Gingrich Or Romney: Why I Don’t Care Who Wins (Florida Or Anywhere Else)

When I left for my evening walk, we were all waiting for the outcome of the Florida primary with varying degrees of bated breath.

I, for one, had a VERY low degree of bated breath.

I’m looking at two very flawed candidates taking the biggest axe-swipes at one another they possibly can.  Romney won Florida primarily because – due to his millions in super pac money – he had a bigger axe.

Romney’s super pacs outspent Gingrich’s by more than 4-1.  And while 82% of Gingrich’s pac ads were negative compared to 12% positive, fully 100% of Romney’s pac ads were negative.  Gingrich, on the other hand, is viscerally angry about Mitt Romney lying about him while he lies about the guy whose lies he’s complaining about.

In my own blogging, I have to deal with a version of this dilemma: to be mean or not to be mean, that is the question.

Having watched Democrats be vile for, well, for my entire lifetime, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can either join them or get beat by them.  If your enemy fire bombs your cities and shells your troops with poison gas, you either fire bomb their cities and use poison gas on their troops, or you surrender and hope that the people who practice total war on you won’t put make the slave yokes too tight around your necks.

Here’s where I’m going with that: I routinely have pointed out incredibly hateful things that Democrats have said about Republicans.  But in every single occasion, my issue wasn’t about “Democrats being hateful”; it was rather about “hypocritical Democrats who demonize Republicans as being hateful are themselves incredibly hateful.” I don’t expect Democrats to do anything OTHER than practice hate; it’s simply who they are at their demagogic and hypocritical cores.  Which is to say that I’m not attacking Democrats for their hate, but rather for their abject hypocrisy.

Both Gingrich and Romney are hypocrites, in that both – in their own words and in the words of their ads – routinely attack the other for his lies even while he himself is lying about the opponent whose lies he is attacking.  And I don’t care for that entrenched hypocrisy one bit.

Obama – the man both men are hoping to face – is the grand master of ALL hypocrites, of course.  This is a guy who has routinely deceitfully portrayed himself as “transcending” the political language of anger and blame while he himself has done more of both than ANY president who has ever “occupied” the White House.

Then there’s the “I’m the true conservative and my opponent is a moderate/liberal” thing.


Mitt Romney clearly had an incredibly liberal “Republican” record as governor of Massachusetts that Gingrich can attack.  The problem for Gingrich is that he actually ENDORSED the worst of that record (RomneyCare), took over a million dollars from the detestable liberal creation a.k.a. Fannie Mae, sat on a love seat couch with Nancy Pelosi in mutual agreement about global warming, demonized free market enterprise with Bain Capital, and that sort of thing.

Neither one of these guys is a true conservative looking back; and the only question is which one would be more conservative if they actually got into the White House.

Now, it comes down to this for me: who is truly more likely to defeat Obama if he gets the Republican nomination.  And the answer is: I have absolutely no idea.

The Republican establishment and the mainstream media are agreed that Mitt Romney is the guy with the best chance of beating Obama.  But guess what?  I don’t particularly trust the former and I actively despise the latter.

I DO know that the night that Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to clinch the Republican nomination, the Carter campaign team toasted champagne.  Because Bush then was “the man most likely to defeat Carter” and Reagan was “the man who would lose in a landslide.”  And of course history reveals that Reagan took that champagne bottle and shoved it right up ….  Well, you get the idea.

That said, I also know a couple of contradictory things: I know, for example, that winning a campaign largely means raising massive money.  Romney beat Gingrich in Florida largely because he was able to outspend Gingrich by a 4-1 margin.  And of course what will be the margin of Obama who is going to be able to extort a billion dollars from his crony capitalist and union special interests?  Wouldn’t the same Gingrich who is bitterly complaining about Mitt Romney attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads be complaining about Barack Obama attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads?

And I also know that Mitt Romney has all of the charisma and excitement of the proverbial pitcher of warm spit, and Newt Gingrich is a guy who is capable of both fiery debate and oratory and the simple ability to fire up passion.

Which is more likely to win in November?  I don’t know.  I wish I could have seen a candidate who was capable of both.

So here I am, watching the Republican primary process unravel like sheer torture.  And I have absolutely no idea who to root for.

To continue, from my perspective, what I am watching is the worst possible scenario that the Republican nomination could have degenerated into.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have both publicly gone on the record as saying all of this is just wonderful and they hope the chainsaw fight will go one and on and on for as long as possible.

They might be right and I wrong, given the fact that both are far more politically accomplished than I’ll ever be.  But I cannot understand how.

I hate to introduce conspiracy theories, but it occurs to me that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings go UP when Democrats win.  And nothing would be better for Limbaugh’s career than Obama getting re-elected.  It is far easier to rip on a guy from the other party running things than it is to have to defend your guy’s policies.  As for Sarah Palin, she’s not running this year, but she might well run next time: and she sure would rather run against Obama’s cataclysmically failed record in 2016 than have to potentially wait until 2020 for her own shot at the title.

I hope I’m not right about their motivations, because I genuinely respect both Limbaugh and Palin.  But it remains a simple fact that the best thing that could happen for either of them professionally would be an Obama victory.

If one candidate could emerge, a few things would happen (all of them good, IMHO): 1) we could finally get to the case against Obama rather than the case against Romney or the case against Gingrich; 2) the Republican nominee could actually raise money for the war against Obama’s billion dollars rather than raising money to attack the other Republican(s) in the primary fight; 3) the attacks by Romney against Gingrich or Gingrich against Romney that Obama will be able to replay in his own hatefest would at least be lessened if the mud wrestling match ended now.

One last thing: I haven’t got involved in the slug fest (and I mean “slug” as much in the sense of “slimy crawling insect” as “punch-throwing”) because I genuinely believe in Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment that Republicans shouldn’t attack each other the way we’re seeing.  But I have watched other conservative blog sites such as Free Republic squander their credibility by (in the example of Free Republic) first picking Sarah Palin and viscerally attacking anybody who wasn’t Sarah Palin – including Newt Gingrich – and then picking Newt Gingrich and viscerally attacking Mitt Romney.  And my question is what will that site be worth to conservatives if Mitt Romney wins?

I am angry at the terrible Obama regime that has actually been WORSE than the terrible presidency I feared.  And I write with that sense of anger at what Obama has done to my country.  But one thing I can tell you about me is that I don’t WANT to be angry.  I WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE and I want to see our country governed by policies that would at least forestall the collapse that Obama’s ruinous regime set into motion.  But I am convinced that there are conservatives who truly hate Obama and who feel empowered by that hatred and anger [liberals had the same unhinged hatred for Bush, fwiw].  And my question is are these conservatives unconsciously setting up Obama for victory so they can go on hating him.

For my own part, I plan to be done with political blogging one way or another after November.  If Obama wins, America truly deserves what it is going to get.  Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s reverend and spiritual advisor for over twenty years – prophetically said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  And “God damn America” was what the American people voted for in 2008.  If they want more God damn America, I’m washing my hands.  Jeremiah 11:14 says: “Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.”  And that would be exactly where America would fall (And I DO mean “America will fall”).  On the other hand, if Romney or Gingrich wins, I simply can’t see myself enthusiastically defending their administrations against the onslaught of the newest version of liberal “Bush derangement syndrome.”

Bottom line: one way or another, I’m going to lay my political hatchet down and start writing as an evangelical Christian trying to warn as many as will listen about the soon-coming last days.  Because one way or another, the beast of Revelation is coming.  And if Obama wins, his coming will be hastened all the more.

Don’t think for a second that I won’t drag myself off of my deathbed (hopefully it won’t come to that!) to vote for the Republican nominee, be it Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or ???.  But as I watch the primary drag out, I’m shaking my head with disgust rather than nodding it in enthusiasm.

Tags: , , , , , ,

20 Responses to “Gingrich Or Romney: Why I Don’t Care Who Wins (Florida Or Anywhere Else)”

  1. blogsense-by-barb Says:

    I feel your pain … I share your frustration, although perhaps from a slightly different angle. I’m a Santorum supporter even though he is not perfect! He IS a Conservative inside and out. He walks it as well as he talks it. Many say he has “won” the last few debates, and some strategic Conservative leaders have endorsed him, but too many are listening to the “He can’t beat Obama” bs to give him a fair shot. Ya, I know, life ain’t fair! But for the life of me, I cannot understand why enthusiastic TEA PARTY patriots have fallen in behind Newt, when Rick carries no extra baggage! *sigh* I shoulda taken a walk too!

  2. Michael Eden Says:


    Well, I’d sure rather YOU feel my pain than Slick Willie Clinton… :)

    I’m in the People’s Republic of California, so I don’t get to vote until the first Tuesday in March.

    If Santorum is still in the race, I plan to vote for him.

    Santorum has the singular virtue of not having embarassed himself as a candidate. And I agree that he truly is the only proven conservative in the race.

  3. HL Says:

    I pray our Lord Jesus strengthens, comforts and encourages you Michael. You’ve done valiant and important work blogging the past few years since Obama and his relationship with Wright came to light.

  4. Robbie Says:

    ditto i am for santorum – this aint over yet – a difference between gingrich and romney is gingrich says and does stupid things but actions/results over last 30 years are mostly conservative – rush mentioned recently newt and handful of rs kept the house open 3+ hours a night to defend reagan (“orders” have to find out more about this). and there are many other acts of conservatism.

    while romney i cannot point to anything he has actually done that is conservative. i dont even believe him when he speaks sounds like a fake or a bmw salesmen.

    of the candidates left santorum and gingrich have the fortitude to save this country. ron paul is an idiot and romney a liberal republican which is even worse than a democrat – you know what a liberal dem is about but a liberal republican – only time will tell until they show there true colors – and its never pretty.

  5. Robbie Says:

    as for radio programs rush has 25+ m – hannity 17+, levin 8+ million – yes there ratings are better when america is going through hell – remember rush was the first in 1988 to articulate conservatism boldly and nationally – hannity was on radio shortly after rush and was fill in for rush same with levin.

    rush has often said i will quit when all of america agrees with me.

    these are not men who do what they do for money – yet they are lucky enought to make a living as advocates for their beliefs – actually closest thing to a modern day founding fathers – of which i would include you michael – as you are all selfless advocates for america and our christian values.

    ie – routinely i have heard these three take to the air for up to 10 minutes with prolife arguments – and speak against abortion – i imagine its a taboo topic for radio, sponsors/advertisers yet they do it and what seems like monthly!

  6. Anonymous Says:

    I am for Ron Paul. He’s the only one who will do the right job, and the job constitutionally. Whoever doesn’t want Paul isn’t a fan of the constitution. All the other candidates are part of the status quo.

  7. Michael Eden Says:


    What a great argument you have! Whoever doesn’t support my guy is un-American!

    When Ron Paul finds it in his “Constitution-loving heart” to find a threat in the most insane regime in the planet developing and possessing nuclear weapons – which is to say when Ron Paul actually thinks that the Constitution should let us prevent World War III – I’ll consider him.

    Until them, I’ll just stick with letting people like you demonize me instead.

  8. Michael Eden Says:


    Can’t disagree with a single thing you’ve said.

    There are conservatives who emphasize voting for someone who will be able to beat Obama and there are conservatives who emphasize voting for the most conservative candidate. In this election I definitely want to err on the side of “electibility.” We MUST defeat Obama because this country literally can’t last another Obama term.

    I like the way Krauthammer put it: vote for the most conservative candidate who can WIN.

    My problem, at this point, is that I truly don’t know who that candidate is.

    That’s why “I don’t care”; because I frankly don’t know what to do.

  9. Michael Eden Says:


    As for Rush, I most certainly hope you’re right.

    I raised my “conspiracy theory” because I’ve actually heard Rush with my own ears say he hopes this fight goes on and on and on.

    And I for my part cannot understand how that could possibly be good for the GOP candidate or the party (I provided something like three reasons why it would be BAD for same).

  10. Michael Eden Says:


    Thank you for not only these words but for ALL the kind words of support you’ve provided me.

    Many days I’d look at my comments and see a flood of nasty stuff from the left. Believe me, it’s nice to look at an angry crowd and see a supporting face.

  11. Robbie Says:

    only other thought is longer it goes on less time for journolists to give our candidate the rectal exam – or vetting as they call it.

  12. Michael Eden Says:


    I actually don’t think that’s correct for two reasons: 1) I think the mainstream media will be every bit as rabid in their rectal examinations (e.g. We can name five women who came out with accusations against Herman Cain; name ONE former girlfriend Obama dated during the fifteen plus years he was an “eligible bachelor” before marrying Michelle in 1992) as they would be if the GOP primary campaign didn’t go on. And 2) I also think the media will gleefully continue to play off one Republican against another (e.g., EVEN Newt Gingrich says you’re a crook, Mitt!).

    I’m most certainly glad we both agree about what a dishonest participant the media is.

    I NEVER want to turn on “my guys” – and both Rush and Sarah are “my guys.” But I truly can’t see how the chainsaw fight can help either the Republican Party or the ultimate nominee.

  13. Robbie Says:

    good points – better yet name one person obama taught constitutional law to.

    why they should be focusing on obama – he is the problem.

    it is extremely aggravating to see first hand how hard it is to get a conservative through the gop. the gop establishment act like damn liberals or an oligarchy/elites.

    unlike 1976 america doesnt have another 4 years to get a reagan conservative through.

    dont know if you have read craig shirley book on reagans campaign called “rondezues with destiny” – great book – incredible – nonetheless there were a few head shakers – like reagan actually considering taking ford as vp and others.

    no candidate is perfect even reagan made a mistakes – a conservative candidate corrects them a poor one digs his feet in the sand and holds a bad policy/position.

    goes without saying the candidate has to have some sort of core conservative values to draw from – reagan, and now santorum and gingrich have this romney does not and again ron paul is a goof.

  14. Anonymous Says:

    You can be American, but not be a fan of the constitution. Listen, Iran will not get nukes. The world won’t let them. Regardless of a Paul presidency. If we should take away anything from the Wikileaks ordeal, it’s that even Arab nations are scarred of a nuclear Iran. We can’t be the world police though. The world needs to act in unison.

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    Iran will not get nukes. And the same people who prevented North Korea from getting nukes will be there to stop Iran.

    Thank you for framing the debate: Ron Paul says that the U.S. will rely on “the world” for America’s national security. Because we all know that we can completely trust the ironhard determination of the United Nations.

    The ONLY way Iran will not get nukes is if Obama is voted out of office and somebody who doesn’t think like Ron Paul gets elected president:

    There’s time for stricter sanctions to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, but the Islamic republic is much closer to such weapons than previously believed and a military strike may be necessary, foreign policy experts say.

    When Ron Paul stops relying on “the world,” come back and talk.

  16. Anonymous Says:

    His argument is the other countries need to provide for themselves. Same goes for America. If we do everything Michael, we’re going to breakdown as a country. I know lives are at stake here, but what good is it, if America falls? And trust me, we will fall if we keep repeating this cycle of war every decade.

  17. Robbie Says:

    dear oblivious (anonymous) what rock have you been living under – the history of the world is tyranny not freedom. wars have been fought time and time again because of aggressive regimes whether they be monarchies, dictatorships or totalitarian.

    maybe you or ron paul can name a democracy that has ever attacked another democracy. you cant – hasnt happened (in the entire history of the world).

    now if and when it serves americas interests (no dummy not oil rather not having asshole terrorists knocking down our buildings, bombing our navy etc) – we will and have chosen to protect ourselves and spread freedom/democracy around the world. we are not the worlds policemen – only a jackass would infer that (ron paul).

  18. Michael Eden Says:


    His argument is the same reason America was so desperately unprepared for WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam (lull while Republicans got America ready), Iraq, Afghanistan – and now whatever happens w/ Iran or anywhere else because Obama guaranteed that we won’t be ready to fight. We managed to (at least tie) come out in those scraps because unlike Iran will have they didn’t have nuclear weapons when we had to fight them. I kind of wonder how many times it takes some people to learn a simple lesson???

    The ONLY thing the Constitution mandates that the government truly spends money on is our national defense. It is the ONE thing that can’t be done by the private sector – because the only way the private sector could make the profit it needs is if the US military was allowed to attack other countries and take their national resources.

    America won’t fall because it is ready to win a war; it will fall because it is unprepared to win a war.

    If you are strong and demonstrate that you are willing to use your strength your enemies won’t attack you. If you are weak, you are fair game in the Darwinian world.

    We need to make massive cuts that the Constitution DOESN’T mandate. It DOES mandate a powerful national defense.

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for chiming in, Robbie.

    It appears we’ve on the same page of the same book.

    Ron Paul and his defenders rather routinely employ the fallacy of the false dilemma: you either do it totally my way or let’s just go completely nuts because it is logically impossible to do anything in between my two extremes.

    For the record, Democrats practice the same song and dance routine with regulation: we either regulate EVERYTHING and kill the economy because we’ve just got to regulate OR WE REGULATE NOTHING.

    Because Republicans want “dirtier air and dirtier water,” to quote Obama.

    I know I for one actually ask the neighbors to throw their toxic waste into every glass of water I drink just because Obama clearly isn’t a lying demonizing weasel.

  20. Dom Pasquale Says:

    Romney is FAKE, FAKE, FAKE. He should have agiant “Fake” stamped on his forehead. He flip-flops whenever it’s convenient. He is so not genuine, he’s like artificially flavored Koolaide. He’s fake, I tell ya, fake.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: