While
some of you will see the obvious contradiction in the above headline, I
think that Newt sees this as a viable political position. Certainly if it
is, a rethinking of "conservatism" is the prevailing demand of
the day which drives us to ask this: "Seriously, what are the differences between a Romney Presidency and a Newt Presidency? " Forget about where each came from, their individual histories; neither is all that impressive to a TEA party patriot. Forget all that !!! Ask yourself the question posed above. I say, the promised differences between the two does not amount to a pile of dust in my mother-in-law's home (hint: there is no dust in that woman's home !!). Be happy with this realization:
Neither Newt nor Romney nor Santorum will shape the future of the GOP. That mantel wholly lies with the TEA party grassroots movement. We are the one's with the power of the ballot box. When Colin Powell criticized TEA party types for a failure to compromise, he didn't know what he was talking about. We can and are compromising, even our principles, if you will, as we move to elect a candidate that does not fit our (TEA party) agenda. There are those who do "fit," such as Jim DeMint or Marco Rubio, or Sarah Palin, or Paul Ryan. But none of the above are in the contest. We are left with compromise, but that does not mean a desertion of our principles. In that sense, there can be no waivering.
After
the election, there will remain much work to be done. Our TEA party
hero's will still be there, just not sitting in our White House. Let's defeat this practicing atheist/secularist and get on with America.
Just keep these endorsements in mind: Nancy Reagan, Michael Reagan, Jake Tapper (Reagan's closest financial adviser). Again, Newt is a conservative but he tends to be more "big government" than we would prefer.
Feel any better about our choices? Good for you. I don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment