One of Newt’s former staffers, Yuval Levin, and David Brooks correctly point out both the moderate, north-east, country club nature of Newt and Romney’s “conservatism”, as well as Newt’s serious and deep flaws. David Brooks admires Gingrich’s zeal for smarter, targeted government, and not necessarily less government. See Brook’s assessment here. George Will recently made the same observation about Gingrich, but as pointed criticism, even commenting that Gingrich would have made a great Marxist. See here. Levin observes that from a policy perspective, Gingrich and Romney are practically indistinguishable, however, Romney presents a much more stable character. See here.
It seems to me that another Bush-Rockefeller president would keep us on the fast track to Europe’s present location: economic stasis and slow financial collapse. Unlike Europe, we’re not going to have the United States to help prop us up. Instead, we will have to rely upon the good intentions of the Chinese. Good luck with that.
If either of these men win the Republican nomination, the Republican Party is no longer the party of decentralized limited government and liberty. (Or maybe I’ll finally admit that’s been the case for some time.) Dr. Paul still offers the strongest cure for the soft despotism of the nanny state and ongoing fiscal insanity. See my case for Paul here. Bachman and Huntsman also offer correct solutions to these problems.
Obama is not the cause of our current malaise. He was popularly elected and may well be re-elected. He’s the symptom of poor political thinking within our republic, and only worse by degrees, not type, than the errant statist policies of his predecessors, Republican and Democrat.
We pray and have civilized discussions on these issues in an effort to convince our friends and neighbors. Our faith, however, is in another ruler.