Why Ron Paul Can Win
If you have been watching the news, you know that Ron Paul is now beating both Gingrich and Romney in the polls and could walk away with a win in Iowa.
Some say he could also walk away with a win in New Hampshire, and possibly even win the Republican (GOP) nomination.
For the Republican National Committee (RNC), this must be uncomfortable − the idea that they would be forced to nominate a principled, Constitutionalist just because WE THE PEOPLE demanded it.
But here's what really terrifies them: Ron Paul is in a position to hand the election of 2012 over to Barack Obama and the Democrats because he would be a "spoiler." But even more terrifying is the fact that Dr. Paul is in a position to be much more than a "spoiler" − he's in a position to be a "winner."
Etymology of the term SPOILER:
The term "spoiler" is a derogatory term that was dreamt up by statists in the Democratic and Republican parties in order to sucker the public into continuously voting for no one outside the Establishment. In other words, if you vote your conscience, YOU are a "spoiler." If you run on principles of your conscience and take votes away from an Establishment candidate, YOU are also a "spoiler."
Thus, since Ron Paul votes his conscience, since he rejects certain aspects of the Establishment − such as the Federal Reserve's abuse of the monetary system and its financing of the welfare-warfare empire we have now become − there is no way apparatchiks in the GOP will nominate Dr. Paul no matter what WE THE PEOPLE want.
And to this end, lackey pundits in the CFR-dominated, mainstream media continuously chant that Ron Paul has "no chance to get the Republican nomination." They spew this so often, it's obvious they don't believe their own lies.
But here's the joker: Ron Paul does not even need the GOP to win the general election. If he were to walk away for a third party, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take another 15% from the Independents and at least 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% − enough of the vote to win the Presidency in a three-man race.
GOP strategists know all this and this is why you will never hear them utter these statistics in the mainstream media. If the public were to become too "hopeful" − if they were to understand the mathematics of the situation − even more people would vote for Ron Paul if for no other reason than to be on the winner's bandwagon.
So, the GOP has some serious choices to make.
Either they morph into a small-government party and support the Ron Paul Revolution of "getting back to the Constitution," or they risk losing their power to a new political party. And a new political party would not only mean the demise of the Republican party, but the Democratic party as well.
Since the Democratic Party AND the Republican Party are BOTH the parties of BIG government, a new political party of SMALL government would reveal to the public − more than ever − what the two mainstream parties have become.
The two mainstream parties − the Democrats and Republicans − have become, in essence, two departments of the same police state. They are the same political party, in effect: growing the government ever larger and ever more militaristic, both domestically and internationally. The PATRIOT Act expands the police state domestically, and the UN, IMF, WTO, NAFTA, GATT and NATO −which they BOTH continuously and blindly support − expand the police state internationally.
Due to serious abridgments of the US Constitution and principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, the United States are now run by a dictating oligarchy known as the UNITED STATES. And this dictating oligarchy is dominated by cultural Marxists and corporate fascists who have hijacked the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively.
The "DemoPublicans" have established the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of administering their police state and the PATRIOT Act has become their new Constitution.
If you accept the idea that the Democrats and Republicans (again the "DemoPublicans") have become two departments of the same police state − two wings of the same ugly bird − you will have to accept that ultimately it does not matter whether a Democrat or Republican is elected to the presidency. It does not matter if Obama or Romney is elected president. Establishment politicians in either of these "two" parties will continue to use the Federal Reserve System to monetize debt (print money out of thin air) and use this fraudulent "fiat" currency to build their welfare-warfare state.
It could be said that Republicans specialize in printing money to build weapons and wage wars − Democrats specialize in printing money to address the sick and the poor. The Republicans thus CREATE the sick and the poor with their WAR-fare policies and the Democrats HEAL the sick and the poor with their WELL-fare policies.
Thus when an entity controls the HEALING and HURTING of Humankind, doesn't that entity, in essence, CONTROL Humankind? Well, welcome to the DemoPublican control mechanism − something you might think about the next time you vote or mindlessly scream out for your Clinton-, Bush-, Obama-, Gingrich- or Romney-candidate.
Taken as a whole, the Demopublican machine − now assembled more by supra-national, international banking families than American citizens − has destroyed US politics that used to center on constitutional principles. Controllers in this CFR-led embryonic world government have created a well-oiled machine to maximize the plunder of millions, if not billions of people, through the mechanism of central banking, debt and the hurting-healing cycle. Would it not be reasonable to posit that the Democratic and Republican Parties are thus primary tools in what seems to be a master plan of globalization?
Ron Paul − a strict limited-government Constitutionalist with an appreciation for ethnonationalism − does not fit in with the New World Order's management plans. Therefore, if he wins the popular vote not only in Iowa and New Hampshire but across the nation, the DemoPublican controllers have a serious problem.
They can either rig the elections so it looks like Dr. Paul did "not" win, or they can blackmail him by threatening his family, like they did when Ross Perot was getting too popular.
If Dr. Paul walks away from the GOP to go Indy, in reality he will "spoil" nothing, for as discussed above, the Democrats and Republicans are the same political party in effect, so there is nothing that CAN be "spoiled".
Also, since the DemoPublicans must continue the cockfight between them − so the illusion that they are "different" parties can be maintained − this fighting has been, of necessity, escalating into a GRIDLOCK. Note the endless fighting about extending payroll tax cuts, Obamacare and illegal immigration. Thus, even if Ron Paul is labeled a "spoiler" − for thwarting the Establishment Controller's plan to get one of their puppets nominated or elected − he will spoil nothing.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR RON PAUL TO BE A SPOILER, BECAUSE:
A) THE DEMS AND GOP ARE THE SAME PARTY IN EFFECT, AND;
B) EVEN IF OBAMA GETS REELECTED, THE DEMS AND GOP WILL BE GRIDLOCKED AND THUS NOTHING WILL GET DONE.
The term "spoiler" is used by two groups of people:
1) the ignorant or IQ-challenged person who knows little or nothing about politics or the art of war, and
2) the statist propaganda-merchant who is trying to give the public the illusion that there is a "difference" between the Democratic and Republican Parties.
The reason the statist propaganda-merchant is trying to perpetuate the meme that there is a difference between the two major parties is so the general public will not look elsewhere for the solution to their problems. If one can get the Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other, it gives the illusion that they are "different" to the degree they "fight." Indeed they DO have "differences"; however, the differences are over trivial issues. On all the major issues the Democrats and Republicans are identical, overtly and covertly, thus they are the same political party in effect. You saw how many of Bush's policies Obama kept in place when he came into office ostensibly to "change" things. The same thing will happen if the Republicans take back the White House, ad infinitum.
So this is why Ron Paul is such a threat to the Establishment. He's running on the GOP ticket basically so he can get mainstream media exposure. The mainstream tried to ignore him in the last election. Remember how Hannity practically spat on Dr. Paul in the 2008 election? Remember how all the other pundits treated him? Then, when he suddenly raised millions of dollars with his "money bombs" and millions of voters started joining the grassroots Ron Paul Revolution − which kicked off the Tea Party Revolution − it wasn't "politically correct" to spit on him any longer. Worse, they couldn't ignore him into oblivion like they ignored all other dissenting candidates. Third-party candidate Ross Perot was only able to get mainstream media exposure because he purchased it with his personal wealth. Neither Ralph Nader nor Harry Brown, on the other hand, have been able to purchase such exposure; thus they have never been able to get an alternative vision into the public domain.
Thus, if Ron Paul continues to get support from the rest of the nation he's currently getting in Iowa, the GOP should technically nominate him, but it's a long-shot they will.
After all, for Ron Paul to win and use the vote to destroy the cultural Marxist-infested, totalitarian fiat empire, being built by controllers of the "liberal world order" is incomprehensible to them even though Pat Buchanan details in his new book, Suicide of a Superpower, the reasons why the moment of globalism and "free" trade has passed.
But such is the power of the zeitgeist for the world is in revolt, from the Middle East to Wall Street. The 99-percent don't know exactly HOW they have been screwed, but they do know that they HAVE been screwed − at least for the past 100 years. From the Tea Partiers to the Wall Street Occupiers in America, WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with:
1) a Congress that has been bought and sold by corporate fascists,
2) Presidents that start wars and act like Marxist dictators,
3) an activist Supreme Court that legislates from the bench making one-size-fits-all laws that ignore the original intent of the Founders.
WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with many other things, but both the "Right" and the "Left" can agree with much of what Ron Paul offers, because his principles are American principles, and American principles are Constitutional Principles which accommodate both liberals and conservatives, Left or Right.
So don't let CFR-infested, Establishment propaganda spewed through the mainstream media or the DemoPublican police state dissuade you from voting for Ron Paul, whether he stays on the GOP ticket, goes Independent or starts a new party.
It is vital that all Americans stay true to their conscience, NOT their political parties. Remember, the US Constitution does not even mention political parties. In fact, many of the Founders warned us against them; they called them "factions" and said that membership in them is dangerous to a democratic form of government. They warned us to stay away from entrenched political parties − such as the Democrats and Republicans − because entrenched political parties are only one step away from dictatorships.
It is not too late to act. Vote out the incumbent congressmen and vote in Ron Paul no matter what scare tactics the pundits on CNN, FOX News or MSNBC attempt to use on you. Ron Paul CAN get 38% of the vote and win the presidency. This is not an opinion; it's mathematical fact.
Posted by James Jaeger on 12/23/12 07:29 PM
I have concluded that Ron Paul would rather educate than be a professional politician. And that's probably why he didn't win. See Click to view link
Posted by Bischoff on 01/01/12 03:36 AM
What's with all the "Agents"... ??? Boy, what a nosey bunch they are...
Posted by Agent Pete 8 on 12/28/11 03:45 AM
Ingo, do you enjoy a tipple in the evenings?
Posted by Bischoff on 12/27/11 10:10 PM
@ the Martian
Your response proves that you are really from Mars. Who'd have thunk it... ??? I thought the name was just a handle.
Posted by Bischoff on 12/27/11 06:44 PM
I fully concur.
Posted by James Jaeger on 12/27/11 05:37 PM
When the media brings up racist crap in order to chop Dr. Paul down, maybe he shouldn't defend, but attack.
Like the MSNBC reporter that nailed him the other day, maybe he should attack back after clearly stating, "I didn't write that newsletter" -- with language like:
"So you don't feel that whoever DID write that newsletter has a right to free speech?"
"Sounds to me like you're attempting to use someone's right of free speech to denigrate, not only my reputation, but MY free speech rights now."
"I've given you an answer to your question, but you're continuing to re-ask the same question as if you don't believe my answer. Aren't you harassing me at this point?"
"If a woman is asked if she wants to dance, and she says "no" but the man keeps re-asking her if she wants to dance, isn't this harassment?"
"So you feel it's okay to "harass" people because it's part of your job as a journalist?"
"So you're trying to get to the truth? Who's truth? The truth you would like to fabricate in order to bring down my poll numbers in your audiences mind?"
"What's your real mission here?"
In sum, don't discuss what Dr. PAUL is or has done, discuss what the MEDIA is now doing and what THEY have done. Use these attack incidents at every opportunity to discuss the blood that's on the MEDIA's hands. Ron Paul should bring up subjects that the media is uncomfortable discussing or that they would not like the public to know about -- stuff like the following:
"Are you aware that 25 years ago there were about 50 media corporations and today they have consolidate down to 5 media corporations?"
"By the way, which one of the 5 is it that owns your particular network?"
"Who is it that's the major stockholder?"
"Mr. Who? What's his political affiliation?"
"Why would he be sending you here to harass me?"
"How much does he or your network contribute to campaigns?"
"Who's campaign do YOU contribute to most?"
"How much money does Mr. Who, or the network, contribute to political campaigns?"
"Since you seem to be such an advocate of the People's right to know -- drilling me incessantly -- don't you think that the people also have a right to know that, if only 5 networks dominate all the speech in the country, free speech could be compromised, especially if it doesn't align with the views of the management team or major stockholders of the network?"
"Do you think the media is over consolidated?
"Is it time to re-visit the Paramount Consent Decrees?"
If pundits want to put a negative spin on RON PAUL, let Dr. Paul deflect the air time they are willing to allocate BACK ON THEM. Use these opportunities to inform the public how the market of free ideas has been compromised by consolidation of the media and raise the question of whether it's time to start enforcing some of the anti-trust laws on the books. It's been way too much time since the Paramount Consent Decrees came down.
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/27/11 01:08 PM
Wow, now that is some real perverse logic, Bischoff. No wonder you are so far down the road to nowhere. Politicians pimping/fronting democracy do as they're told and to think that they can think and act for themselves and the common greater good is surely proven worldwide to be a fantasy worthy of pulp fiction and sub-prime time soap broadcasting, which if you think about it, it is.
Give me a SMART Honest to Goodness Transparent Meritocracy any day. It knocks all those competitive adversarial systems dependent on patronage, right out of the ball park.
Do you think that is what China are building now that western capitalism has failed? They are certainly clever enough to lead the world by example with their pioneering spirit, which of course goes back millennia rather than the centuries of upstart pretenders with the manners of an ignorant oaf.
Posted by Bischoff on 12/27/11 11:06 AM
@ the Martian
Wake up my friend. You view the world through sound bites. Think, man !!!
Who loves Newt... ???
The Democrats don't love him. He took away their power in the Congress.
The central banking crowd in the Congress and among the big banks don't like him. He curtailed their money creation by passing "balanced budgets".
The government bureaucrats don't like him. He costs them thousands of jobs by pushing through welfare reform.
Many of his fellow Congress members don't like him. He interfered with their deal making and their ability to win reelection.
The political consultants don't like him. He refuses to be handled.
The news media doesn't like him. He exposes all their biases.
When you get a politician who is so little loved by all the special interests, you have a politician who can act in the best interest of the average guy.
The problem is, the average guy is "too stupid" to see it. Are you an average guy, Mars Man... ???
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/27/11 03:54 AM
In your dreams, Bischoff, for that is most definitely not what is meant by what is quite clearly enough written. And with such a forthright view in support of Newt Gingrich, would your agenda be the maintenance of the status quo with the present incompetents and self-serving shysters at the helm of a collapsing operating system, rather than anything noble and progressive and equitable ... ... universally attractive?
Where is your sense of adventure and intelligence?
Posted by Bischoff on 12/26/11 11:09 PM
@ the Martian
"... kicking Gingrich and his ilk into touch and starting the Great game afresh with new players, with different and seemingly radical ideas."
What does that mean... ???
If you mean to put Gingrich back into the game in order to shake things up, and to chart the way on how we can work ourselves out of the present mess, yes by all means, it is Gingrich who can do it. Romney, and the other candidates can't do, especially Ron Paul would be an utter dudd as a president.
Posted by amanfromMars on 12/26/11 10:00 PM
"Though at time Gingrich says stupid things, it is what a politician does that counts. What a politician has done in the past is an indicator to what he might do in the future. Gingrich did a lot in the past. Ron Paul has done nothing, except talk." ... .. Posted by Bischoff on 12/25/11 08:50 PM
Whenever you consider where Uncle Sam is now compared to where it was before, Bischoff, is that the best argument ever for kicking Gingrich and his ilk into touch and starting the Great game afresh with new players, with different and seemingly radical ideas.
Posted by Bischoff on 12/26/11 11:45 AM
"How do you know that? The last time I checked Paul was beating him bad in Iowa and NH."
Beating him in the polls is one thing, beating him in the actual plebescite is quite another. That's why I said, "let's see". Unless you are not aware of it, no primary vote has yet been cast.
Also, when I speak of "political skills", I refer to the ability to get something done in the government. If you are not aware of it, we have a government with separation of powers. One branch must convince the other to go along with its policies. That takes political skill. Newt Gingrich proved he possess that skill. Ron Paul hasn't proven anything. He just talks.
Click to view link
Honesty... ??? I hope you read about "Paulonomics". Yes, Paul is open with the American people in telling them what they want to hear. The American People want to end up in a country which the original U.S. Constitution envisioned. The problem is that Ron Paul hasn't the foggiest idea on how to get there through his politics.
He hates the FED, yet he is ignorant of the fact that he is part of it by introducing his "ear marks", along with every other U.S. Representative. I can go on and on... Take a look at the effect the proposed government policies under a Ron Paul administration would have, and then talk about to me about honesty. Honesty... ??? You must be kidding... .
"If it were not for the MSM and the Republican party doing everything in their power to hold him back, he would be so far out in front of the rest of the field it would not even be funny."
Now, with this remark, I know you're kidding. If, if , if, if... .. What do you think the whole political process is all about... ???
The American voter can't just be "brain dead", and wish by saying "if". Some critical thinking about a politician's promises and his ability to deliver has to play a role in making the decision to give power over one's life away to a politician.
Unless critical thinking takes place before voters cast their ballot, we will NOT get the government we want, we will get the government we deserve.
Posted by Bischoff on 12/25/11 08:50 PM
"You can have all the political skills in the world, but if you use them in the wrong way, then what good are they? By the way, being from GA I know Newt real well."
Being from GA, you have an advantage over me in "knowing" Newt. He is one of your politicians.
"Scumbag" is an emotinal, as well as a relative term. You can use that term on any politician. I would call Ron Paul a "scumbag" for the remarks he made about Michelle Bachmann on the David Letterman Show.
I promise you, when "angels" are running for office against "scumbags", I will vote for the "angels" everytime. Satisfied... ???
As to ethics violations, let's be honest with the readers. Newt was charged with 80 violations. On the record, before the House ethics committee, he was cleared of 79 charges. He accepted being guilty of one of the charges of violating rules regarding the acceptance of speaker's fees. It is totally unfair to leave the impression that Newt Gingrich is no different from Charlie Wrangle, because both were hauled before the House Ethics Committee.
Newt knew the role Freddie and Fannie played in the monetary and financial system. He knew exactly that these two GSEs were being used by the Clinton administration, with congressional support from Barney Franks in the House and Chris Dodd in Senate, to help create "debt" which could eventually be monetized by the FED. He knew that this was being done to get around the lack of "debt" provided through congressional budget deficits. Newt did away with those through "balanced budgets".
Newt knew that Freddie and Fannie supported the interests of the real estate and central banking interests. Why he wanted to provide consultancy to them, I have no idea. If it was strictly for money, Newt is inept in making deals. The 1.6 million in fees, which he collected for his consultancy work over ten years, is such a piddling amount that it is laughable to speak of gauging the GSEs.
Compare the $160,000 per annum consultancy fee paid to Newt with tens of millions of dollars paid to each of the managers of Freddie and Fannie on a yearly basis. Immediately, the names Goerlich, Johnson, Gaines, Mudd and Emanuel come to mind. To compare Newt's piddly earnings to that of any of these Freddie and Fannie chieftains, again is unfair. What did Newt do at Freddie Mac to help tank the economy... ??? Can you tell me... ???
He took millions from the health care deal... ??? How... ??? Providing consultancy to private businesses on the potential impact of "Obama Care" legislation on the health care industry... ??? This remark of yours intimates that Newt lobbied the Congress, which he never did.
You say, "If Newt got to be president, he would cut more under handed deals than a cat has hair on it's back, all the while flushing this country down the toilet."
Now that you have so brilliantly proved what kind of "scumbag" Newt really is, I am not at all suprised that you can come to the firm conclusion what Newt will do, if he becomes president.
I am quite skeptical about Newt, as I am skeptical about any politician. Yes, if you have political skills, and you use them in the wrong way a la Barney Frank and Chris Dood, it's a big problem. However, I refuse to compare Newt to them.
Newt teed off all the Democrats, as well RINO Republicans by bringing about the change of control in the House. This victory by Newt cost certain lobbying interests billions of dollars in lost influence. How thrilled do you think those lobbying interests were about Newt's victory?
Newt passed needed welfare legislation, which teed off thousands upon thousands of government bureaucrats. Do you think that endeared Newt to the government bureaucrat class?
After three refusals, Clinton finally signed the welfare reform legislation. Today, Clinton touts welfare reform as one of his greatest achievements. Imagine that... ..
Newt passed "balanced budgets" year after year. This drove the central banking crowd absolutely nuts. Do you think they were happy about Newt's leadership in the House? The supporters of central banking in the Senate and the House instead had to work around Newt to make possible large debt creation through the facilities of Freddie and Fannie. This maneuver by the central banking crowd eventually proved devastating to the economy.
Taking your remarks, it is clear that you have little understanding of Newt's political work. I think that I am correct in the assumption that you are a Ron Paul follower. Ron Paul followers seem to drink that "libertarian potion". The never stray from their mantra. It's like listining to that mind numbing MSM. If you want to drink that "Kool Aid", be my guest.
You can point to the superior personal attributes of Ron Paul. You can cite all the libertarian utopia that Ron Paul preaches. As a politician, Ron Paul is totally without accomplishment as it effects the country at large. As a talker and as "pied piper", he's terrific.
If it pleases you to have a politician whisper in your ear what you'd like to hear, by all means support Ron Paul. However, if you want a politician with the political skills to bring about meaningful results for this country, I suggest you take another look at Gingrich.
Though at time Gingrich says stupid things, it is what a politician does that counts. What a politician has done in the past is an indicator to what he might do in the future. Gingrich did a lot in the past. Ron Paul has done nothing, except talk.
Posted by mcfrandy on 12/25/11 03:22 AM
Does Ron Paul have a chance of becoming president?
Let's say he manages to overcome the built-in cheating inherent in the modern American electoral system. JFK and RFK were assassinated by the power elite-controlled CIA for far lesser offenses against the power elite than Ron Paul has exhibited in his long political history and in his everyday words.
Posted by w1945 on 12/25/11 03:12 AM
What you do not understand is we do not have time to build a conservative movement. We are out of time. Paul can sign his name if elected and bring every troop home and close all of those leach sucking military bases. And he would be a master at using the Veto and he only needs 1/3 to pull that one off. The first thing you need to do is start believing and stop all this, I don't think he can.
Posted by w1945 on 12/25/11 02:54 AM
First let me say I am sorry that you lost your job and can not find another one. If it helps I have been there and done that but it looks like to me that some on here have never experienced wondering where there next pay check was coming from. This country is so close to going over the edge it is no longer funny. We are hemorging debt like there is no tomorrow and the only candidate who has said flat out that he will cut one trillion is Paul. None of the other candidates have had any kind of plan to cut our debt and spending. I mean do they think we can just keep going down the road we are on, you know the status quo. I use to be a Republican but now I am an Independent. I do not see a hairs difference between the Democratic or Republican party. I certainly wish you well in finding employment. If we could get Ron Paul into office we would see a turn around and fast. Ron Paul 2012
Posted by w1945 on 12/25/11 02:40 AM
How do you know that? The last time I checked Paul was beating him bad in Iowa and NH. Another thing that goes a long way with me is honesty. Now Newt can not hold a candle to Paul when it comes to that. The American people are fed up with status quo deal making in back rooms. Paul is open with the American people and that is what they like about him. If it were not for the MSM and the Republican party doing everything in their power to hold him back he would be so far out in front of the reast of the field it would not even be funny.
Posted by w1945 on 12/25/11 02:22 AM
In other words Newt being a scumbag has no bearing with you. To you it does not matter that he had close to 80 ethichs violations while speaker of the house and was fined $330,000 on one of them. It does not matter to you that he took $1.6 million plus from Freddie Mac, you know the same Freddie Mac that tanked our economy. It also does not matter to you that he took millions from the health care deal. If Newt got to be president he would cut more under handed deals than a cat has hair on it's back, all the while flushing this country down the tolet. You can have all the political skills in the world but if you use them in the wrong way then what good are they? By the way being from GA I know Newt real well.
Posted by w1945 on 12/25/11 02:12 AM
The guy may have stated what he said wrong but he is correct. He did not mean 15% of 40 which is 6. He literally meant 15% of the 40%. Use your head, do you honestly think that Paul could only get 6% of the independent vote? He will get more of the independent vote than Obama or Romney or Newt. To think that Paul would only get 6% of the independent vote is crazy. Some times you have to read between the lines. The man is absolutely correct, Paul could just win the thing on the third party.
Posted by Bischoff on 12/24/11 09:42 AM
Will you know the "true color" of any politician... ??? You can only judge his likely performance in the future by what he did "politically" in the past.
Take Romney. He talks up his business acumen and the wealth he accumulated thanks to central bank money. He points to his stable marriage and family life. He plays down his abysmal political stands on health care, the changing support for the sanctity of life, and his indifference to gay marriage. What are Romney's true colors?
Rick Perry laudes his conservative approach to governing Texas. However, Texas is unlike any other state in the Union due to the influence of its government by the oil business. Rick Perry's governorship is dictated by the nature of Texas as an oil state. If he becomes president, it is likely that he will look out for the value of the USD. But what will he do, if the USD collapses? Do you know?
Rick Santorum's personal behavior and his political achievments in the U.S. Congress back up his retoric on the campaign trail. However, the consistent stand on family values, while appealing to conservatives, is hardly enough to indicate his chance for success to deal with the entrenched central bankers crowd. The same thing goes for Michelle Bachmann. While you may know their "true colors", their political skills are lacking.
John Huntsman has a very good record in running Utah as governor. He is smart, he is competent, but again Utah is different from any other state in the union, because of the religious orientation of the majoriy of its population. To have political skills to be a successful conservative governor of Utah does not guarantee that those political skills are sufficient to be a conservative president.
Now take Newt. His family values are a mess, judging from the past divorces. He is smart and lets people know it to the point of being arrogant about it. On the hand, he has political skills which caused the change in power in the Congress leading undoubtedly to the loss of billions of dollars of losses to the dislodged, entrenched interests. He had the political skills to curtail the Fed central bank by passing balanced budgets. He put welfare reform into law effecting millions of people, dispite Clinton's repeated refusal to sign the legislation. Compare these formidable political skills and his past political successes to that of Ron Paul who spews a lot of libertarian talk, but who has nothing to show for in legislation.
Who cares whether Newt says stupid things at times, sits on a couch with Nancy Pelosi or took a few dollars in consultant fees from a GSE which desperately needed to get a perspective on its operation.
Me, personally, I don't care what Gingrich's "true colors" are. I let psychologists or psychiatrists figure that out. What counts for me, is his political skills and how he employed them in the past. On that basis, I take Newt over anybody now running... .