What I wrote below is kind of long so read it when you have time. It's a little sporadic
----- Why I wouldn't vote for Gingrich (continuing our talk from last time) ----
In the meantime, I don't think Newt is electable outside of South Carolina. I think he is like Santorum and Hunstman who staked their claims in the earlier primary states and are now doing poorly out of those states. Money bags Mitt ( sorry I couldn't resist) and Ron Paul have the money and the following in all states and are the only two candidates on every ballot in all 50 states. Paul is the true conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.
(Yea he's a libertarian but most if not all of his positions can be arrived at by a strict adherence to the constitution. I was a constitutionalist and paleo-conservative in 2008 before I became a libertarian in 2009ish and although I didn't vote Paul then, I would have had he not dropped out [I think that's what I was thinking then])
Even if Newt claims to be a Reagan conservative, he surely doesn't unite people like one. I think he alienates voters and says things that are offensive to really sensitive people. Like his Palestinian comment. He gives the liberal media too much ammo to fire back at him. His attitude and zingers are sometimes really insensitive and unhelpful even if there is some truth to it.
What does the liberal media have on ron paul? "Oh he wants people to die!!!"
As an African-American, as much as I don't like invoking race, I don't think he'd do very well with our group. African-American voters tend to be very conscious about laws that discriminate against African-Americans and Newt has no interest in decriminalizing drugs which, as Ron Paul rightly points out, disproportionately puts blacks in the slammer and breaks up black families.
I think Paul has some work to do in this respect, but people are coming around to him. Heck, my grandma told me she likes Ron Paul and she's a Barack supporter and hates the GOP congress.
Newt's solution has been "well, we need to encourage kids not to do drugs." His real words were: "I think the best thing is to get young people not to do drugs and then you won't be dealing with criminals that you just described."
That is not realistic and ignores too much. Drugs attract people precisely because its illegal and lucrative just like during the prohibition era with alcohol. There are no more Al Capone's of Alchohol. But drug kingpins abound.
Ron Paul has acknowledged many times about the injustices in the judicial system for many, many years. During the same time he was sending those "racist" newsletters, he also gave a speech on the racist origins of the drug war.
So despite whatever feeling he used to harbor about blacks, his policies scream "justice and anti-racism." He would also pardon all non-violent drug crimes no matter race a person is. That puts families back together. You could even say that decriminalizing drugs is a pro-family position. It also saves the prison systems, and thus the taxpayer, some cash.
Plus, Mr. Historian got his history wrong on drug decriminalization in Europe to support his stance.
I want you to take a look at Newt's response again. That response was in the exact same spirit as his response over the Patriot Act with Ron Paul. He said something to the effect of "if you don't like the Patriot Act, then don't conspire with terrorists." I think that's wrong. The Patriot Act sacrifices so many of our civil liberties over to the government. Newt's response to our grief and discomfort is "just stay in line, citizen!" -- at least thats how he comes off as: inflexible, imperious, callous.
There are still injustices in our country that are still going on and Newt's answers are quite callous, in some respects.
~Fear mongering over an EMP attack
~His main argument seems to be he's not Obama. Yes, there are difference on taxes but his policies don't go far enough for me. He's not truly free-market.
~He comes off as a "soft technocrat," once again anti-free market.
~His recent attacks on Mitt Romney working at Bain Capital are left-wing anti-capitalistic attacks.
~He is erratic and proves Peggy Noonan's point about being a "human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, "Watch this!"
~His erraticism is also why I can forgive Ron Paul's waffling on some issues, but not Newt's. Newt does it too dang much!
~Wanting to take covert actions on Iran and kill Iranian scientists.
~Constitutional Questions with the Contract With America
~Day One Executive orders sets bad precedent for future Presidents
~He's a Reagan Conservative, yet he won't completely end the Department of Education like Reagan desired; Ron Paul will.
~He's overhauling the government by making it more efficient.
~I'm not sure if he's cutting anything. Where are the cuts in his plan?
~And his contract with America asks for too much from citizens. come up with ideas yourself Newt.
~On the same note, he needs to look at what he's asking for from the eyes of the other side i.e. people who aren't his supporters. I don't want to "help Newt" if I don't support him. He has to make me believe in his cause first.
Ron Paul can end an era with his policies. Gingrich's policies keep that era in place. Ron Paul strikes at the root. Gingrich hacks at the branches.
Our text for Sunday School (also "The Confession of Faith and Catechisms") Biblical Theology Bites What is "Biblical Theology...