ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on January 23, 2012

Which one should be the choice?

It was a good lesson for American voters to see Newt Gingrich ratcheting up his effort to win the Republican Party nomination race with a strong lead in a memorable debate performance.

Just a day or so before the event, Mitt Romney was the candidate that the majority of the people were rooting for; with the support of the news media, of course; yes, the media.

Gingrich knew that a South Carolina primary winning would be a death knell to end the campaigns of one or two of his rivals in the race, and that would be another "notch in his belt" in his long political career.

Engaging his opponents in a debate that would squirm his closest antagonist was what he adroitly managed to get, by using a journalist, who in his stupidity would ask a personal and an annoying question at the very beginning of a debate; nonchalantly, be it a presidential one. What was he (journalist) thinking?

It (question) brought the juices out of Gingrich to rub that journalist's face in the dirt to make his audience really see what he, Gingrich, was made of; of sterner stuff.

That was the Gingrich of old, who was the Speaker of the United States House of Representative in the 90s, and has brutalized his own mates to get his way in almost every argument.

Therefore, those who knew him were not at all surprised to see him go at John King, the CNN moderator. However, on this occasion, it was not the moderator of the SC debate that he wanted to smack down, particularly. His target was not even President Barack Obama at the time, but one of his own party associates, Mitt Romney.

Mind you, his attacks on Romney at the debate was for starters. He was saving him for last, when he was sure that he, Gingrich, would be the Republican nominee. He would then annihilate him to regret that he, Romney, ever became a politician from Wall Street. He would make him swear that he did not have any business in politics.

Yet, the former Speaker's speech after the SC win was even more interesting, and that was when he made mention of Obama. He was expressing his future view of America, and compared him (Obama) to Jimmy Carter; that Carter was even a stronger leader than Obama.

His message was that, by virtue of working with his mentor, Ronald Reagan, he was stronger than the two Democrats, Obama and Carter; or at least that was what he had his followers to believe.

He would be the fighting force that his party and the country needed, to get the sluggish economy moving again and bring the high unemployment rate down.

"I have balanced the budget four times before; and I will do it again", he said.

What made his speech more insightful was that he painted a picture of an earlier age for America, in which there were very few trade laws or regulations to restrict corporate greed; and vilifying the Obama administration with having too many regulatory laws the business world was not so happy about.

He would get rid of them.

On the one hand, while Obama saw those regulations to be necessary for work ethic and honesty on Wall Street, as in his opinion, the poor became poorer, while the rich became richer without them (regulations), Gingrich, on the other hand, thought that they were destructive.

Gingrich has also used the Keystone Oil pipeline, which Obama has placed on the back burner, as his backdrop; accusing Obama for making Canada to look elsewhere for a partnership. His audience applauded him; however, the truth was that Obama's view of the U.S. was more modern and different.

It was one in which America would become completely independent of foreign oil, with clean energies of all kinds at play, such as solar, wind and unwanted vegetation to generate power.

Gingrich has mentioned China of building bridges with Canada to develop the Canadian sands oil project, which Obama has rejected; though, not completely. Nevertheless, people, who knew what China's plans were, acknowledged that it (China) was developing the same solar, wind and renewable resources, just as Obama was envisaging for the U.S.; but why?

If Obama should drop his idea, China would be the giant supplier of all forms of energy, when fossil source or base, like coal and crude oil, became obsolete. America would then be the cropper at some future date, looking to a Communist nation for energy to run its industries.

Now, if Americans would compare the two future views; Obama's and that of Gingrich, they would obviously choose the one that Obama was proposing. They would see that the one by Gingrich belonged to the past. The status quo of America importing oil from unfriendly countries would continue indefinitely. That would reveal the true dinosaur that he, Gingrich, was.

In other words, he has said in his speech that his campaign was for what America should be, but he was forgetting that his plan was already antiquated.

The example being that, coal was used to fuel the Industrial Revolution, from which many of the innovations in the modern world had emanated.

Today, coal has very little use; and so could crude oil, when better and clean energy sources became available; meaning, solar, wind and unwanted vegetation to generate power could become common. Natural gas would be part of that group as well. Oil would then lose its domination, in regard to propelling world industries, as it now did.

Of course, America wants to be rich in oil production, as the Keystone XL oil project may be attractive and viable to have, but when there may be plentiful of clean resources (solar, wind and natural gas), what would it benefit the U.S. to have Canada creating eyesores of pumping stations across its beautiful landscape, from the wilderness and northern plains of the State of Nebraska to the Lone Star State in the opulent south of the country?

With that in mind, there would be a choice for Americans in the 2012 general election, whether they should retain the old ways, or they should opt for a future that has various energy sources; and one that has promise and equal opportunity for all people, no matter what their backgrounds.

It would be Gingrich's view, if he happened to be the Republican nominee; or that of Obama, which was designed to target a better future and prosperity for America. That (future) would be assured, if Americans were to make sure that the country was ready to be independent of foreign oil, by developing its own renewable resources, which would be a far more better idea.

America would be ready for all eventualities in the foreseeable future, when Iran or anyone else would threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, or such.

When that should happen, the oil flow would stop; but America would have its own resources of energy to fall back on. It would not be like in the past, when the U.S. economy and those of many other nations had to suffer, because of one nation's diabolical action to starve the rest of the world of crude oil.

Obama's world view or that of Gingrich; you must decide for yourself.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • feenix profile image

      feenix 5 years ago

      Hello, owurakwasip,

      This is a useful, awesome, interesting and very informative article. I am grateful to you for writing and publishing it.

      So far as the "debate incident" where the CNN moderator, John King, posed that question to Newt about his ex-wife's allegations -- that was a set up. It was staged for the purpose of making Gingrich look good.

      In fact, it was exactly the same thing as when a baseball pitcher grooves a great-big fast ball right down the middle of the plate to a homerun hitter.

      The media wants Gingrich to win the Republican nomination because a presidential race between Obama and him would sell a whole lot more papers and garner a whole lot more air time than a race between Obama and Romney would.