic Party without reversing the trajectory established by them.

It is this mindset that has created the "next-in-line" process.  Candidates for the Republican presidential nomination deemed to have paid their dues in a previous presidential run (or who are related to a former president) were arbitrarily moved to the front of the class.  This course of action has been justified by the Republican establishment on the basis that these were the most "electable" candidates, as they supposedly appealed to the independents.  The corollary to this axiom: a truly conservative candidate could not win a national election -- never mind that Ronald Reagan won in two massive landslides and bequeathed residual goodwill that resulted in the election of George H.W. Bush in 1988 as his successor.

This is the argument being used to justify the nomination of Mitt Romney.  The unease among the rank-and-file Republicans regarding Romney is well-justified.  His stubborn and illogical defense of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, his tepid economic proposals cloaked in conservative terminology, and his constant use of platitudes directed at the mushy middle of the American electorate are straight out of the now-discredited Republican playbook of failed nominees such as Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole, and John McCain.   

Mitt Romney does not inspire confidence or credibility, as boldness and a firm hand will be a prerequisite for the next president of the United States.  He is the wrong man for such an excruciatingly difficult task as reversing the course America is presently on.

If not the "next-in-line" candidate, then who?

Rick Perry, while a success as governor of Texas, has not shown the capacity to motivate and inspire either through the strength of personality or by an ability to explain to the average voter his positions or plans for the country.  This can be done only by a candidate with an unshakable conviction in ideas and an ability to articulate them in an understandable manner in order to unite and inspire the American people.  This does not require the communication prowess of a Ronald Reagan, but rather the capacity to be sincere and engender confidence.  Thus far, Rick Perry has not demonstrated that skill and comes across as just another politician.

A man who has revealed an ability to convey sincerity and genuine character is Herman Cain.  There is not a more compelling life story or figure on the Republican stage today.  Cain's rise in the polls has been brought about not only by the unease with Romney and disappointment with Rick Perry, but because he is not the prototypical politician.   

Cain's 9-9-9 plan is simple in its concept and would, if enacted, spur the economy to great heights; however, it is fraught with problems and contradictions.  Not the least of which is the imposition of a new national sales tax which has enormous potential for future abuse and demagoguery.  Coupled with his lack of any political experience and having to deal with an intransigent, by design, Congress, enacting this plan will be impossible without the near-unanimous support of the people.  He would have been better-served to propose the "Fair Tax" concept inclusive of repealing the income tax or a flat tax while emphasizing his outstanding career in the private sector and proposals relative to deregulation and spending constraints.

Another area that makes a Herman Cain nomination problematic is international affairs.  The world is in a dangerous place -- perhaps the most tenuous since the 1930s.  Europe is on the precipice of a financial implosion which will engulf the United States.  Egypt, the largest nation in the Middle East, is increasingly under the domination and control of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Libya is about to become a seething cauldron of tribal infighting and Muslim extremism -- with a backdrop of enormous caches of sophisticated weaponry, including missiles, made available to terrorists throughout the world.  Iran will soon reveal its nuclear capability in order to intimidate its neighbors and thus will step up its sponsorship of global terrorist movements.  

Israel is completely isolated and surrounded by those who wish its destruction, and this situation will precipitate a confrontation within the next few years.  China, more emboldened than ever, has set as its goal the domination of the Pacific Rim militarily and the rest of the world economically.  Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is determined to exert de-facto control over those nations once part of the old Soviet Union and regain major world power status.

This is not the time or place to nominate someone with absolutely no experience in government or in international business and foreign relations, despite the attraction and temptation of choosing a candidate as the anti-politician or as a visceral reaction to the goings-on in Washington, D.C.  Herman Cain would, instead, be an ideal vice presidential nominee or a key member of the next administration focusing on domestic and economic matters. 

Of the remaining viable candidates, there is only one who is not a part of the establishment, has laid out a viable plan to rescue the country, is not intimidated by the mainstream media or the Democrat smear machine, is knowledgeable of how to get drastic changes through the congressional legislative meat grinder, is more than capable of overwhelming Barack Obama in a debate, is experienced in foreign affairs, has a record of conservative legislative accomplishments, and can articulate to the American people as to where he will take the country.  It is time for the Republican primary voters to rediscover Newt Gingrich.

Having been on the national stage for over 20 years and subject to nonstop vilification by the media, as well as seeing exaggerations about his personal marital matters splashed across the front pages, many know Newt only by the caricature of him painted by the media and his adversaries.  Further, in a career spanning such a long period, he has naturally angered some on the right by his previous stances on various issues or by appearances with various left-wing Democrats.  But no one questions his intelligence, willingness to buck the establishment, or accomplishments as Speaker of the House, when under his leadership America enjoyed not only a balanced budget, but surpluses used to pay down the debt.  Further, he has been accused of being abrasive in his dealing with politicians and the media -- but isn't that what the country now needs?

The next president of the United States must be audacious, experienced, and above all capable of achieving dramatic change.  Ronald Reagan once reminded the Republican Party that its core tenets must be painted in bold colors and not pale pastels.  Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain are the bold colors, while Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are cloaked in pale pastels.  It is clear that in the final analysis, the nomination will come down to Mitt Romney and the anti-establishment candidate; within the present field, the person best suited for the latter role is Newt Gingrich.

The Republican presidential nominating process must break out of its "next-in-line" syndrome.  The party establishment, unable to comprehend the depth of voter angst, the desire for genuine change, and the true extent of America's current dire predicament, is still stuck in that rut as it continues its unenthusiastic but overt support for Mitt Romney, the current "next-in-line" candidate.  

This is not the United States of the past sixty years, wherein it mattered relatively little which party occupied the White House or dominated the Congress.  While the most dramatic steps in setting the nation on the course that has brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy were launched during the years of total Democrat control, the Republican Party, with the exception of Ronald Reagan and the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives in 1995, has been content to simply slow down the statist policies of the Democratic Party without reversing the trajectory established by them.

It is this mindset that has created the "next-in-line" process.  Candidates for the Republican presidential nomination deemed to have paid their dues in a previous presidential run (or who are related to a former president) were arbitrarily moved to the front of the class.  This course of action has been justified by the Republican establishment on the basis that these were the most "electable" candidates, as they supposedly appealed to the independents.  The corollary to this axiom: a truly conservative candidate could not win a national election -- never mind that Ronald Reagan won in two massive landslides and bequeathed residual goodwill that resulted in the election of George H.W. Bush in 1988 as his successor.

This is the argument being used to justify the nomination of Mitt Romney.  The unease among the rank-and-file Republicans regarding Romney is well-justified.  His stubborn and illogical defense of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, his tepid economic proposals cloaked in conservative terminology, and his constant use of platitudes directed at the mushy middle of the American electorate are straight out of the now-discredited Republican playbook of failed nominees such as Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole, and John McCain.   

Mitt Romney does not inspire confidence or credibility, as boldness and a firm hand will be a prerequisite for the next president of the United States.  He is the wrong man for such an excruciatingly difficult task as reversing the course America is presently on.

If not the "next-in-line" candidate, then who?

Rick Perry, while a success as governor of Texas, has not shown the capacity to motivate and inspire either through the strength of personality or by an ability to explain to the average voter his positions or plans for the country.  This can be done only by a candidate with an unshakable conviction in ideas and an ability to articulate them in an understandable manner in order to unite and inspire the American people.  This does not require the communication prowess of a Ronald Reagan, but rather the capacity to be sincere and engender confidence.  Thus far, Rick Perry has not demonstrated that skill and comes across as just another politician.

A man who has revealed an ability to convey sincerity and genuine character is Herman Cain.  There is not a more compelling life story or figure on the Republican stage today.  Cain's rise in the polls has been brought about not only by the unease with Romney and disappointment with Rick Perry, but because he is not the prototypical politician.   

Cain's 9-9-9 plan is simple in its concept and would, if enacted, spur the economy to great heights; however, it is fraught with problems and contradictions.  Not the least of which is the imposition of a new national sales tax which has enormous potential for future abuse and demagoguery.  Coupled with his lack of any political experience and having to deal with an intransigent, by design, Congress, enacting this plan will be impossible without the near-unanimous support of the people.  He would have been better-served to propose the "Fair Tax" concept inclusive of repealing the income tax or a flat tax while emphasizing his outstanding career in the private sector and proposals relative to deregulation and spending constraints.

Another area that makes a Herman Cain nomination problematic is international affairs.  The world is in a dangerous place -- perhaps the most tenuous since the 1930s.  Europe is on the precipice of a financial implosion which will engulf the United States.  Egypt, the largest nation in the Middle East, is increasingly under the domination and control of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Libya is about to become a seething cauldron of tribal infighting and Muslim extremism -- with a backdrop of enormous caches of sophisticated weaponry, including missiles, made available to terrorists throughout the world.  Iran will soon reveal its nuclear capability in order to intimidate its neighbors and thus will step up its sponsorship of global terrorist movements.  

Israel is completely isolated and surrounded by those who wish its destruction, and this situation will precipitate a confrontation within the next few years.  China, more emboldened than ever, has set as its goal the domination of the Pacific Rim militarily and the rest of the world economically.  Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is determined to exert de-facto control over those nations once part of the old Soviet Union and regain major world power status.

This is not the time or place to nominate someone with absolutely no experience in government or in international business and foreign relations, despite the attraction and temptation of choosing a candidate as the anti-politician or as a visceral reaction to the goings-on in Washington, D.C.  Herman Cain would, instead, be an ideal vice presidential nominee or a key member of the next administration focusing on domestic and economic matters. 

Of the remaining viable candidates, there is only one who is not a part of the establishment, has laid out a viable plan to rescue the country, is not intimidated by the mainstream media or the Democrat smear machine, is knowledgeable of how to get drastic changes through the congressional legislative meat grinder, is more than capable of overwhelming Barack Obama in a debate, is experienced in foreign affairs, has a record of conservative legislative accomplishments, and can articulate to the American people as to where he will take the country.  It is time for the Republican primary voters to rediscover Newt Gingrich.

Having been on the national stage for over 20 years and subject to nonstop vilification by the media, as well as seeing exaggerations about his personal marital matters splashed across the front pages, many know Newt only by the caricature of him painted by the media and his adversaries.  Further, in a career spanning such a long period, he has naturally angered some on the right by his previous stances on various issues or by appearances with various left-wing Democrats.  But no one questions his intelligence, willingness to buck the establishment, or accomplishments as Speaker of the House, when under his leadership America enjoyed not only a balanced budget, but surpluses used to pay down the debt.  Further, he has been accused of being abrasive in his dealing with politicians and the media -- but isn't that what the country now needs?

The next president of the United States must be audacious, experienced, and above all capable of achieving dramatic change.  Ronald Reagan once reminded the Republican Party that its core tenets must be painted in bold colors and not pale pastels.  Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain are the bold colors, while Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are cloaked in pale pastels.  It is clear that in the final analysis, the nomination will come down to Mitt Romney and the anti-establishment candidate; within the present field, the person best suited for the latter role is Newt Gingrich.