For Republicans Newt Gingrich is the Only Choice

rcwhalen's picture

A number of people have been asking me about the 2012 election and who I will support.  I am a member of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party where Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan happily reside.  No surprise then that I support Newt Gingrich for the Republican presidential nomination. 


After graduating from Villanova University in 1981, I worked for the Heritage Foundation and later for Congressman Jack Kemp (R-NY) as a writer for the Republican Conference Committee.  My first real awareness of Gingrich as a political leader came in 1984, when he took the attack to the Democrats onto the floor of the House.  He did so in such a way as to provoke a personal reprimand from Speaker Tim O’Neill, who took the floor to attack Gingrich. 


But his post-luncheon bluster got the better of Tip O’Neill, who was censured for his remarks in one of the great parliamentary maneuvers in modern American politics.  The drama was captured by David Osborne in Mother Jones:


“Immediately, Minority Whip Trent Lott rose and asked that the Speaker's words be ruled out of order and stricken from the record. In the House, normally a bastion of civility, members are forbidden from making personal attacks on one another. After five minutes of nervous consultation, the chair ruled in Lott's favor. That night, the confrontation between Gingrich and O'Neill made all three network news programs. The third-term Republican from Georgia had arrived.”


For a young Republican, that public takedown of Tip O’Neill more than a quarter century ago presaged the end of an era politically, the end of Democratic fiat and the real beginning of Republican insurgency.  I watched on CSPAN as Republicans led by the three term congressman from Georgia retook control of the House of Representatives for the first time in the post-WWII era. 


For Republicans interested in winning the 2012 election and changing the direction of the country, the decision comes down to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney vs. former House Speaker Gingrich from Georgia.  As expected the Big Media ignored the great Texas libertarian, Rep. Ron Paul.  None of the other Republican candidates beside Gingrich and Romney, in my view, has the ability to win a national election for the Grand Old Party and, more important, to govern and lead the nation effectively.


Say what you want about Romney’s competence, which I respect as a fellow bankster, but he is still a northeastern liberal who as president would likely pander to the largest banks and corporations.  Terms such as “status quo” come to mind with Romney.  Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, just might start channeling Teddy Roosevelt and break up the big bank cartel in the US housing market. 


Romney did dismantle a lot of private corporations during his years running Bain Capital, boosting shareholder value.  He also destroyed a lot of jobs along the way, but I cannot see leveraged buyout king Mitt Romney really challenging the corporate status quo in Washington. 


Romney is on the record as a bailout denier and overt apologist for the large bank subsidies and rescues put in place by Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner.  The comparison between Romney and Gingrich’s critical view of the Wall Street bailouts is pretty striking.    Gingrich has called for swift action to punish the key players behind the financial crisis, something that should garner support from many points of the political compass. 


"If they want to really change things, the first person to fire is (Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben) Bernanke, who is a disastrous chairman of the Federal Reserve, the second person to fire is (Treasury Secretary Timothy) Geithner," Gingrich said in the Republican debate sponsored by Bloomberg and the Washington Post.


The first issue for me with Gingrich is experience, both in terms of domestic economic and political policy. As noted, Gingrich and my friend Grover Norquist led the first successful GOP House campaign in 40 years and the first re-election of a Republican majority in the House since 1928. 


Gingrich worked with members of both parties as Speaker to cut taxes and spending, and understands how to make the government sausage factory work.  He collaborated with conservative leaders like Kemp, Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, to make supply-side economics a viable response to the Great Society welfare state in Washington. 


Gingrich, Kemp and many other conservatives I first got to know through my parents in the 1980s and 1990s worked with Ronald Reagan on defeating the Soviet empire and renewing the US economy.  Gingrich has been involved with national policy for decades while Romney was governor of Massachusetts for one term, where he did little to change that state’s unique culture of corruption and astronomically high tax rates. 


Gingrich understands the scale of change required in government today.  He has tackled welfare reform, four balanced budgets, Medicare reform, and the largest capital gains tax cut in history.  The proposal for Social Security and Medicare by Gingrich rejects the idea that we can solve our budget and debt crisis by some combination of cutting benefits and raising taxes within the current framework of these two programs.  


Romney has a very limited record when it comes to proposing change to these largest components of the federal government. Gingrich actually understands the issues involved in running the American political economy and can speak about them in detail, as shown in the debates and in other public forums, as well with his proposals for change.


The second issue is conservative vision.  Newt Gingrich is a consistent advocate for conservative American values such as individual liberty and responsibility, while Romney is a “born again” conservative of recent vintage.  From the Contract With America to his latest venture, American Solutions for Winning the Future, Gingrich has provided leadership in terms of generating a broader, non-partisan discussion on political and economic issues. 


Jack Kemp said famously: “Be a leader.”  Gingrich does that and more, but he also has the intellectual credentials to back up the rhetorical theater that is American politics. Gingrich is the author of dozens of books, many of which he actually wrote.  He has the ability to learn and understand complex domestic and geopolitical issues. 


For over two decades, Gingrich has taught at the United States Air Force's Air University, where he is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course.  He was the third witness at opening House hearing on Goldwater-Nichols legislation, which created a joint operations culture in the US military and streamlined political control over the American armed forces. 


The Goldwater-Nichols legislation had enormous practical and political ramifications, some driven by technology but others by political concerns about the supremacy of civilian rule in post-WWII Washington.  We need a President who understands these complex issues.  Richard Hofstadter wrote about the anti-intellectualism in American life, but out citizens are ready for a President who knows issues in detail and also knows what he does not understand. 


The third issue is pragmatic conservatism.  While Gingrich is guided by many of the core libertarian principles set forth by the founders of our republic, he is also someone who identifies problems in a frank and objective way, then seeks practical answers.  His willingness to  be a bold change agent versus a manager of the status quo is a key component that differentiates Newt Gingrich from Mitt Romney, and most of the other Republican candidates this year.


Yet even as Americans try to undo decades of socialist construction at the hands of both political parties, we need to do so in such a way that does not destabilize the economy and creates an environment that will foster confidence and new private sector growth.  Gingrich believes that fostering an open discussion about the many policy issues we all face is the way to break the cycle of corruption and dysfunction in Washington.   


“In an age where massive pieces of legislation are written in secret and passed before anyone has time to understand their contents, it is my hope that this open process of developing the 21st Century Contract With America will help restore the bonds of trust between the American people and their elected representatives,” Mr. Gingrich writes in 21st Century Contract With America. 


The other issue which demonstrates the pragmatic approach that Gingrich takes to issues is immigration.  Speaking as someone who is descended from immigrants and who has worked and traveled in nations all around the Americas, we need to be more sensitive to the plight of undocumented aliens.  But more than that, Gingrich and other conservatives need to advance solutions to the problem of undocumented aliens and thereby eliminate an obstacle to winning majority Hispanic support for Republican candidates. 


When you look at Romney’s anti-immigrant stance, he almost seems to be mutating into the Richard Nixon of “silent majority” fame, threatening to keep out the evil illegal aliens. Romney’s position is hypocritical, however, because his own Mormon ancestors fled the anti-polygamy laws in the US in the late 1800s for the more permissive climes of Northern Mexico – only to be chased back across the border by the violence of the 1910 Mexican revolution. 


Romney’s Mormon ancestors returned to the US across the same porous Mexican border that admits thousands of illegal immigrants each year.  Did they cross into the US legally?  Should we deport Mitt and his family back to Coahuila? 


Romney’s tough guy stance on immigration, juxtaposed with his unusual family history, makes him a sitting duck for Democrats in a general election campaign.  We need Republicans who will work with the Hispanic community, not give them reasons to vote against us. 


Gingrich has proposed a workable pathway to legal residency and full integration into US society for illegal aliens in terms of taxes and social services, but one that also recognizes the fact that many illegal workers will eventually return to their native lands.  Like Gingrich, I feel that only legal émigrés who follow the law should be eligible for citizenship.  But neither should we turn economic refugees into a permanent underclass.


America needs to create a way for workers from Canada, Mexico and other nations of the Americas to work in the US, pay taxes and receive needed services, and be part of the formal economy wherever they ultimately reside.  And US citizens would benefit from such reciprocity in the other American states and the legal protections afforded by such state-to-state relations. 


I think Newt Gingrich could make the vision of a transparent, open marketplace for labor in the Americas a reality.   He has the sort of intellectual honesty and willingness to risk change that could address intractable issues like immigration, the economy and anti-competitive behavior in the economy.  And Newt Gingrich rejects the socialist policies of the American left, led by the likes of Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, who believe that people who work with their minds are somehow criminals. 


If you really listen to his whining socialist diatribes, Paul Krugman is the enemy of every man and woman who works in the global financial markets.  Many of my colleagues on the Street are very liberal, yet Krugman would take all of their money via higher taxes in a nanosecond.  How is it that nobody sees that Krugman’s commentaries in The New York Times are almost perfectly predicted by George Orwell in Animal Farm – and Hayek in the The Road to Serfdom?   


To me Newt is the only credible conservative in the presidential race for 2012, but one who brings a mixture of core American values, real world experience and a pragmatic, compassionate approach to a range of issues.  Gingrich wants to facilitate real change in America, while Romney only wants to run the welfare state better.  And Newt Gingrich is not afraid to call Barack Obama a socialist in a national presidential debate.  That is why I support Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination for the presidency.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GeneMarchbanks's picture

In contrast to your controlled writing on banking analysis and accounting, this piece is totally absurd. Why float this at all? Clearly Whalen has been bankrupted...

Lost Wages's picture

>Writer calls Ronald Reagan a Libertarian in the first sentence.

>Stop reading.


Kayman's picture

Don Regan telling Reagan to "speed it up" (on Youtube).  And how does anyone believe our politicians are anything but bought-and-paid-for soulless puppets.

They get paid, and paid well, to do the bidding of their masters.

Once you've sold your soul, the rest is easy.



Lost Wages's picture

An actor is a perfect President, because they can fill their empty heads with scripts and recite them line for line in front of the cameras. (At least until the Alzheimers kicks in.)

Whoa Dammit's picture

 The title was enough to make me not read the artcile at all.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Will see more of this propaganda as more useful idiots "wake up" and demand to be told what to do and think.

knukles's picture

Leading GOP candidate Newt Gingrich says the government should make good on your investment losses: " If someone with a personal account retires with benefits lower than those offered by the current system, the Treasury will send them a check to make up the difference."

  (Well, so much for being against that amorphous social justice crap.  This presumably will cost You nothing, you know, those of Us who've worked, saved and planned for retirement.  Well, somebody's gotta pay for it.  How's it feel to be thrown into the 1% all of a sudden?  You know, that size of government thingie, deficits and Welfare)   (And whilst talking about costs of gubamint "investment" to use the nom du jour take a peek back at one of Gnewt's prior money saving Social Justice Crusades)       Form the November 20,2003, Wall Street Journal, Gnewt declared: "Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation's healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65. ... If you are a fiscal conservative who cares about balancing the federal budget, there may be no more important vote in your career than one in support of this bill."   (I wonder when they'll start pulling the hard copies in favor exclusively of digital which can be redacted at the touch of an "Enter" key.)   This guy runs on the Republican ticket, Obama will not only be reelected for sure, but have another SuperMajority. (h/t to Charmichelson)
lincolnsteffens's picture

I smell a very large pile of human excrement somewhere. Ooops, that was Newt opening his mouth.

Seasmoke's picture

Really Newt???????........way too many skeletons in that fat guys closet

optimator's picture

Except for Dr. Paul, they all have skeletons in their closet, and that includes the Democrat line up!  Except for Dr. Paul, they are all exactly the same, bought and paid for.  Doesn't matter who becomes President, only Dr. Paul would made a difference.

nasa's picture

Whalen must still be working for the Heritage Foundation because this article is a fucking joke.  The line "Gingrich believes that fostering an open discussion about the many policy issues we all face is the way to break the cycle of corruption and dysfunction in Washington" is comedy gold.'s picture

Newt sounds like my liberal friend who told me yesterday, "Liberty should be allowed, if..."

dumpster's picture

newt to take away just some of the freedoms

on the fake war on terror .

like some would vote to die with just a little poison .

such zombe thinking .. hell it aint thinking its standard mush from pavlovian double think

apberusdisvet's picture

If it looks like Obama may lose, don't be surprised if the elections are suspended after another false flag event and the institution of martial law.  After all, Obama is the supreme malleable puppet; not even Gingrich or Romney comes close.

Mr. Anonymous's picture

Romney comes WAY close.  He and Obama are brothers by different mothers.

lindaamick's picture

All 2012 candidates promote the same...welfare for the 1%.

lindaamick's picture

All 2012 candidates promote the same...welfare for the 1%.

fourthousand's picture

This is a good troll. +10 Z.H.

Motley Fool's picture

You owe me a screen wipedown. :D

Stuck on Zero's picture

In other words, if you like massive immigration, statism, foreign wars of conquest, Wall Street theft, destruction of the middle class, wars for oil, Imperial expansion, eavesdropping on everyone, absolute government control of your thoughts and actions, secret police, drone attacks on wedding parties, and mega aircraft carriers the Newt is your man.

disabledvet's picture


Conrad Murray's picture

Vote with a bullet.

disabledvet's picture

you'll need more than one. Here's an example:
still didn't work in case you were wonderin'.

Seize Mars's picture

This article is indeed dogshit.

I will vote for that lying, globalist bankster fucking shitbag when hell freezes over. Fuck Newt Gingrich, and fuck each and every belle du jour that Fox News comes up with. I am voting for Ron Paul, and I don't care who likes it or doesn't. I also don't care what some dumbass handicapper thinks of his "odds."

There is only one way to get this right.

FeralSerf's picture

Would you vote for a Paul/Gingrich ticket, knowing that the chances of Paul living through his first term intact are slim to none?

IAmNotMark's picture

Why in the world would Dr. Paul choose that piece of shit for VP?

FlyOverCountryBoy's picture

Ron Paul is remarkably healthy.  He exercises frequently following a routine most young people would have trouble keeping up with. e.g., walking three miles a day, biking 15 miles at a time, and exercising twice a day.

I do agree that relegating Gingrich to the do-nothing and relatively harmless job of Vice President might be a good idea.


q99x2's picture

Mit Newt Dogshit.

Wahlen now Dogshit too.


Boba Fiat's picture

Umm....excuse me (to the original author), I have a small quibble.  You're gonna chuck Thomas Jefferson and TR in the same bucket?  WTF?  TR was a statist much like his cousin FDR.  TJ and Goldwater were libertarians, as is Ron Paul.  Gingrich sure has the gift of the gab, but the bottom line is he believes in the power of government to solve our problems (if only HE were in charge of government, then it would be more efficient).  Statist vs. Statist is what the MSM wants.  That means Obama vs. Romney/Gingrich.  May the best Statist win. 

My money's going to Ron Paul or no one.  God (please) @#!*% the Statists.

FeralSerf's picture

The fascist that said this is not a libertarian:

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And…
moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

FlyOverCountryBoy's picture

If the quote actually read, "Extremism in the defense of government is no vice. And moderation in the defense of government is no virtue!", then I would agree it came from a fascist.  But defense of liberty is the cornerstone of liberterianism.

FeralSerf's picture

And how did Barry plan on carrying out said "extremism in defense of liberty"?  By nuking North Vietnam and starting WW3.

It did not matter one iota, nor did Barry (or LBJ for that matter) mention it, but the Viet Cong were North Vietnamese Catholics transported to South Vietnam and armed by the CIA.   Read Col. Prouty's book, "JFK".  He was there.

Barry supported the CIA wholeheartedly, the most vile fascist organization in American history.

Iwanttoknow's picture

Glad to know someone is reading Col Fletcher Prouty,a great American hero.

FlyOverCountryBoy's picture

LOL!  U.S. Army Brigadier General Barry Goldwater was most definitely a devout anti-communist.  His off-hand comments on Vietnam might have been somewhat extreme, but when dealing with the deadly and infectious ideology of communism, extremism is NO VICE.

Barry had a track record of opposing anti-liberty socialist/progressive policies, such as the New Deal and the policies of Truman.  He supported Joe McCarthy when it was not politically correct to do so.  He was vehemently against Ike's decision to send federal troops into Little Rock.  He opposed Johnson's so-called Civil Rights Act and the so-called "War on Poverty" (which was in fact a War on Liberty).  He also opposed the policies of Jimmy Carter, opposed Nixon's wage and price controls, and supported Ronald Reagan.

I would say he was a consistent conservative, with a liberterian bent.



Georgesblog's picture

I read Black's Law Dictionary for fun. I know the legal meaning of the term, "constituent". Why would anyone want to be property of Newt Gingrich?

gs_runsthiscountry's picture

Chris, I respect your writing, knowledge, and all that you share – but you are just plain wrong on this one.

To vote for Newt would be to put a stamp of approval on the polarization of congress. A vote for Gingrich is a vote for further entrenchment of PACs and corporate lobbying/cash inflows.

Newt was instrumental in putting a price tag on every key position in congress/committee seat. Now, you are suggesting voters put a stamp of approval on all that is wrong with politics in America.

Indeed, a vote for newt  is an endorsement of the political process everyone is so livid with – a vote for more of the same, more filibusters ad infinitum, more status quo, more money in politics, more rent-seeking, and a loss of your voice as an American citizen in lieu of money that deafens the ear of every congressperson.

No matter the political affiliation…


BigMike's picture

You haters on this thread need to get real. I love Ron Paul as much as anyone, but it isn't happening for him. Big Media ignoring him has largely worked. His polling numbers are incredibly weak across the board. It's sad to say and I think Newt is a fairly large douche sandwich--don't get me wrong.

There is little that is democratic about choosing from 3 candidates only. That is reality though in the election in 2012, and therefore I think Whalen makes a many good points. Newt is the best option when it's him or Romney and he can't be worse than Obama. At least I hope not.

IAmNotMark's picture

So Newt is the anyone but Ron choice?

He's a liar, a cheat, and a crook.  He's a scumbag.  A low-life scoundrel.  He deserves zero trust.  He deserves zero support.  The fact that he's getting support indicates how ethically and morally bankrupt the GOP really is.

I'd say I'd rather see Obama win again, but man...I can't say that either.  Surely there's another choice?  (There is, but I guess he doesn't count)


earleflorida's picture

not haters, just pragmatic,...

FlyOverCountryBoy's picture


Recall that Newt worked on the Rockefeller presidential campaign in 1968 while a graduate student. With that background, we should at least look at some of his record (excerpted from a Free Republic post):

04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti 1st Amendment legislation)

10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.

03/––/1993 – He was “passionately in favor” of sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.

11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.

11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.

08/27/1995 – He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.

01/06/1996 – He himself conceived a secret CIA mission to topple the Iranian leadership.

04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)

04/10/1995 – He supported Federal tax dollars being spent on abortions.

06/––/1995 – He wrote the foreword to a book about tearing down the U.S. Constitution and implementing a Fascist World Government.

06/01/1996 – He helped a Democrat switch parties in an attempt to defeat constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 election.

09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.

01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.

11/29/2006 – He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a “serious debate about the 1st Amendment.”

11/29/2006 – He called for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.

02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.

04/04/2007 – He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military.

04/17/2008 – Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.

09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.

10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”

12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.

03/31/2009 – Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.

10/16/2009 – He angered conservatives by endorsing super liberal Dede Scozzafava.

07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil”.

08/03/2010 – Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.

11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals

12/02/2010 – He advocates a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.

01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.

01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.

02/02/2011 – He says we are “losing the War on Terror”; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War

02/10/2011 – He wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it.

02/13/2011 – He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.

02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”

03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.

03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.

03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)

03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.

04/25/2011 – He’s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.

05/11/2011 – His campaign video said that he wants to “find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those who do not want to change.”

05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.

05/15/2011 – Said GOP’s plan to cut back Medicare was “too big a jump.”

05/15/2011 – He backed Obama’s individual mandate; “All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.”

05/16/2011 – He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.

06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.

07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.

08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.

08/11/2011 – His recent criticism of the United Nations is undermined by a long, long history of supporting it.

09/27/2011 – He says that he “helped develop the model for Homeland Security”

10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.

11/12/2011 – He advocates assassinating Iranian scientists and covert war with Iran.


I agree with him on ignoring the Supreme Court (restoring the concept of "co-equal branches"), but little else.




buyingsterling's picture

Some little mini-Newt junked you. They approve of this list of malfeasance.

Careless Whisper's picture

@ flyovercountryboy


You got alot there. I'd like to read it. I know it's alot to ask, but how about some links?


FlyOverCountryBoy's picture

As mentioned in the article, I found the list in a post on Free Republic.  Google Newt and those dates and you should be able to find the links.  Most are fairly well known.

Temporalist's picture

That is like a constitutional hit list.

Temporalist's picture

Ron Paul is LEADING in Iowa and is in 2nd place in NH...and some are predicting that he can take NV too.  In one month when Ron Paul wins Iowa they will not be able to marginalize him then what?  He is also voted the most likely to beat Obama by independents so he's got their support and he's also the ONLY choice by liberals and progressives that are disenchanted with their puppet in chief that lied to them and is bought by Wall St.


You need to wake the fuck up and get behind someone real not a proven egomaniac that serves his own interests and his corporate masters in he's named after a cold blooded lizard that he is.

nick elsworth's picture

When Newt admits that he took advantage of his position in Congress to feather his nest with soft kickbacks in the form of "consulting agreements", then I will consider him.  Until then, I would rather vote for someone with integrity (or abstain if the ballot offers no one).

We need to quit voting for the least worst guy.

eatthebanksters's picture

We need to quit voting for the least worst guy.

In the end you have two candidates, one who made some stupid and unethical decisions 20 years ago, the other one is doing them right now but the MSM press won't call him out.  The first one promises a slim chance of returning to a decent life in the next 4 years, the second promises disaster for you and your family.  

What I hear you saying is that you'd rather not vote for the first guy even if it means the second guy wins. Wow!

nick elsworth's picture

I'm not referring to 20 years ago.  I'm talking about his recent "consulting" arrangements.  If you think he got those jobs due to his brilliance and unmatched understanding of business solutions, then you don't understand how deep the corruption is within the system.  Do some digging, he's gotten filthy rich SINCE he left the house.

And regarding which guy I'd vote for, the answer is: NONE (if I can't find a non-corrupt candidate)... Why would you vote for someone that you know is corrupt and hope that he is less corrupt than the other guy?