President Gingrich?

For the past three years America has been governed by the worst Administration in living memory, possibly the worst ever. Many liberals have asked, "If opposition to Obama isn't motivated by race, why are you only protesting him? Why didn't you protest Bush too?"

Well, for starters, we DID protest Bush, but probably the main reason we didn't take to the streets is that, first of all, they were already well-crowded with liberals whose average protests against Bush were so violent and angry that we wonder how anyone could use those words against the Tea Party. We also didn't take to the streets because while we didn't care for Bush's expansion of government or spending, we knew that if we elected a Democrat in his place, that kind of thing would only continue, and get worse.

By the time Bush went whole-hog Democrat, endorsing the Wall Street bailout, etc., he was practically out of office anyway.

The reason we are protesting Obama is that he is everything we didn't like about Bush, everything we don't like aboud Democratic ideals, and practically an open Socialist all rolled into one. What's there to like about him? Even his most vocal supporters are starting to turn on him. If he's no longer giving Chris Matthews a thrill up the leg, why on Earth should conservative Republicans have ever liked him?

Leftists act like Obama's race is the only reason anyone could have to dislike him because they know that's all they've got to run him on. His record, pre-office and current, is a joke. America is entrenched in two new wars (so much for Obama being the anti-war president), has lost its AAA rating, the economy is in the toilet, joblessness is at an all-time high, and all the Left can do is continue to beat the same drum they've been beating from day one; support Obama, or you're a racist.

Of course, that's one of the reasons the Obama administration is so bloody awful. The whole point of Obama was to be the black puppet to speak for the party while they began enacting their economy-killing legislation that they've been pushing for for decades. Under Clinton, they couldn't get away with it. Under Gore or Kerry they wouldn't have. Obama is what they've been waiting for; a handsome, well-spoken black man who looks good on a collector's edition memorial plate, under whom they can begin the undoing of America, and blame any and all dissent on racism.

Like never before, it is vitally important that a true conservative be elected next year. Ann Coulter is famous for saying "any Republican is better than any Democrat." In previous years, that might have been true. Bush wasn't a good president but he was better than Kerry or Gore would have been. Bob Dole would have made a horrible president, but he likely would have been a better one than Clinton. Lord knows there would have been fewer sex scandals. And John McCain, as much as I don't like him, would have made a marginally better president than Barack Obama. Although, as an aside, I'm kinda grateful he lost, because if he hadn't, Obama would be running in this next election and probably would have creamed him. President Obama has woken up the right-wing heart of America by being who he is, and President McCain would have further put it to sleep.

But in this election, we aren't just running against "any" Democrat. We're running against a deeply divisive, demagoguic figurehead who represents every devious, evil practice and policy America's far-left wants to see enacted. The liberal fantasy of turning America into a Socialistic "paradise" where leftism is the only religion, where the poor are rich and big businesses are broke, where everything is free even if that means total anarchy, etc., is the whole reason President Obama even exists. If this was just any Democrat, I'd probably agree with Coulter; any Republican would be better.

But let's look at the field we have for a moment. First, let's discount the candidates who have no chance at winning; Rick Santorum, while a good man, doesn't appear to be able to excite anyone about his candidacy. He'd make a good deacon, but that doesn't necessarily translate into "good president". Sure, he'd be an asset to the new president's cabinet, but the idea of him being president himself is something only the most religious of the religious right wants to see.

Michelle Bachmann shot herself in the foot with poor debate performances early on, after starting off as the Golden Girl.

Rick Perry became the front-runner the instant he announced his candidacy, but sank like a stone after ridiculous debate performances, his stance on amnesty and the "you don't have a heart comment", and his recent blanking during a debate.

Herman Cain...man, has there been a more heart-breaking story than that? He looked like a dream candidate, and as you can see if you look back in my posts, he had my unqualified support. He HAD it. He lost it after his pathetic finger-pointing in the wake of the sexual harassment allegations against him. I'm not sure I believe the allegations. They're fishy, and they people who made them fishier still. Cain, as far as I'm concerned, could be and most likely is 100% innocent. But he has not behaved like an innocent man. First, he denied that there was ever a charge laid against him (when there was), that there was never a settlement granted (there was) and that he never saw Sharon Bialek before her public allegations against him (he had). Then, Mark Block, his chief strategist, initially stated that the first accuser's son worked for Politico (the man in question worked for a different publication all together, and though he had her last name he was not her son) and then claimed he "knew" a Rick Perry campaign staffer had leaked the stories when he had no proof of any such thing. If the above is an example of how Cain would run the country, I don't want him to. Rush Limbaugh came to his defense, arguing that if the right way to handle sex scandals was the way Clinton did, then he's glad Cain did it the wrong way. Unfortunately, there is more than one wrong way to handle it. Cain didn't handle it like Clinton did, but he didn't handle it in a good way either. More to the point, he showed how disorganized his campaign is.

Jon Huntman. That is all.

So that leaves two candidates; Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. I never thought I would ever type that sentence. This is our top tier. Just over a month away from our first primary, and these two are the most likely to emerge victorious from it. Really?

Now, let's talk about Mitt Romney for a moment. Just for a moment, because it seems like all anyone does these days is talk about him. It's clear, as I've said, that the GOP establishment really wants him to be our candidate, because he is supposedly the most "electable". By which they mean, the one most "liberal-lite" who could reach across the isle and bring in independents and Democrats disgusted with Obama. But when has this ever worked? Seriously, when? Bob Dole? John McCain? Why do men like this routinely end up being touted as "electable candidates" only to lose (and in Dole's case, lose big), yet the GOP establishment predictably backs them again? If Romney were to drop out of the race tomorrow, would they suddenly start backing Huntsman? (answer: probably)

They call Romney the most electable, and while he did start off as the highest polling candidate, that can be chalked up to name recognition. Since the campaign really started, he's been at a permanent polling plateau with literally every other candidate (except Huntsman and Santorum) at one point or another rising above him. Presently, Gingrich is ahead of him. Gingrich. The guy who lost his first campaign staff wholesale. If he falls, I guarantee Santorum will rise to first place. And that's because--pay attention, GOP establishment--Republican voters DO NOT WANT MITT ROMNEY. They want ANYONE but him (again, with the possible exception of Huntsman). If the guy can't beat Newt effin' Gingrich, doesn't that clue you in that your base is not at all excited about him? That if they can find any suitable conservative, they'll go for that person first?

Now, here's the thing; after taking a closer look at Gingrich, I'm not sure I'm against his presidency. I was at first, but with no Marco Rubio, Tim Pawlenty or Allen West in the race, with Bachmann and Cain down for the count, Gingrich may be my man. Yes, he's got skeletons in his closet but he acknowledges them, and says he's learned from them. They're not hidden from view, like Cain's may have been. Gingrich recently said one of the greatest things he could have said: "I'm not the perfect candidate, but I'm better than Romney and I'm a genuine conservative." No, Mr. Gingrich, you're not the perfect candidate, and the best thing you could have done for yourself is acknowledge that, which you have. Romney is trying to sell himself as the perfect candidate, when he's anything but. For you to be so honest and plain-spoken about yourself and your candidacy is refreshing.

To be honest, after the very first debate, when Gingrich was the first, and only, to say openly that the press was hostile to all the candidates and hoped to get them in-fighting so that the focus could stay off Obama's record, I paid attention to that. Most did. We've known Gingrich was a smart man for decades now but I don't think anyone expected him to be so...ballsy. And he's run that kind of campaign since then.

In 2012, we need, nay, we MUST HAVE, a presidential candidate who won't just beat Obama, but will actively work to restore America back to economic and financial stability, and put us back on the road to growth. This person must not be someone willing to appease his opponents, flip-flop on issues or make quid pro quo deals with people who are out to destroy them. Romney has proven over and over again that he is that kind of politician. He's a power-seeker. He's a back-scratcher. He's a suit. Could he beat Obama? Maybe. Would he be appreciably different? No.

Another aside; we have to know by now that race WILL be an active issue on the table in this election. Whoever we elect will unquestionably be called racist by the leftist media. It's gonna happen. It's just simply not a question. Ask yourself what Mitt Romney would do to fight that. He'd probably waste time trying to prove he's not a racist by visiting black neighborhoods or having his picture taken next to black congressmen or some other shameless "politician" move. Gingrich would turn that accusation right back on his accusers and, while it probably wouldn't shut them up, it would kill their message to all but the most committed leftist race-hucksters.

We need someone with guts. Someone who isn't afraid to piss people off and get the job done. And although I never thought I'd say this, I think Newt Gingrich could be that man.

Will we be electing President Gingrich next November? Only time will tell.

Would it Derail the Obama Campaign?

Wow. What a storm can start from one poorly sourced, uninformative article, or at least when it's about a conservative.

Picture this; several years ago, like a decade plus, you made a comment that you thought was innocent, but the person you made it to, who was of the opposite sex, took it the wrong way and got offended. She then files a complaint which totally blindsides you, because you know nothing happened and you certainly didn't intend for it to. The matter gets settled and because you're in a position to delegate to others what to do to satisfy this person, you say do it, and you're glad to have it done with and behind you. I know that if I were in this position, I would likely forget it. After all, I know that I meant nothing by the comment, I know I did nothing wrong, and I know that even if there was video of the incident in question, such a video would prove my innocence.

I have been accused of something I was not guilty of. I even had to consult a lawyer, who assured me that the accusing party had no case and I shouldn't worry. Because my accuser didn't work for me, I was in no position to give them money to leave me alone, but if I were, I know the outcome would have been the same, which was, I promptly put it behind me. I was innocent, nothing came of it, and it was only after racking my brain to think of a time when something like this might have happened that I recalled the incident.

Something like this apparently happened to Herman Cain. Now, Cain has had multiple careers, each of which has been successful. He was a ballistics expert for the military, chairman of a state Federal Reserve, eventual CEO of a chain of Burger Kings and then Godfather's Pizza. In a position like that, allegations of sexual misconduct can come out of left field. Most highly-placed men in any field will tell you that even complimenting a woman's new hair-do can open you up to allegations of sexual harassment or some other form of misconduct.

When the story first broke, the following is literally all we knew: Sometime in the late 90's, a woman who worked for or with Cain in the National Restaurant Association accused cain of "unwanted comments of a sexual nature" and "gestures that while not overtly sexual were nonetheless unprofessional and troubling." Also according to the article another woman had made allegations. The article implied that a monetary settlement had been reached.

That's it. That's all Politico said to start with, and that's all they've said at all so far. When pressed to say more, Jonathan Martin, the author of the article, stated that he was not prepared to reveal more out of "sensitivity" to the "victims" involved.

Uh-huh. Tell me another funny, Mr. Jonathan Martin, author of a thousand Palin hit-pieces that go after her family just as much as they go after her. Jonathan Martin is not a sensitive man, so what his sudden reticence says to me is that he doesn't have more than he's already released. An unknown source, two nameless women, vague allegations that could mean anything, and...that's all.

Tell me, would such allegations derail the Obama campaign, if something like that had come up in 2008? I can tell you right now they would not have, because we knew about Obama's William Ayers connections and his 20 years in Rev. Wrong's church, and none of it mattered. If the Left can get Bill Clinton off the hook for his own (many) marital infidelities that he LIED ABOUT UNDER OATH, then they would definitely rally to Obama's defense, had an allegation like that surfaced.

But with Cain, there is much hemming and hawing because this is a serious issue that bears looking into more closely.

Now, Cain, unfortunately, has not responded well to those accusations and quite frankly I can understand why. Like I said, had it been me in his position, even if I'd had to sign off on some sort of settlement, I would have quickly forgotten it because why dwell on something that is settled and that you know had no merit to begin with? Now, one can argue that in his position, he should have been prepared for this, but Cain is not a career politician, always prepared with a statement about anything, no matter how true or untrue, that may come to light from his past. If anything, that may be what hurts his campaign. He is a businessman first, and while that means he brings common sense real world solutions with him it also means he's not thinking in terms of self-promotion or defense, at least not yet. George W. Bush was the same way, and he had some political experience.

Up until now I've seen Cain be able to let any accusations made against him slide off, and I would have hoped that in this case he could come forward right away, say what happened, and let that be that. The way he's handled this is the only thing that I take issue with; not because I think he's lying but because he has made it easy for his attackers to make it LOOK like he's lying, and in the game he's playing, and on the team he's playing for, that's bad.

If he were a Democrat this wouldn't even be a story. Politico wouldn't have touched it and they would have poo-poo'd any attempts from the Right to bring this up. Only if we'd discovered such a non-story as this we probably wouldn't have touched it either.

Cain's first response was to say that he's never harassed anyone nor did he remember paying anyone a settlement. I admit, if I were in his shoes and thinking like I think (and like he was likely thinking), that would have been my gut response. But the fact is, Cain later came back and said "Okay, I guess there was a settlement", while still denying any wrong-doing took place on his part. I'm prepared to believe him, as in America you are still innocent until proven guilty, but if there was a settlement, Cain should not have implied there wasn't, or that he doesn't remember, even if he did forget. He should have released no statement until he had researched or remembered the incident.

This sorta goes back to all I've said about Cain being in this race for America, and not for himself. He was never thinking of this race as a popularity contest or about promoting himself. It likely never occurred to him that an overly sensitive woman deciding something wrong happened when it didn't would ever come back to haunt him. A career politician would have found her and paid her still more money not to talk to reporters.

What Cain finally ended up saying was that the only incident he could think of after spending a day wracking his brain trying to think of what this incident could have been, was a woman that he off-handedly stated was the same height as his wife, while holding his hand under his chin, to indicate the woman's height. If that's truly it, then there is no story and I can confidently say that had this happened to a Democrat, no media outlet would have touched it. Cain stated that he thinks there may have been a settlement, but if it was it would have been part of a severance package and he thinks it amounted to less than three months' salary, possibly less than two months', and that she definitely didn't get all the money she had started off demanding. It's not unreasonable to assume that Cain is telling the truth here. He also says he doesn't recall a second incident, nor was there another settlement. This I can believe right away because it doesn't take much at all for the accusing woman to suddenly have a friend she can get to make up a story in order to seem more credible.

Like I said, if this was me, and I was signing away for the woman to get a slightly larger severance than normal after she asked for a lot more than she got, I probably wouldn't have thought of that as a "settlement", either. In fact, I'll go further; it's entirely possible that this woman was already thinking of resigning but figured there was no reason she shouldn't do so without a substantial pot of money coming with her. So she asked for a huge severance package, and in order to get it, she makes more out of a past incident than is warranted, claiming she's owed the extra money due to psychological duress. The National Restaurant Association conducts its own investigation, realizes what happened amounts to nothing, and let the woman go with a slightly larger package than normal just to get her to go away, and Cain himself, who in a case like that would have been involved peripherally, completely forgets about it. After all the man probably signed off on plenty of severance packages, and this likely wasn't the first time one of them was slightly larger.

So, in summary, it sounds like the allegations against Cain are minimal at best, which apparently even Jonathan Martin and Politico know, since they're not milking the story.

Despite that, Cain's response was less than perfect.

However, despite THAT, if something like this wouldn't hurt Clinton or Obama, why on Earth should it hurt Cain?