|
Life According to Newt Gingrich
Although Newt Gingrich was the architect the 1994 conservative party platform that took over the Senate to just later exit abruptly as its speaker due to his personal scandals, he is currently architect'ing 'American Solutions' as a 'non-partisan' media based organization that is promising to eventually reveal their plan for the nation. To this end, Newt Ginkrich has had two media presentations where the first was with Governor Mario Cuomo on February 28, 2007, at Cooper Union in NYC; and the second at (Conservative Political Action Conference ) CPAC without Governor Cuomo. Both were filmed for webcasts by American Solutions' and viewable at http://AmericanSolutions.com . At Cooper Union, Newt spoke for 30 minutes, and then Mario. Tim Russert was considered the moderator, and Mario also ended up suggesting to Newt that he should run on the Republican Ticket. Newt Ginkrich touched on Health care, his foreign policy, domestic policy, how every one should speak English, and that every one wants 'One Nation under God'. What was not touched on was the economy, such as jobs for you and me,addressing the escalating and unsurmountable national debt; returning credit card over charges to the consumer, the current and future state of education, or the actual health safety and welfare of this nation from the standpoint of the individual, communities nor of the Nations except speaking about it as a broken system. In touching on health care superficially, and not really going after the other real issues, and not going near Stem Cell Research, ProLife/Abortion, and Gay Marriage the question is what is Newt Gingrich doing if not just tossing us a bone. Are we dogs ? In attending the Cooper Union event, I met with both afterwards, and in introducing myself, had asked if other presidential candidates could be invited to debate. Perhaps that was just too out of the box to ask , but thought it a fair question, as was sincerely intended. I want to debate Newt Gingrich. In a separate recent CPAC speech covered by American Solutions, his non-partisan organization, Newt Gingrich promoted himself as the conservative political compass and nation's visionary. He finally admitted that he plans for running in election 2008 if given the ticket to do so. I guess he plans to run as a non-partisan, or is it as a republican ? My take is that Newt Gingrich wants to debate Barach Obama or Hillary, or which ever is the democrat candidate. This of course would be on Newt Gingrich's territory, where it is with out news coverage except by American Solutions which he is the Chairmen of, and with out any ground rules from moderators. In other words, 'Mono ( Newt ) e mono ( democrat )' ? Consider if the Democrats offered him the same opportunity. Question is, would the bold new and improved Newt Gingrich step up to the plate, or call it partisan politics. The following is a more detailed review of Newt Gingrich's burgeoning platform where he wishi is to fashion himself as 'The conservative' , and some questions regarding his statements, and commentary on what some could agree are more workable alternatives. 1- Newt on Domestic Issues: A- In God we Trust: Newt Gingrich tried to make some point about one nation under God. He claimed that 91% of the American people prefer "One nation under god". My only response is, so what's so unusual about this - So what exactly did he mean - Was he advocating his personal beliefs over yours or mine ? If this is what he is talking about, then it is unconstitutional, and can by some be considered unconscionable. If he is to advocate the right to choose when it comes to consumerism, than surely he would be expected to respect others religions that other American citizens have. Example, suppose one nation under God is supposed to mean for Methodists only. Then the Baptists or other faithful following would not be considered patriotic. Thank god that we do have separation of Church and State where governemt can't mess with religion. As our country represents diversity, in addition to Methodists, and the Baptists, Christianity in our country also includes Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Fundamentalists, Pietism, Evangelism, Pentacostalism, Prodestants, and the Holiness movement. Additionlly, others believe in God too such as Muslims who also make up the citizenship of the United States.. Further, respecting each others orientations allows us to be 'united in how we stand'. B- We Speak English only: Newt Gingrish stated that 85 % of the American People prefer English as the official language of the government, where you have to pass a history test, and speak English to become a citizen. and establish adequate classes in immersion for others who don't and for prospective immigrants. Agreed he might have a point, but firstly, English is the official language of the government. It would be more genuine if Newt was straight about what he really meant, in that there would be no other language used for immagrants, et al by the government except English ? Now consider what 85% really means. Who was asked in this survey, was it even a sampling of 8 out of 10, and in what language ? We are a nation of diversity, and responsibly must account for other languages. Comparatively, imagine yourself in a foreign land, and needed to ask for directions to the US embassy. Immersion programs are what Mao's China conducted on its people; it is also what North Vietnam did to South Vietnam. We can sugarcoat what we are saying, but it is basically the same old thing. So what about the Dignity of human rights anyway ? What limits do we actually put on this grand plan for one size fist all, where you are not in control of your decisions ? On the East coast alone every state has a different accent, or even accents for spoken English. Some of us are from Alabama, some from Brooklyn New York, and then there are Bostonian- and then others from Maine. If individuals from each of these selected states were put in the same room, and tried to speak to each other, it would take some time to understand each other. In the meantime, the event would be like out of the Tower of Babel from the Bible. In other words one would sound like babble to another. The United states is made up additionally of many cultures where in this case united does not mean 'One Size fits all'. Something more significant that Newt could throw out on his speeches is about the need for better education. Here language is no longer a barrier as we even learn to extend our vocabularies. Some might say that they do not need to learn those 50 cent words. But just imagine if we do and where it can get us in our personal job and career advancement, understanding consumer contracts from cell phone can credit card companies as well as other scams that prey on the unknowing. C- Health care and the right to choose: One of Newt Gingrich's talking points was in fact on Health Care. He had pointed out that offerings today for the elderly were limited in terms of choices 3 choices. He spoke about having 'real control' over your decisions. I assume he is suggesting having unlimited health care choices as a consumer. Its a good point, but as a health care plan seems rather casual: i.e - defer, and let free enterprise have it ? Cell phones are offered with a slew of choices in a similar manner. They also include extensive fees that show up unexpectedly on your bill. Credit card companies fee you too. Then of course, if you did want to switch contracts there is also a significant penalty so as to encourage you not to. In retrospect: The alternative offered in the Promise is a Government managed health care plan that is based on the Vermont plan,and which in addition sets a standard for the private sector to innovate through more competitive offerings. As much as Wall Street demonstrates innovation in dealing with any new SEC regulation, why can't the health care industry do the same, but with some regulation as not to extort the public ? In other words, to compel the health care industry to lower costs, while competing against a universal health care plan that can serve all by the Government. Additionally, in the way that our schools require community services from students, I also see no reason as to why private practitioners, given guidelines, cannot write off a percent of their services against their normal taxed income that are afforded to the economically disadvantaged. D- On Broken Systems: During his time at the Cooper Union podium, Newt Gingrich had commented many times over that the Government was a 'broken system'. It made me wonder if he recently had realized this, or actually belied that he was the visonary of a new realization to an out of touch audience ? Typically bureaucracy is the term used when referring to a broken system. But what Newt Gingrich had left out of his statements is that its sole purpose is to serve the people. I listened for Newt Gingrich's ideas about this, or in fact what he really meant by it; and then what solution or plan did he have at hand. There were not actual ideas presented. He seemed to only be seeking an agreement that it was a broken system, and to suggest perhaps that in his realization of it, that he was a fresh alternative for election 2008 ? In retrospect: one the most important parts of the our government is in the management of information. This is not intended to suggest abuse, loss of a citizens privacy, or that we all have some hidden dna profile with the government, but that the information systems themselves are fundamentally obsolete and not effective. With out a top down federal information systems plan, there is no way to fix a broken and dysfunctional information system, where the government as a result operates at a much higher cost to the tax payer than is needed. Example, consider reducing 65% of the cost of administrative over head; in other words, to operate the government costing only 35% of what it use to be just by the improvement of its information management. Further, until a effective information system plan is in place, government employees are limited in the ability to do their jobs which for its stated purpose is to serve the people. We can look at slashing needed programs such as education, health research etc, or improve the governments fundamental operation over all. A- Foreign Policy Lesson 1: Later in a sit down between the three on stage, Newt had demonstrated his competence in foreign policy. He used Iraq and N. Korea as examples. He first noted that the President is the commander and chief, and this is what our forefathers had intended with general George Washington when he was in the field. Newt suggested, that more currently that the President should at least have a direct report to him about matters in the field. In retrospect: I thought that this was a good idea at a minimum, as opposed to a president sitting in the dark, but believe that the 'Commander and Chief' , if having a laptop computer, and aided by a working Federal Information System, can get timely status directly from the 'boots on the ground' generals with out the information sanitizing that would go up the rank and file. This also obsoletes the 'plausible deniably factor' such as suggesting that the president can declare victory, where in reality would be throwing a nation into a civil war with our boots on the ground as one of its victims. B- Foreign Policy Lesson 2: Newt Gingrich had suggested his fix for a war with Iran. Actually I didn't know that we were planning on having one. He explained that if we were to bomb their one and only gas refinery, that in effect, they would run out of gas ! Possibility theory says that Newt Gingrich could be right about this. In retrospect: this could sound like a quick fix, where they would run out of gas. But then I considered the question 'what if some foreign power tried that with us ? ' National Pride' is a given for any nation. The recent movie '300' in its manner documents national pride in the event of 300 Spartans holding their ground against the overwhelming hordes of the Persian army. Also in history is Admiral Yi Sun Shin in the 16th century that led his tiny little navy to victory against the hordes of the Japanese navy due to national pride. Although Newt was a history teacher, we don't need a lesson more than the American Revolution to demonstrate that even today, that our own national pride would call upon us if under the same circumstances. Then the question for a Commander and Chief Newt Gingrich would be 'why to assume that the Iranian's in such a scenario, would be meek, and especially when they can shoot at one of our close allies in the Middle East, and then at our navy in the Persian Gulf with recently acquired Russian missiles'. Whats more, did Newt Gingrich figure in China's fond friendship with Iran: and also the fact that they our one of our largest lenders in funding our war in Iraq ? It would have been helpful to understand what Newt Gingrish really had intended in his remarks, and if in fact he had actually thought his quick fix all the way through in a way that a good commander and chief might. The President in addition to being a Commander and chief is also to be the Icon of world diplomacy. So then the question is why have a war with Iraq in the first place, if in fact a solution could be worked out that provides a strategic friendship between Iran's and the US ? Consider, The Defense System gives Diplomacy its Teeth, and Diplomacy provides Defense its Faculty of Reason. It is my view that the two are inseparable when engaging, or preventing needless wars, or in Pre-Emptive and Unilateral Actions . In the 21st century, strategically, we have to have economic solutions for world peace, but which have to first be built on mutual respect. This can only come from respecting others as we do ourselves. Iran in addition to national pride is a culture and like the US is a civilization. All civilizations are entitled to live in peace with each other. Newt Gingrich had noted, that Iran does have one gas refinery. This can be leveraged as one of many strategic solutions for that part of the middle east that can have collateral benefits in other parts as well. Consider that in the outskirts of a neighboring country, say just north of Iran we were to invest in building one to two more refineries. Then we could go to Iran and make the offer of refining their oil so they do not have such a cost in producing their own gasoline. Meantime the deal is that we get a discount on their oil - There are many solutions for the Middle East, such as even for Israel and Palestine, and for Iraq that should be considered as opposed to just dismissing. In fact it would be of strategic help to our nation in general, if the Commander and Chief, and the Senate and House worked collaboratively for the strategic needs of our nation as opposed to tossing a medicine ball of obstenance between the administrative and legislative branches of our government. C- Foreign Policy Lesson 3: North Korea for Newt Gingrich is led by an 'Evil' Do'er. Newt really did not elaborate on this, but to remiss that the Bush administration is talking currently with them. In Retrospect: I find it amazing when one points to the other in accusing them of being the evil one. Fundamentally, we are not Good and Evil, as it is not what we do as Good nor Evil, but it is in the collateral affects of what we do. Example: here Newt Gingrich has an opportunity to explore further economic solutions for the strategic future of that part of the globe and instead he would rather quote the Bible, and then wage war ? I would hope that he would want to offer our young people more than a limited future as being canon fodder in the name of 'on ward christian solders'. Consider what a visonary could really offer. South Korea is an up and coming economy, where to invest in it, you can easily start by going to its stock exchange that is located on the internet at http://sm.krx.co.kr . Since the US has borrowed a fortune from China, it is obvious that China likes making investments with their money. A shrewed visionary of a US President could encourage China to consider their economic interest in the area. As there is now the Euro, the Chinese Won is due to become an Asian equivalent. More over South Korea owes us this consideration, and besides their banks and stock exchange would probably love it too ! This can be transparently offered to both China and South Korea. It is in both of their best interests. What does not even need to be discussed with them is that business is simply business. In other words, North Korea, the proud little state becomes a cost to China where South Korea is an investment for them. Good business practices could offer encouragement to North Korea to also become an investment. Case in point, with a little encouragement from their big brother, North Korea can save face, retain its autonomy, feed its hungry, eventually offer its people their dignity, and then join the world a few years later. Thats without having to have a McDonald's there the way they do in China. In other words, North Korea can certainly follow China's economic model that started in 1980 which has made it into the economic super power that it is today. 
Orion Karl Daley Presidential Candidate for 2008 for the Strategic Future of our country Balanced Party http://unity2008.org |