In the recent Republican debate Mitt says Newt is a career politician, Newts comeback is equally true. He said, “The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994.” I think intention is as important as an achieved result in most cases and this is one of them. Newt succeeded where Mitt failed, still both of these pots were calling the other black! And I believe Mitt would have been very happy to have been a career politician had he won in ’94!
Although I am largely conservative in my politics (definitely not Republican) I cannot see either of these two ‘pots’ winning against a sitting president. If the Republican base is serious about changing the fortunes of our country why do they keep turning to the tired, duplicitous, fat cat politicos?
A side by side comparison of Romney and Gingrich will reveal essentially the same story, albeit the names have been changed… to give the appearance of uniqueness only. It’s true only Gingrich has an illicit affair to account for, so I concede that Mitt Romney has demonstrated loyalty in a fashion that Newt has not, but the convenient changes of position on key subjects will haunt both of them and I think make either unelectable. If you are keeping score remember that the ‘names’ have changed not the intention behind the change. One flips on abortion, the other flips on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. One flips on state run health care, the other backs much of the Obama health care passed last year. Both are clearly out of touch with the middle class of America and both are clever at redirecting the conversation away from their obvious flops (Check out The Floposphere to keep up on political flops).
In this political season with the stakes so high you have to question the long term viability of a political party that refuses to cut the cord from politics as usual. Oh that’s right… I don’t want any of them!!! Voters Against Incumbents has a plan, if only the party faithful would read it.
Thanks for reading this far.