I blogged - after watching the GOP debate on Monday - that the position Newt Gingrich brought to the debate [an argument that received a standing ovation], is a position that many Conservatives don't accept. In fact, I wrote that what Gingrich was saying smells more like a "Child-labor" crime, and today on my way to pick up my daughter, a radio commentator mentioned. He mentioned the fact that if these kids had to work to earn a paycheck at a certain age - the parents maybe breaking the "Child-labor" law. That is exactly what I was saying. Conservatives want a government that helps not only families across America to save money, but also make college more affordable for students to go to school. But to get a standing-O for something that may possibly harmful to the American children, is somewhat ironic, too bad, Gingrich had already received praises for his performance that night.
I want to make make a few observations here before weekend gets here.
It is important for Governor Romney to explain his positions when he was Governor of one of the most bluest of states, Massachusetts, but it is hypocritical for the two tag-alongs to demand them. Former Senator Rick Santorum accused Romney of not being "Conservative" when he was governor and pressed him hard regarding the issues of "abortion" and "health-care/individual mandate", but the truth is Sen. Santorum and Gingrich, themselves have questionable characters; from voting to morality.
Sen. Santorum was asked why he voted against "Right to Work" legislation, and he explained that because he came from a State that doesn't support "Right to Work", he had no choice but to vote against it. This is what you called POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY" and it is extremely arrogant to say that while attacking Gov. Romney who presided over a Legislature which is 85% Democrats. So let get this right: It was ridiculous for Gov. Romney to sign legislation that Democrats pushed through with the majority support of the voters, but it was okay for Sen. Santorum to vote against the "Rights to work" [essentially protecting the Unions] then later changed his mind because he wants to be president? How is this possible? Is it because Sen. Santorum is way down is on the bottom of the polls that nobody seemed to care? It may return to bite him if he won the GOP primary and facing Obama and his cohorts of billionaires with big moneybags ready to defend the President.
And for Gingrich to scream at the CNN moderator for asking him personal question about his marital history, and then turned and accused Gov. Romney of being dishonest is indeed laughable. Voters may not like Gov. Romney's answer on his tax-returns, but who cares? If Gingrich believes hat something is incredibly wrong with the way Gov. Romney made his fortune, then why can't he just explain why he cheated on his dying wife, married to his second wife, and took off with another women after his second wife refused to accept his for an open-marriage request, to the people of South Carolina? For all fairness, Gov. Romney had to answer SC over his tax-return but so as Gingrich on personal matters that are the defining values of the office they are competing for. If Gov. Romney was extremely dishonest about his dealings as CEO of BAIN CAPITAL, why was it unfair for the moderate to ask about Gingrich about his personal life, isn't cheating a serious character flaw in any leader?
It is absurd to assume that the only man that should be literally stoned over his leadership as a politician and a capitalist, while ignoring the fact that the ones throwing the stones are themselves littered with serious flaws.
Gingrich accused the media when he was the one carrying out all these under-the-table relationships or affairs at the same time attacking Clinton over his relationship with a White House intern. This is the real definition of "hypocrisy".
Besides, social Conservatives attacked Gov. Romney - calling him a "flip-flopper" yet no one points out that Sen. Santorum and Gingrich are big-time flip-floppers. They, in an attempt to pull Gov. Romney down, "confessed" that they TOO changed their minds on many things. It is simply surreal - to say the least - for Sen. Santorum to say that he voted to protect the Unions because he came from a state that doesn't support "right to work", yet attacking Gov. Romney for voting on legislation pushed through by a house dominated by Liberal Democrats. If he voted in the Senate to deny Pennsylvanians of their rights to work for political purpose and then telling South Carolina voters that he is NOW a huge supporter of "the right to work", then what? What should we call him? Well, it smells like flip-flopping on steroid!
In the next round of questions - dwelling on the issue of character and judgement - Sen. Santorum pointed out that when he was working with Gingrich on issues that were important to the American people, Gingrich said he didn't want any "social issues" discussed. Interesting though he had an explanation for it: He said [in this debate] that he had to deploy that tactic in order to win the house, what the hell is that? He is big time "flipping and flopping"!
I know TV viewers and parochial listeners SC will go on to say that Gov. Romney changed his mind so they aren't going to support him, which - in my view - will be a serious travesty considering the positions that the two supposedly conservative candidates flipped on. But the narrative had already been laid.
In my view, Gov. Romney did pretty well tonight compares to the Monday debate and I believe that when he said he wouldn't "apologize" for being successful, he really hit the nail on the head of those Conservatives who have subscribed to the notion that it is wrong for an individual to be wealthy. He doesn't need to fight hard but to focus on his strength with is the "economy".
No comments:
Post a Comment