back to the land

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Wow! Around 10 pm on the last Sunday in April 2005 Newt Gingrich was on C-SPAN—and I was agreeing with him. Bummer. The former Speaker was up in New Hampshire laying the groundwork for a 2008 presidential run by giving an interview to the Manchester Union. Of course during the Union interview Gingrich made his obvious pitch to the GOP theocrats by demonizing the Democrats for wanting to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. No big deal. The Party of welfare cheats, southern segregationist and Vietnam deserves to be demonized.

No government has a right to impose a religious belief on its subjects. As a former history professor Ginrich knows this. As a first rate political animal Gingrich also knows he can’t win the GOP nomination without winning the Christian fundamentalist vote, so he rakishly swallows the truth about the POA to get elected—which makes him no worse than any other politician. More on the POA later.

What makes Gingrich at least a tolerable `08 GOP presidential nominee is his implacable support for technology. Unlike his fellow GOP theologians, Gingrich understands economic growth and a higher standard of living comes from the womb of new technology. That’s why Gingrich and Senator Hillary Clinton, standing side by side at a news conference, can jointly support an electronic data processing bill that will lower the cost of healthcare by cutting bureaucratic red tape. The history professor gig also comes in handy.

Gingrich told the Union he was going to base his furtive presidential run on the book: Lincoln at Coopers Union. There’s comfort in knowing a potential president will use history as a guidepost in his decision making—when was the last time any pol or public servant could be paid that compliment? Certainly no one in the Bush administration. Gingrich knows deep down that imperialistic wars are doomed to failure—just ask Madison, Polk, Truman and Johnson. So the next time the neocons start barking for an imperialistic war, hopefully, a President Gingrich will tie bricks around their necks and throw `em down a well.

The other group it would be nice to throw down a well are all those victim-of-the-month-club limousine liberals from Beacon Hill to Malibu who will surely caterwaul on how a Gingrich presidency will be rife with corporate scandals. But you can bet the farm corporate surfeit under Gingrich will be no greater than under a Clinton presidency. The Senator’s $1,000 cattle options… Whitewater real estate fiasco… 1996 White House coffee klatches… and her hubby’s last minute presidential pardons makes the wager a guaranteed winner. When it comes to profligate political behavior, the Clinton’s are second to none.

Concomitant to Gingrich having stronger professional ethics than Senator Clinton, the other big advantage of a commander-in-chief Gingrich—or for that matter any commander-in-chief Republican—over a Hillary Oval office would be the assiduous media scrutiny/liberal criticism of a Republican president. No doubt when it comes to clean government and oversees military adventures Republicans are given greater scrutiny and held to a higher ethical standard than Democrats by the fourth estate.

The politically correct Washington Post, New York Times et al would give no respite—thankfully—to a Gingrich White House. On the other hand, all those sanctimonious Clinton lapdogs in the press who were rightly indignant of Reagan for giving military aid to the goons in El Salvador didn’t seem to mind the 1999 Clinton ordered bombings of civilians in Yugoslavia Nor did the lapdogs show any upset over the Clintons taking campaign contributions from Indonesian businessmen during the `96 election. Guaranteed if an incumbent Republican took those same contributions the N.Y. Times would have ran a front page headline in 72 fonts: “Impeach Now.”

Finally, a parting shot on the Pledge of Allegiance. For all the good citizens who earnestly believe the Almighty will frown on the American republic for removing “under God” from the POA think about this: The Pledge was originally written without “under God.” Congress, in a fit of Cold War hysteria, added “under God” to the POA in 1954; reciting “under God” on 9/11 2001 didn’t help at all. Moreover, countless school children said the POA without “under God” during World War II, and we still defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Besides, why does an omnipotent being need the assistance of the state? The good citizens of our secular republic who believe government should dictate religion are simply afraid of freedom.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home