Newt Gingrich: Smart, But No Principles

Newt Gingrich is a very smart man, as exhibited by his consistently strong debate performances (before toinight, when he was only adequate, despite baiting the media again). But Gingrich has little intellectual consistency and depth, and really "adjusts" his "praiciples" MORE than Mitt Romney. I don't trust him, and I will never turst him. And that does not even get to sexaul "baggage" taht is much worse than what is presently alleged against Herman Cain. You will remember that Gingrich RESIGNED as Speaker of the House because of confirmed adultery, and even left his House seat (I forget whether he sserved out his term or not). I regard tis as "smear" sstuff, irrelevant to whether Gingrich should be President, but you should worry about Gingrich more than Cain (if you wrongly pay attention to this stuff).



Want an example? As stated previously in this blog, I deliberately gave Gingich another look in his "sti down" with the panel on the unfair and unablanced network. My opnions of Gingrich were again confirmed. One of Gingrich's problems, by the way, is that he loses focus, as he appeared to do several times in the debatte tonnight (not as badly as Perry, but I noticed it).


The panel asked Gingrich about his statements of the Ryan Medicarre plan, where Gingrich gratuitously gave an Obama-type INSULT that derailed his campaign way back when. Gingrich is still dishoenst about how he came to say wathat he said, but that is not the point here. The point here is that Gingrich, in his current response, showed both that he is smart AND that he can't be trusted.


Gingrich said that he just did not thingk that a major shift in Medicare should be "rammed down people's throats", and that Republicansns needed to "listent" to the American people , and PREPARE them (convince them on ) any radical new plan BEFORE proposing it. This had unpleasant (for me) echoes of the Gingrich 'American solutions" project where Gingrich proposed to develop a CONSENSUS on "solutions" by gong to the American people.


Gingrich was then asked aobut Perry's and Romney's proposals to give an OPTINO to people what kind of Medicare program they wanted to elect (the prsent government plan, or a subsidy to buy their own insurance--basically the Ryan plan). The old, unreliable and unfocused Gingrich rose in that Gingrich would NOT actually endorse the Romney or Perry proposals. He bscailly said that they were all right, as far as they went.


This is where the SMART Gingrich came in. Gingrich said: "If you do go with the OPTIN to choose what kind of Medicare plan you want, I don't know why you would POSTOPONE it. You should do it NOW. If y.ou think Americans should have a choice, why do you want to not allow them that coice NOW." (the perry and Romney plans evidently, like the Ryan plan, not kicking in for ten years).


Gingrich is absolutely right. The Ryan plan itself, as this blog has said, is FATALLY flawed because it does not make any major dent in the deficit for TEN YEARS. Exactly what makes Ryan thinkg, or any Republican think, that we have TEN YEARS to continue to vastly INCREASE our debt? These are the same dishonest people (Republicans) who made such a big deal about the DEBT CEILING INCREASE, and yet they are perfectly willing to do this SHAM about making all of the "cuts" ten years from now. Yep. Republicans are still dong the same thing with regard to the "super committee", the debut ceiling "deal" which created it, and things like that payroll tax "cut" extension (see previous article). Gingrich, by the way, speciafically said that he would extend that "temporary" WELFARE PAYMENT repsented by that payroll tax extension (in the debate tonight), showing that Gingrich has NO intellectual consistency. It is absurd (compaing apples and oranges, in the words of Herman Cain on a different matter) to say that DEBT INCREASES NOW can be "offset" by defict "cuts" TEN YEARS FROM NOW> I can't tell you how much of a fraud I think that is, and Republicans generally have bught into it.


However, Gingrich is absolutely right on the OPTION. WHY would you not give a Medicare option IMMEDIATELY? We know why DEMOCRATS will oppose it, because they want to accuse Republicans of "tampering" with Medicare. But if people WANT to ELECT to get a premium "subsidy" now, instead of sighing up for GOVERNMENT Mediare (a "subsidy" that costs the government LESS than providing current Medicare benefits), why would you want to make people wAIT for that option. I think there are problems with the "option" approach, but those problems will exist now, or 100 years from now. It is absurd to talk about an OPTION that will save the government money, and not have it go into effet immediately. The deficits are NOW--not ten or twnenty years from now. This Gingrich point is actually conclusive. IF (and Gingrich refuesed to commit himself on this) it is desirable to give an OPTION to people on Medicare, what sense does it make to POSTPONE that option. It would NOT violate the Republican "pledge" not to affect current Medicare benefits for anyone, because everyone would still have the OPTION of choosing current benefits. It jsut makes NO sense at all to pstpone such a policy change, if you think it is a good idea. You could even have multipele optionis on the exact kind of coverage you could CHOOSE, with what subsidy. I assume--as suggested--that the SUBSIDY would SAVE the government money (or at leastr be theoretically designed that way). If people are willing to VOLUNTARILY save the government money, because they PREFER to choose their own coverage, why would you deny that choice to them?


You see why I consider Republcians COWARSDS. They won't even addres the current defict, but go along with the SHAM of "cutting" tghe deficit OVER TGEN YEARS. They won't really "reform" Medicare and Social Security NOW, butr only ten years from now (as our deficits and debt go completely out of control over those ten years). They won't even propose current OPTIONS to change Medicare NOW (or Social Security, although that is a more complicated subject). Republicans won't actually FIGHT to CUT SPENDING NOW. I actually heard Him Demint (and he is one of the BEST of the Republicans) say that Republicans in the Senate could not get Democrats to go anlong with even minor 'spending cuts". So waht, Jim. NO MONEY CAN BE SPENT WITHOUT REPUBLICAN VOTES. Not a SINGLE DIME will be spent without the APPROVAL of the Republican House, AND the Republican minority in the Senate. What Deminst is really saying--dishonestly, and he is one of the most honest of the Republicans--is that Republicans are COWARDS. They do not DARE refuse tto spend money, because they aer afraid Democatrs will "blame" them for "shutting down" the government. Republicans cannot, however, excapte the FACTS. Every dime spent requires APPROVAL of the Republican House, and Republicans could refuse to let any SPENDING Republicans don't like be authorized.


What did Demint say the "answer" was? For the House to refuse to spend money that Republicans did not approve? Dream on. What Demint said was "needed" was ANOTHER ELECTIN. For Republicans, it is ALWAYS "anoterh election", or another, later, "fight". These are COWARDS, pure and simple. You say this is merely discretion, since Republicans have to "survive" to fight another day? WHY? I am serious. WHY do Republicans have to live to "fight" anoather day, when we KNOW thatat day never comes? Nope, Jim, I like you, but you are all wet. And that explains why I am about to walk away from the Republican Party for good--forever. It is always "one more election"--always the "next vote".


Meanwhile, Republicans SUPPROT the FRAUD that we can "pay for" something like the "payroll tax cut" (a fraud in itself, which totally undermines Social Secruity) with FUTRE "cuts", even while we are NOW borrowing 40% out of every dollar we spend. We NEED every dollar just to start covering that 40 cents out of ever dollar we are now borfrowing. How do we eVER get rid of the deficit, if we use everydime of "extra" money "available" OVER THE NEXT TEN YERS to "pay for" ADDITONS to the defict NOW? It is absurd. It is a lie. It is a fraud. And Republblicans are fully participating in the lie and the fraud. I just can't stand it anymore.


I know. I have gone beyond Newt. But I hope I have explained my problem with Newt. He sees so many things clearly, but he is NOT motivated by any coherent and consistent body of thought. He is alwyas ready to discared yesterday's "idea" (that he may have pushed with alloof the considerable intelligence he has), in faovr of today's idea (totally inconsistent, which he will nevertheless push wilth all of the considerable intelligence he has).


Nope. I do not turst Newt Gingrich. I actually trust Romney more. Gingrich is a loose cannon, and I cannot ever vote for him. Inn any event, he will not be President.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) Why do I say, by the way, that Romney is BETTER than Newt (even though I probably cannotsupport Romney, even against Obama)? It is not that Romney believes in a more coherent and consistent "philosophy" of government. Nope. What Romney belives in is HIMSELF, and his ability to MANAGE the country. When I say I "trust" Ronmeny more, it is on exactly that. I think Romney has shown that he DOES have a great talent for management. He is DISCIPLINED (maybe to an extreme). Gingrich, ont he contrary, is UNDISCIPLINED (intellectually and personally). I "trust" Romney more, even though I don't have any illusinons about Romney being a "conservative" of principle. Gingrich is much better in OPPOSITION than he could ever be as the guy "in charge".