On the front page of The Washington Post we find this snippet about Newt Gingrich:
The former speaker, having seen plenty of ups and downs, vows that ‘people power’ will overcome ‘money power’ in the end.
This is almost the perfect statement of a leftist ideologue, where the evil Mr Moneybags is set upon for stealing the election along with everything else from the benighted poor.
For myself, having been quite hopeful about Gingrich on his second coming during this campaign, I have become totally disenchanted and I can see that many others have travelled the same road over the past few weeks. Having been a very early supporter of Ronald Reagan back even before 1980, and being the very essence of a small government fiscal hawk, being every inch the Tea Party member that I am, and holding a very low membership number amongst the Anyone But Obama school of thought, I am hardly a sell out to the left.
If you want Obama out, fiscal discipline returned, Obamacare reversed and a stronger American international presence, there is no one more likely to achieve all of these than Romney. He is, as an added bonus, also far more electable, a not minor consideration I would have thought.
We don’t really know he’s more electable until a series of two-horse polls come in following the GOP nomination.
I agree Gingrich’s rhetoric is kind of pathetic.
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 3:29 pm
“a stronger American international presence”
He put it much more strongly:
Two questions immediately arise. How powerful would that be, and how is he going to pay for it?
I know we shouldn’t take nomination-race speeches too seriously, but this is quite the clanger. The US already spends roughly the same amount as the next 20 countries combined, and apart from China and Russia, they are all friends or allies of the USA. Its overseas presence is orders of magnitude bigger than any other country, its technical sophistication is unmatched, and its force projection capabilities dwarf those of any other five countries combined.
How much more powerful does he want it to be?
Jarrah
2 Feb 12 at 3:55 pm
So what’s he planning to cut then?
Fisky
2 Feb 12 at 4:00 pm
This is almost the perfect statement of a leftist ideologue
Or anyone of a number of populist positions including choice e. Bullshit I say to get elected. That he thinks that will get him elected is a big worry for anyone opposing Obama’s administration.
‘people power’ will overcome ‘money power’ in the end
And after that girl power. Jeez it’s all such hooey.
Adrien
2 Feb 12 at 4:20 pm
Jattah – How much more powerful does he want it to be?
According to Bacevich the theme of US foreign defense policy since 1945 can be summed up in a single word: more.
and how is he going to pay for it?
Ahem, cough (look at the floor).
Adrien
2 Feb 12 at 4:23 pm
This is longstanding US policy, Jarrah.
Nobody comes close to the US for defence spending and power:
http://www.rickety.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/defense_spending.jpg
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 4:27 pm
Yeah, it’s a pity he succumbed to the temptation to retaliate against Romneys ads. Fatal error.
Newt’s got big ones! He could have been a great leader in the mould of Margaret Thatcher. Instead the Americans will get a robotic, whatever it takes leader like Gillard.
Still, anyone but Obama!
Anne
2 Feb 12 at 4:34 pm
Well put.Plus, Mormons have good conservative haircuts.
Ben
2 Feb 12 at 4:42 pm
You are reading too much into this. Newt meant People Power would overcome (Romney’s) Money Power. Romney has millions at his disposal which he is using to trash Newt.
Viva
2 Feb 12 at 4:54 pm
Moon colonies anyone?
The more I see of Newt the more I think he is a Buffoon. Big boofy hair only eclipsed by his big boofy head.
dakingisdead
2 Feb 12 at 5:09 pm
Meanwhile…
Ann Coulter defects to the left.
Simply stunning.
Meanwhile #2…
Romney to back minimum wage increases:
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 5:21 pm
Meanwhile…
Ann Coulter defects to the left:
Simply stunning.
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 5:24 pm
Meanwhile #2…
Romney loves him some hard-left union dogma:
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 5:27 pm
RON PAUL
.
2 Feb 12 at 5:37 pm
Yeah, but Paul doesn’t have even a remote chance of beating Obama.
Maybe if Romney and Paul swapped brains? A libertarian with presidential hair.
bingbing
2 Feb 12 at 5:43 pm
cl,
People do confuse legal arguments with a policy objection to universal health care.
Many on the Left also use legal arguments for their position such as international law say this or that, as long as the particular law might be in the favour.
The Left drops legal arguments if they are not in their favour. Ever heard of a Green demanding compliance with international trade law?
Arguments on second amendment rights to own a gun are an example of legal opportunism on the right. Epstein and Posner have made excellent critiques of these right-wing gun rights claims based on text, structure and history and on federalism.
Jim Rose
2 Feb 12 at 5:59 pm
You want Gingrich to have his finger on the button? He’s worse than John McCain!
As for Ron Paul not being able to beat Obama, the polls I’ve seen say something quite different.
Anyway, best to take Mae West’s advice: “Whenever I have to choose between the less of two evils, I’ll take the one I’ve never tried before.”
Mark Tier
2 Feb 12 at 6:05 pm
“Simply stunning.”
It must be a hoax.
Jarrah
2 Feb 12 at 6:07 pm
Ron Paul is a crank on foreign policy not because he is a non-interventionist.
Paul is not a realist in the threats in the world and therefore does not step up and explain why his consider a non-interventionist foreign policy to be the best way to defend against them. when he does do so, this message is lost in his confusion over Iran.
The obnoxious nature of the Iranian regime, or other rogue regimes does not negate the underlying realities of deterrence.
• The United States has a nuclear delivery system to launch retaliatory strikes with pinpoint accuracy.
• Any government in Tehran would have to realize that an attack on America would be a regime-extinguishing event. Such an attack would be suicide, both politically and literally.
The government of Iran is repulsive, but it has never given evidence that it is suicidal.
• In all likelihood, rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map is ideological blather.
• Israel has more than a sufficient capability to deter an Iranian nuclear attack.
The USSR and China also played the Iran I am crazy ideological zealot card too: remember Mao and Khrushchev.
China became a nuclear power under Mao Zedong, a leader who exceeded even Stalin’s record of genocide. Mao’s publicly enunciated views on nuclear warfare also were alarming in the extreme.
China also emerged as a nuclear power on the eve of the Cultural Revolution. China during that orgy of fanaticism makes today’s Iran look like a normal, even sedate, country.
Jim Rose
2 Feb 12 at 6:10 pm
There’s no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today’s world to equip themselves with health insurance.
Whether or no the citizens have health insurance is not a matter significant to the survival of the State? Does that really need to be spelled out? The Constitution is inadequate in many ways but its spirit does suggest that drafting people is a no-no too.
Ann Coulter defects to the left
You’re so manly Currency Lad. What will power you have in stifling the urge to burst into tears.
Adrien
2 Feb 12 at 6:16 pm
People power is another expression for democracy, albeit subject to qualifications such as the rights of minorities. Money power, exercised by large corporations lead to fascism, does it not?
wmmbb
2 Feb 12 at 6:26 pm
That’s quite level-headed of you, Jim. I still don’t see why you think he’s a crank on foreign policy, though.
Jarrah
2 Feb 12 at 6:28 pm
a state in the USA can enforce a mandate.
the constitutional question is whether the federal government has such a power in the course of regulating wholly intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
In 1995, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not reach, via its interstate commerce regulatory power, non-economic, intrastate activity. Commerce has always been understood as requiring economic activity.
Thus far, the Court has not said that Congress can regulate inactivity and, with ObamaCare, what Congress is doing is commanding citizens to engage in a particular type of activity — making a contract with a private company.
Jim Rose
2 Feb 12 at 6:29 pm
“Money power, exercised by large corporations lead to fascism, does it not?”
According to FDR, it does.
Jarrah
2 Feb 12 at 6:33 pm
The guy wants to ignore the last fifty odd years of geopolitical developments which entrenches the US as the guarantor of world stability and retreat behind a moat. Sorry – can’t be done.
Viva
2 Feb 12 at 6:36 pm
jarrah,
Ron Paul’s excusing of Iran is the message that many people hear rather that his stop making needless enemies position.
the first priority of any national security policy is protect the homeland and its people.
such a policy entails intervening abroad only as a last resort when truly vital interests are at stake. Avoid making enemies but never be kind to those that arise.
Jim Rose
2 Feb 12 at 6:37 pm
“which entrenches the US as the guarantor of world stability”
You cannot be serious. Should I first list all the destabilising conflicts the US has launched or abetted, or all the destabilising conflicts the US hasn’t bothered intervening in?
Jarrah
2 Feb 12 at 6:45 pm
Jaz
FDR was an economic illiterate who added 8 years to the Depression.
He’s the last person you ought to be quoting.
JC
2 Feb 12 at 6:46 pm
Economic illiterates can still have something useful to say about politics, JC.
Jarrah
2 Feb 12 at 6:49 pm
Romney’s smile is oh so fake and Newt is quite yuk off putting – dont know how he managed to swing a wife like that. Ron Paul has a kind face but like Newt looks old. Regan, although old, looked vital. It is dammned hard, but my instincts say dont trust the first two so based just on personalities alone, I’d vote Paul. I wonder how many Americans would actually vote on that basis?
Helen Armstrong
2 Feb 12 at 7:13 pm
Jarrah,
so poor is the quality of reporting of Iran’s piss and wind that few bother to mention that an Iranian blockade would cut of all of Iran’s own oil exports and Iran’s imports of all of its refined petrol product needs.
Jim Rose
2 Feb 12 at 7:46 pm
That would be the FDR who wouldn’t leave office.
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 8:28 pm
Iran’s Speed Boats a’Death versus…
And that’s 25 years ago.
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 8:30 pm
… on the USS Enterprise, btw.
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 8:31 pm
I’d say just the ones who can’t actually be bothered to go down the street to a booth, since voting is not compulsory.
blogstrop
2 Feb 12 at 8:32 pm
The guy wants to ignore the last fifty odd years of geopolitical developments which entrenches the US as the guarantor of world stability
Bang up job so far.
Adrien
2 Feb 12 at 8:35 pm
Just remember guys, it’s not the expensive and superior military machine that counts, it’s the balls to actually use it. That needs to be done regularly and effectively to maintain any “deterrence” effect.
As I recall, Reagan withdrew from Lebanon after the Beirut barracks bombing, and nobody among those responsible got hurt in quick time after that. F for fail.
There have been many others.
blogstrop
2 Feb 12 at 8:36 pm
Roosevelt only added to the Depression because he undertook foolishly fiscal policies after the 1936 election hence the recession.
More sensible fiscal policies would have seen GDP per capita easily topping that of 1929 by 1937 not 1941.
Yes he was economically illiterate for balancing the budget!
How anyone could support Reagan and call themselves a fiscal hawk is a good question. His highest deficit did not come in the Volker recession but after it.
Jim,
The only people who do not know that are people who have never read anything about Iran.
Spending likewise did not peak in the recession but after it.
He also was able to increase public debt as a % of GDP whilst the ecoonmy was humming along. now that is a hard feat to perform.
I should add he thought getting inflation under 4% was a great feat!
You have to feel sorry for Romney. He does the conservative thing with regard to health care but along comes Obama and copies him.
Instead of conservatives lauding him they excoriate him.
On your Marx
2 Feb 12 at 8:41 pm
“That would be the FDR who wouldn’t leave office.”
So what?
Jarrah
2 Feb 12 at 8:58 pm
Having an El Presidente For Life kind of leads to fascism too, hey?
FDR is not the best authority on the subject.
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 9:03 pm
“For Life”
That’s the first place your hyperbole lets you down. Regardless, he was obviously part of the democratic state, not a private power.
Jarrah
2 Feb 12 at 9:11 pm
She’s just laying the ground work for Romney. A) to defend him from future hypocrisy attacks (conservatives have always been ok with state based healthcare, it’s a state issue, etc).
And B) She’s hoping to make it seem like less of a deal breaker for conservatives if he wins (what happens at state level is different from federal etc).
I would say that given she thinks he’s the only one who can possibly win, and that it’s an important election she’s engaging in some strategic maneuvers to get him there. I seriously doubt Ann Coulter has gone soft.
twostix
2 Feb 12 at 9:12 pm
Hardly hyperbowl.
Roosevelt the egomaniacal tyrant wouldn’t leave.
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 9:33 pm
Yeah, twostix, but what’s the point of ‘he’s the only one who can win’ if he’s exactly the same as Obama anyway?
C.L.
2 Feb 12 at 9:35 pm
Couldn’t be happier to see Gingrich on the dive. You don’t have to listen to him for that long to realise that he is not someone you want with power. Ever. Anywhere.
Also still amused that Steve has his fingers in his ears and eyes closed pretending Ron Paul doesn’t exist.
Driftforge
2 Feb 12 at 9:37 pm
The numbers say otherwise. He has as good a chance as Romney, and better than Gingrich or Santorum.
Driftforge
2 Feb 12 at 9:38 pm
Romney’s not great, but he’s not in the same community organising district as the Marxist mincer.
If Romney was an Australian politician he’d be on the extreme right.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 12 at 9:40 pm
Romney is capable. That alone sets him above Obama. He also has a touch ofhonour, which raises him above Gingrich and Santorum.
Driftforge
2 Feb 12 at 9:53 pm
G’day,
Personalty I’m not excited by either Romney or Gingrich, both are big government types. But the reaction to his Moonbase plan by many on the centre right has been silly. Moon bases have been official government policies of the last two Republican administrations. George H Bush had his Space Exploration Initiative while George W had his Vision for Space Exploration, both included Moon bases.
However they made the mistake of giving the job to the bloated, incompetent, bureaucracy, known as NASA. They promptly used the funds on overpriced make work programs such as Ares, which ultimately failed producing no good results. Newt is aware of how decrepit NASA has become. He is also aware what the private sector is doing (google SpaceX and bigelow aerospace for starters if you’r not) What he has proposed is to by pass NASA by offering prizes, he would cut NASA’s budget not increase it. Remember government and privately funded prizes have traditional been used to open up frontiers. Think Outback Australia, aviation prizes and the X-prize – Burt Rutan’s Spaceship One.
Now you might make an argument that in fiscally tough times there should be no Space budget at all. But thats not what Mitt is offering. His plan is basically more of the same. His advisory team is just the usual NASA hacks including Mike Griffin, the former NASA administrator who came up with the Constellation Abomination.
So on one side there Mitt who wants to maintain the established, spendthrift National Aerospace Socialist Administration and on the other there’s Newt with a cheaper plan based on free enterprise, competition, and innovation. On Space I’m with Newt.
ta
Ralph
Ralph Buttigieg
2 Feb 12 at 9:53 pm
A moon base is the most retarded idea I’ve heard. A nation that is $15 trillion and counting in debt should pull its fucking head in.
The only decent thing all this space wankery has given us is satellite TV and microwave ovens.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 12 at 9:57 pm
GPS? Satellite imaging?
twostix
2 Feb 12 at 10:18 pm
Complete wank. If you need a GPS, hand in your man card.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 12 at 10:28 pm
Hang on, I use a GPS when I go fishing. GPS is good.
I’m just not impressed by all that other wankery like prancing about on the moon. Big deal, I walked through Adelaide.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 12 at 10:30 pm
on your marx,
The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favourable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful. Lucas and Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the U.S. economy should have been back to normal by 1935.
Some New Deal policies benefited the economy but others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels.
These anti-market policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s. The U.S. economy was poised for a great recovery, which was stalled by misguided policies,
Cole and Ohanian calculate that the National Industrial Recovery Act and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery.
Only in the late 1930s did New Deal policies begin to reverse, which coincided with the beginning of the recovery. There was a dramatically step-up in antitrust enforcement – nearly four-fold – and organized labour suffered a string of setbacks.
Jim Rose
2 Feb 12 at 10:31 pm
G’day,
OK Infidel, please tell that to Mitt Romney.
And if you really think the world would be a better place without GPS, weather satellites, Earth resources sats, Space weather satellites, environmental monitoring satellites, etc. etc. you are fooling yourself.
ta
Ralph
Ralph Buttigieg
2 Feb 12 at 10:37 pm
GPS is now vital to most agriculture and all mining.
wreckage
3 Feb 12 at 12:00 am
“Hardly hyperbowl.”
Yes, it was. Did FDR do a Chavez and change the constitution? No. He operated within the rules everyone else did. He never tried to be El Presidente For Life.
Jarrah
3 Feb 12 at 12:13 am
IIRC GPS timing coordinates the world financial systems too.
I’m with Ralph. It is time NASA was reduced to an R&D organisation similar to the old NACA. That organisation led to the decades of dominance of the US aerospace industry. As Ralph said look up SpaceX, Bigelow and others like Blue Origin(Jeff Bezos’space program), Armadillo, Xcor and others. I’m too old now and generally am not jealous of the young but I am of the the men and women working at those places. They are on a mission to secure the future of the human race and besides it is just plain *fun*. Did you see the look on Gwynne Shotwell’s face after they recovered the Dragon just off the coast of California?
Eyrie
3 Feb 12 at 8:36 am
the first priority of any national security policy is protect the homeland and its people.
Given the catastrophe foisted on the United States by the hijacking of four passenger jets a decade ago I reckon the national security policy is a little wanting. Hard to get that on the agenda in the country where inquiries investigating the above glossed over the failure of the NSC and the armed forces to deal with that event.
Newt with a cheaper plan based on free enterprise, competition, and innovation
Newt has a plan. But it’s cheap. Okay. Riddle me this: how does a corporation, launching moon shots and establishing moon bases actually seek to justify this in terms of returns on investments?
Adrien
4 Feb 12 at 10:50 am
Hmm. Gywnne Shotwell. Every nerd’s fantasy woman.
entropy
4 Feb 12 at 11:00 am
In fact, The Greens have as a core policy, the abolishment of the WTO.
Peter Patton
4 Feb 12 at 2:14 pm
Helen
Stepford is full of them.
Peter Patton
4 Feb 12 at 2:25 pm