The GOP candidates competing to become the standard bearer against Barack Obama in 2012 have been debating each other for months.  Frankly, I have come to find the process boring, frustrating and counter productive.   I don’t think that I am alone in that view.

One by one candidates have seemed to rise to the head of the pack.  Invariably, once there, they have been overshadowed by the next front runner.  Much has been said about the steady 25% of voters who support Mitt Romney.  Most primary GOP voters do not consider him conservative enough to vote for. 

It is irritating that he instinctively tells voters what he thinks they want to hear.   Admittedly that is the classic, almost unavoidable pitfall of all politicians, not just Romney.  In order to be elected it is necessary to convince voters that you are in harmony with their positions.

The reality is that American voters are usually not in agreement about any issue in sufficient numbers to guarantee election.  That means candidates must proclaim their support of competing issues to voters.  Consequently it is necessary to lie.

I understand that this is an indelicate way to express that reality.  I believe that all voters understand the dilemma and basically forgive their favorite candidate for their dishonesty.  That means voters must believe that their candidate is generally supportive of the views they hold.  This amounts to a kind of unspoken bargain between supporters and politicians that slightly compromises them both.

Occasionally there is a candidate who states openly that he/she is running on a platform that some voters may agree with and others may not.  That candidate encourages those who do not agree with those stated positions not to vote for him/her.  Wouldn’t the entire political process be elevated if all candidates adhered to that policy?  Unfortunately it will never happen.

Romney has a disturbing reputation for changing his positions on critical issues.  I admit that I get a queasy feeling when I see him clumsily attempting to evade answering questions about previous positions he has abandoned during this run for the presidency.  To me, in spite of his legitimate reputation for being intelligent, he seems to be an inept fabricator.

But the current front runner, Newt Gingrich, is a past master at this game.   The man has a long history in public life.  I have explored his positions on several issues going back to the 1990s when he was Speaker of the House.  Newt is famous for his Contract with America.

But during that period he also favored more stringent gun control. He was for mandatory health care and a believer in the need for policies addressing global warming.  Yet today he blandly proclaims himself to be a long term conservative.

Newt is acknowledged to be an extremely intelligent man.  I don’t doubt that.  But I must ask myself how smart it is of him to brazenly claim to be a conservative, when he has to know that readily available information will reveal the truth.  There is something pathological about that.

Gingrich reminds me of Barack Obama, who has issued a never ending stream of untruths about who he is and what his political goals are.  Both men have to know that everything they say is recorded and that the contradictions will inevitably be revealed. But there seems to be an inability to control their rhetoric.  They both seem programmed to tell gatherings of potential voters what they think the audience of the moment wants to hear.  Truth seems irrelevant.

What is disturbing is that Newt presents himself as the antithesis of President Obama’s agenda.  But a casual look at history shows that he has advocated some of the same positions that Barack Obama does today.  Newt is a chameleon.  I can’t believe anything he says. That puts me in a in an exceedingly difficult position.

If Gingrich wins the primaries and becomes the GOP candidate I will have to do some real soul searching.  Do I vote for this man, who is not above advocating some of the same policies Obama has attempted to implement?  I am committed to supporting the chosen GOP candidate.  I reluctantly admit that it applies to Newt too.  It seems clear to me that anyone in the current group of Republican candidates would be a much better president than Barack Obama. 

There is hope though. The next president and all members of Congress know that the American people will be scrutinizing them more carefully than ever before.  They understand the implications informed and alert voters have for their reelection campaigns.  That will help motivate them to adhere to the commitments they made to the people who voted for them. 

Gene Williams

Editor
The first Edition

P.S.  Merry Christmas