Please Explain Newt Gingrich's Appeal

[Felch]

Interesting:

http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc289/LSUfanFR/?action=view¤t=Mowing.jpg

Arguments put by Paul:
(1) The US should not have been involved in WW2.
(2) The Anti Defamation League and Bnai Brith has spies around the country.

Yeah, this guy is peachy.

You're clearly misrepresenting his comments. He wanted the Nazis and Soviets to slaughter each other, while the UK and US stayed out of it. That's seems pretty smart to me. Furthermore, his comments about the ADL are simply repeating another news story about arrests in San Francisco.

While it is true that an isolationist US would not be the target of Al-Qaeda in the short-term it hardly follows that the US should therefore adopt an isolationist foreign policy. That would be strategic madness. Al-Qaeda is not the biggest problem on the market today. There are myriad problems in the Middle East, China etc which make Al Qaeda seem insignificant by comparison. That's what makes isolationism foolish and dangerous. If Ron Paul is an isolationist that would have very devastating consequences for American interests if he were ever elected.

No, the short term solution is pouring resources into defense. The only rational long term stance is to reduce defense spending, and the easiest way to do that is to stop meddling in foreign countries. If you want to go on foreign adventures so badly, spend Australian dollars on it.

At peak levels, Australia had 2,000 troops in Iraq, and 1,500 in Afghanistan. The United States, which is about 15 times the population of Australia, had 150,000 troops in Iraq, and 90,000 in Afghanistan. To match that proportion, Australia would have had to increase its commitment by 400% in Iraq and 300% in Afghanistan. Australia spends 1.8% of GDP on defense to America's 4.9%. Australia is mooching, and I'm sick of it.



Including interest on defense related loans, and other hidden costs, Americans spend almost $4000 per person on defense. WHY? Our Indian tribes have all been vanquished, every able bodied Mexican is already mowing lawns here, and the Canadians are Canadians. We have no immediate threats, we have no reason to go into debt spending billions on bull****. America has no nearby enemies, the most powerful navy, alliances with most of the other great powers, and a huge and well armed citizenry. We have absolutely nothing to be afraid of. Most people know that the most powerful air force is the US Air Force. But many people forget that the second most powerful air force is the US Navy. It's cool, but totally outside of our budget.

If Australia is afraid of China, then Australia should spend more than 1.8% of GDP on defense. America shouldn't be expected to pay for your protection. When Australians are kicking in as much as Americans, we can discuss raising American spending levels. Until then, shut up you free-loading jackass.

[Zevico]

You're clearly misrepresenting his comments. He wanted the Nazis and Soviets to slaughter each other, while the UK and US stayed out of it.

Oh yes, perfectly reasonable. Nevermind that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies in the first part of the war; nevermind that the Nazis were quite prepared to invade the UK; nevermind that this was the logical endpoint of Nazi and Soviet policy; nevermind, nevermind, nevermind. Nevermind that this pointless counter-factual is foolish to the point of madness. Do you seriously think the Nazis were content with Europe and not the UK? And not the United States? Do you seriously think that the United States is worse off for its intervention? Madness. Sheer madness.

The same logic would mean surrender and abdication in the Cold War--also a policy Ron Paul supported, by the way.

The consequence of isolationism is simply to leave the world a more evil place than it was. And that harms everyone, including the United States.

No, the short term solution is pouring resources into defense. The only rational long term stance is to reduce defense spending, and the easiest way to do that is to stop meddling in foreign countries.

This is naivete; a simplistic prescription that takes no account of the vast amount of ill it would cause and no account of the importance of the United States to global stability--and ultimately, global stability means immeasurable economic and political benefits for the United States.

By the way, this state of affairs is true irrespective of any given country's "contribution" to the United States' strategic goals. The fact that contributions from the non-Americans is inadequate reduces the United States' strategic capabilities and those of its allies. Yes, that's a bad thing. But reducing American defence spending will reduce those capabilities even further. And the United States will suffer as a result.

[Hauldren Collider]

Ron Paul's strict non-interventionism is nonsense, as is his belief in the gold standard. He's loony, even if he has a few good ideas.

[Zevico]

Every step the United States takes, wittingly or not, injures or assists various groups, nations or cultures around the world. Foreign policy-making is premised on the view that these changes can be influenced by the actions of the United States. For the United States, isolationism is simply a call to stop thinking about foreign policy, or "foreign entanglements." There was never any geographical limit to the influence of American foreign policy. To consciously adopt that illusion is foolishness, nothing more.

[rah]

Is there anything else you can sell him with?

It's like calling Moe the smartest stooge.

[Felch]

Until the pro-imperialism folks can explain how we're going to pay for this thing, there's nothing to discuss. The United States can't afford these foreign adventures.

[Hauldren Collider]

That doesn't mean they should cease entirely.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I think the entire rationale for Newt being popoular is the thought that Newt will be a combative opponent vs. Obama. My impression is that folks see Romney as being too timid and measured in his attacks.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think that would help Romney. Romney doesn't need to be the one making the attacks, he has plenty of pundits and lower-level politicians to do the mudslinging for him.

[rah]

gasp, I agree with Ogie. If he has his minions doing the slinging then he appears not as strong as if he's the one doing it.

[PLATO]

I think Newt's appeal is that he is about as far from Obama as you can be. People are tired of struggling. It is debatable why they are struggling 3 years into an Obama administration, but it is not unusual that the current administration is getting the blame. People wanted change with Obama....meaning that they wanted an improvement in their situation. For many people, things have gotten worse.

Newt brings a view of better, simpler times....invokes the greatness of the American spirit....talks continuously about how good things used to be. It is no suprise to me that he is the front runner.

Obama will need to be careful when he starts the negative campaign that everyone seems to be predicting. Americans are tired of doom and gloom...they have been living it for half a decade now. That type of campaign could backfire when confronted with a vision of "glory days" and a return to them. Style over substance...

[giblets]

Well, I don't think Gingrich polls that well against Obama. If you're saying Republicans like Gingrich because he's (supposedly) as far as possible from Obama, maybe.

[PLATO]

Newt didn't poll well against the other repubs 90 days ago eithier. Your point is well founded however. If you will read what I said again, then you will see that I said that Obama will need to be carefull when his campaign begins. It is a percieved reaction to future events that I am cautioning against and saying that Americans may be swayable to the rhetoric of the good ole days...

[DaShi]

They like him because he's not Romney. Of course, if he wins the nomination, this will screw Obama's "Not Romney" campaign.

[DinoDoc]

It is a percieved reaction to future events that I am cautioning against and saying that Americans may be swayable to the rhetoric of the good ole days...

Newt got shoved overboard by his own party during the good ole days due to his rhetoric and arrogance.