Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

You're hilarious. Thinkprogress? endoftheamerciandream.com? Come on, Jazz. You even lifted the thread title from Ron Paul's ad.

We agree on a lot of things, but not here. Of course Gingrich is an insider...that's one of his strengths. I'm not on board with refusing to vote for anyone that has Washington experience. In fact, a certain amount of political experience is necessary to deal with the bloated bureaucracy we have. Secondly, the first article merely parrots the liberal media's talking points...that Romney and Gingrich are "fake" conservatives. The fact is that they both ARE conservatives, they are just not hardcore libertarians like Ron Paul and his supporters.

Spoken like a true Ron Paul supporter. By the way, I'm not a Gingrich supporter.

Tell me...who does in your mind, other than Ron Paul?


Not really sure what that means. You mean to say that if the election was Gingrich v. Obama, you wouldn't vote for him? I definitely would. He's far better. It really just depends on the choice, which is all elections are.

I have no doubt that Newt Gingrich is a member of the Washington Establishment. I also have no doubt that having been in the public eye in 1976-78ish and having opined on all manner of subjects in a massive array of different contexts, that it isn't going to be hard to find times when he supported or opposed different concepts related to different legislation being proposed by different people. I have no doubt that he is far from perfect as a human being, that he is far from being perfect as a husband, father or even past politician. Earlier this year I wrote him off myself because his moves just reflected someone who had run out of ideas and who was hitting various pander buttons.

That said, I'd vote for the man in an instant and have come to believe that he represents to best hope Republicans and the nation have going forward.

Here's the reality. The powers that be, the vested interests, those departments that everyone wants to eliminate, the massive money and deals and departments that make up the government, I don't believe at this stage of the game an outsider can honestly dent them anymore. All those interests will be too busy running up the score while the outsiders are trying to figure out their head from their ass and how to score points.

Let me tell you something, I don't believe politicians stop being politicians just because they support things I want. People want government to do lots of things. Most people who are conservative live nothing like they claim. The level of dependency in this country is massive and we are so near the edge that it won't take much more to end this nation being the leader and top nation of the free world.

Everyone is going to have to give. Many social compacts are going to have to be renegotiated and many people on all sides are going to have to alter their expectations. This requires gamesmenship of the highest level and the best gamesmen out there is Newt Gingrich. He embarasses both the media and most other opponents not just because he has the best ideas but because he understands the game and plays it on a whole different level.

He understands the media game. He understands the political game and when it comes to getting huge or piecemeal legislation passed to fix this country, the former Speaker of the House will understand and be able to help fix the problems.

He's got my vote. I'm not going to hate on him for ever having made money nor will claims read across slow scrolling black and white photos alter my opinion on that.

It's sort of analogous to being someone like Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant. Would they be so great if they weren't such assholes and ball hogs? Is that part of what's right or what's wrong about them. When it's right it wins and when it's wrong it is a little ugly. It's a bit paradoxical but given what needs to be done, I'll take Newt any day of the week.

Actually that isn't at all how Obama got elected. I've never even thought Obama gave speeches well when he was reading them off the teleprompter. Obama isn't anything at all like a masterful debater and did not rack up any real points against Clinton who clearly hung on until the end of the primaries. He also clearly hasn't been able to understand nor navigate government. He had no major bills as a legislator and the only real victory we can ascribe to him in terms of legislation is Obamacare which has been terrible and will undoubtedly cost him the election while making everything worse.

Gingrich was part of the group that actually governed effectively at the federal level and better still, he can concisely explain whatever issue is being used to try to scare people. However there is a reality about how government works. Even if you support a strong military, when there is a weapons program that needs to be cancelled and the contractor wisely put subcontractors in 40 different states, that is a huge problem that will need to be tackled by someone who knows the arcane nature of how this stuff got put together in the first place.

Gingrich in no form or fashion has the media wrapped around his finger. He is just smart enough, likely due to taking his many lumps in the past, to beat them at their own game. They ask stupid, gotcha questions or presume their liberal worldview in both the question and answer and he understands and defeats that in a way lay people can grasp and understand.


This is exactly the sort of paradoxical leadership attribute and media understanding I'm talking about. What do the talking heads argue over, that he won't criticize others or that he shouldn't stay positive? Should they argue that as one of the top two candidates it is ridiculous for him to say he will be the nominee? It screws up their entire game. They are left arguing he should go negative to fix a problem he doesn't have.

He is Lucifer in disguise.He is a liar and a real hypocrite.This man is trouble watch out for him.

Oh stop with the sanctimony. You know the third party candidate wouldn't win, and you know that voting for that person is tantamount to a vote for Obama. It's a choice between two candidates, whether we like it or not.

Honestly, if there's any election in which a third party candidate has a chance, it's this one. Ross Perot made history, and this situation is much more of an opportunity for someone who comes in to break the idiotic thought pattern that says "a vote for third party is a vote for Obama".

If that's the case, great. But I suspect what you're really hoping for is Paul to run as a third party candidate. Doing so will hand the election to Obama, I guaran-damn-tee you.

And what if Paul wins?

Honestly, if Paul ran, even I would give him another look, weigh his policy positions against those things he wants to do but couldn't possibly get past congress, and see whether he's a viable alternative to the status quo.

That's reasonable. And don't get me wrong...I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for. He's consistent and is dedicated to the principles laid forth in the constitution. The problem always comes about 1 minute into his answer at a debate. That's the part where he goes over the edge. We're not going eliminate the federal reserve, or close all of our foreign military bases, or get a declaration of war every time we need to conduct a military action. We can't completely privatize everything (yes tonton, I just wrote that!). On the other hand, we could do with less foreign interventionism, much less government, and more freedom.

Are you even a real person?


Not only that, when is the last time a third party candidate ever won the presidency and if they did and since we all know it is really Congress that handles the heavy lifting, how would he get his agenda through with no party support?


I'd argue that the last third party candidate to make history was Nader who, as we all know, narrowed Gore's margins to give the election to Bush.

I'm sure you'll feel great if he decides to run against Obama this time around. Heck I'd bet there are some Republican organizations funding to put his name (or someone like him) on 50 state ballots as we speak.


Obama is so bad off at this stage that I suspect he would lose regardless of third party. I suspect it would be more like Carter, Anderson and Reagan in 1980


Paul won't win. He would at best do about what Perot did because that is the size of the paleocon mindshare in the United States. I say that as a person who has that mindset but has to deal with reality. The reality is that when 80% of people disagree with you about things like leaving every base abroad to bring all the troops home, stop policing the world and militarize our border to prevent problems, you have to still remember and deal with that 80%.


I'd say so if it gets you 100% of what you don't want instead of even 60-70% of what you do want. Maybe it's just a guy thing but you know those romantic comedies where there's always the "steady guy" and the "mysterious guy who's my soul mate but I know nothing about" and the choice is running away with mysterious guy, yeah, that doesn't fly in real life. In real life someone has to get something done and you can't get something done without help in Congress.


It hasn't gotten everything right but it also hasn't gotten everything wrong either. One quote I've heard often in variations (including from Gingrich) is that countries don't give out, they give in. I feel very much that we are in the midst, actually pretty far down along the trail of giving in. There's a problem though. To get people to change what they are doing, you often can't confront them with reality. They just defend their mistakes. You have to create a sort of semi-false positive feedback loop.

I use these sorts of words because to me they feel false, but perhaps to a profoudly underachieving person, it is their first sense of accomplishment or their first time no screwing up in a really long time. So when someone walks that first mile and their time is 25:00 minutes, that isn't really any sort of major achievement. It isn't much at all really but if a little lie got them to move, then they will be the ones who realize it isn't that big a deal and be able to go further. I know this stuff sounds crazy and paradoxical in many ways but then again, we all love a company that is contrarian but wins.


Yes but you live in a country where a record number of people are on food stamps, take their permanent social security disability and spend it on big screens and then go watch Jersey Shore. Changing this will require subtlety because even trying to get tomato sauce on pizza to not be declared a vegetable is now a major chore due to vested interests. Everyone giving a little is the first step and that isn't going to happen with a 100% my way or highway approach. The reality is that Gingrich can move major legislation that would be much closer to ideal and knows how to pedal it as much less than that to the media who want to paint even cuts in the rate of growth as killing grandma.


The principle isn't who can imagine the most right solution. The principle is who can get the best legislation passed and have a major impact.

On a continuum, that wouldn't be true but say what you want about it.


Lesser of two evils is just a nice platitude. The reality is that winning an election on a national scale to control the largest economy, army and 300 million people requires a broad base and a fair amount of cash. You can bemoan that fact but for now it is is true.


He represents the last time Congress came close to getting spending under control. He represents someone who will move the needle in the right direction. Understand that not only must we move it for those in agreement but those in disagreement and that means getting legislation passed and getting something moving. WHEN Republicans retake the Senate, hold the House and gain the presidency, they will be expected to govern. They need proposals that will garner 50+1% and that process is sometimes messy.


Our current predicament has happened because dependency is growing and massive. If someone can convince this larger and ever more dependent population to take a few steps back from the abyss, that's better than someone who'd rather watch the nation fall into that abyss to win an argument.


Fundamental based on what measurement. Are you saying if Gingrich somehow lopped a trillion off government spending but didn't manage to say, kill any Federal departments that it would be a failure? That is ridiculous. When you lead, people have to follow. If they won't follow then what good does it do you to scream they are wrong? Ron Paul and Libertarians have been trying to build a competing party for decades now. It hasn't garnered majority support nor anything near it. You can throw up your hands or help at least move the country towards conservative and then hope that once having done that they will be more inclined to move towards liberatarian.


It did indeed lead to that civil war. However it started with monarchy and once a large segment got a taste of freedom, they were willing to go to war to establish it as a right for everyone. If instead they had simply refused to compromise and remained stuck under a monarch, then who knows what would have happened instead. This is the same sort of bad reasoning that holds nations that have made progress responsible for their original sin instead of placing them far ahead of those nations that have never made the progress. People who say things like "How dare you condemn these Islamic nations when they throw acid at women and deny them rights, the U.S. has a history of XXXYXXXZ. The point is even if it was by fits and starts, with occasional steps backward, progress was made. Complaining that none of it counts unless all of it is done gets you nothing.

No, because you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.


And you'll sleep well knowing that your vote helped re-elect the biggest disaster of a President in history.


That is utterly ridiculous.


Buy your Obama reelection ball tickets early, then. It is what it is, Jazz. You'll have a choice between Person A or Person B. It's not voting for principles. It's voting for a person. You can pretend it's something else...but it's not.


Newt has been in public life a long time. He's changed his mind on several issues. When he's done so, he's provided the reasons that he's changed his thinking. As for Romney, your bias is showing. Romney has changed his mind on one issue that I know of....abortion. He's explained exttensively why he changed his position. He's not flopped on healthcare....in fact, he's defended his plan ad nauseam.


You didn't address his point, which was that Newt knows how to get things done, and is most definitely a step in the right direction--especially compared to one in which we are headed now.


That's not true either. Rick Perry and Herman Cain have proposed radically different tax policies, for example. Though a poor debater, Perry wants to slash the size of government. But Ron Paul goes much further. Again, I support a lot of what he stands for. I believe we should slash and burn the size and scope of government, for example. But on other issues, he's extreme. We're not going to completely dismantle the social safety net. We can't privatize everything. Government does have a role to play, it's simply that it's role is too big. Paul goes off the deep end with that principle, however.

It's not black and white. There has to be a certain degree of control to ensure law and order. Most of our political debates focus on how much control of this or that the government should have. But just everybody agrees it should have SOME.


Your charge that Gingrich is "corrupt" is totally baseless. There is no evidence that he's corrupt whatsoever. True, he's found a way to profit from his talents and somewhat from the system itself, but that's not corruption...that's called being smart.


Newt Gingrich offers "no substantive solutions." Gingrich is all about substance. If anything, he's too much about substance and not enough about delivery. He has a vast depth of knowledge as well.


Ron Paul's ideas sound great for about a minute...then you realize they'll never work or have a chance of being implemented to begin with. He talks about ending the Fed, but never says how this would happen or what it would look like for the average person. He talks about cutting a trillion dollars, but doesn't describe how he'd do it. He talks about reducing our overseas "empire," but doesn't talk about what bases he'd close and what our defense strategy would be under his plan. He opposes a border fence, but doesn't give a real alternative to controlling the border directly. That's because Ron Paul doesn't know. He's principled, but not substantive. And keep in mind, that's all before he really goes off the deep end and starts talking about cutting everything from Medicaid to the FAA.


I'm all for killing departments. That's where Paul has good points. Whether he could do it or not in another thing.


If you're talking about a primary, that's fine. But you must realize that by voting for Ron Paul, you're not voting for Ron Paul. You are voting for Obama, whether you like it or not.

We also have to avoid a major negative impact. Bush created the mess. Obama didn't fix it. The goddamned Republicans will go in and continue what Bush did to make it far far worse. At least Paul has a chance to fix some things, if we can keep him in check on the wacky bits.

And your 80% figure is delusional fiction.

We don't disagree on that point. The reality though is that the Federal Government is spending one out of every four dollars in our entire GDP. The guy who can get it to one out of every five is a winner for now versus the guy who wants to take it to one out of every three. The guy who wants to take it to one out of every twenty is best but doesn't do me any good if all the people collecting those dollars work to make sure he isn't elected. It's sort of like complaining about gun control not working. The people who follow the rules don't need gun control. The people who do need it don't follow the rules. Principles don't matter much when someone has a gun pointed at your head so you figure out the best route to keep yourself safe and improve the situation.



First Gingrich hasn't been found corrupt in any regard and while the Paul commercial alleges alot it doesn't offer much but slow moving images and large fonts. How has he personally profited? By possibly doing a little lobbying? While not my favorite endeavor it is still regular work and again I'll take it over Obama spending $800 billion with nothing to show for it any day. Ron Paul has about as much chance of making something happen as Dennis Kucinich.


You don't at all have to hit rock bottom. The recovery begins whenever you choose as does regaining control. That myth is no better than being a "suffering artist". A fat person doesn't have to be morbidly obese and having sleep apnea before committing to good health. Additionally plenty of people hit bottom and just die. They take their choices with them to the grave. The U.S. is in the best position relative to a very bad lot the world has cast right now. We have decent demographics with regard to population growth. Our immigration problems are with countries and cultures that adapt well to our own. Our institutions and personal behaviors need reform.

Europe has massive immigration from a culture completely incompatible with it. The native population is so far below replacement level that the native population will shrink by half while the largely Islamic culture will double.

Japan has massive demographic problems and they are far too racist to fix them with immigration. China is similar and on top of it still have massive peasant classes who will start starving and rioting if their economy were to ever grow slowly let alone stall.

The U.S. isn't in a great spot but it is better than most. If we can get a certain percentage of the Boomers to wake up, we can come out of this in a very good position. If not, well, it will be a nice race to the bottom and a gold standard or anything won't change that.


Who cares if they talk about it. Talk is cheap if it can't be acted on. The reality is that a bunch of base closures and slow downs in spending happened during Gingrich's time. The Soviet Empire was gone and I remember the base closings. The talk is of getting America in a reduced role from what we have been doing since the end of WWII. That is still headway and again, people can get support for it. You aren't going to find much support for bringing everyone home and doing nothing when Iran is on the verge of going nuclear as an example. You can't do one thing for 60 years and just flip it on a dime.


It doesn't matter if no one will pass the plan. That is really the point. I have a great plan for winning an NBA championship. My problem is no one will hire me as an NBA head coach. If someone has a plan even 60-70% as effective as mine and they are hired, they are magitudes of order more effective because making a good chunk happen in the world is better than being right on paper.


Who is they? If he's been talking 30 years and all he has is a bunch of people parroting a few ideas then that isn't a great track record. I'd rather have the guy who has made things happen.


What if he is capable of using language like CONSOLIDATE instead of kill and thus people who watch Jersey shore don't buy the like that they will be dead in a week in the street due to the evil bad people making things better? Message is important, especially when the media gives you a whole 90 seconds of air time in the debate or when they will lie and play upon any verbal problems to scare everyone.


If you aren't a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem. That is the very reasoning you are talking about. If your person can't get to a position to put into place a solution and you endorse that or it enables part of the problem, then you are part of the problem by your own reasoning.


You didn't compromise when you voted Bush. You made the best choice of those given. Eight years of Gore would have been far, far worse. Anyone who could get us back to $250-400 billion dollar a year deficits would be a big win in my book because right now they are a trillion plus. Do I wish he had kept the budget balanced and done more things right, absolutely. Would the alternative have netted anything better? I don't believe so.

Bush did not create the mess. The mess has been a long time coming and will continue regardless of who is elected next time. That is exactly why before he took office I correctly knew how Obama would act. (Remember our discussion on that thread.)

Neo-con is old liberal. We've had the same policies that created Pax Americana in place since the end of WWII. Bush had 9/11 happen on his watch but the supposedly good and noble Clinton had plenty of attacks, including a prior attack on the WTC happen on his watch as well. To say Republicans will go in and continue what Bush did when a Democratic House from 2006-2010, a Democratic President from 2008-2012 and a Democratic Senate from 2006-2012 having continued what Bush did is just as well is just lunacy. Was the Patriot Act repealed? Did we stop engaging in overseas war? What has changed, not even been fixed, hell just CHANGED?

Nothing has been changed by Obama and the Democrats. It wasn't that the problem was too big (for control of the entire Federal Government) to be addressed. The issue is they believe the same thing. If you'd pull your head out, you'd see that.

I pretty much agree with what you say here. But you miss the point. What have any of the republicans suggested that will make any change at all? Nothing.

We absolutely disagree on what created this mess, which you didn't touch on in your post (which is why I can agree with you).

This sounds a lot like you favor abolishing all laws. I find that to be extreme. Should we now have laws against murder, rape, incest, theft, assault, bribery and extortion because we "cannot legislate morality?" Maybe we should just trust the virtuous citizenry to not kill each other?


Those links are from biased sources...let's start with that. But putting that aside, they don't show "corruption." Some of them don't even make sense, such as when the thinkprogress article says that Gingrich cheated on his wife while battling the secular socialist agenda.


Now you're moving the goalposts. He offers substantive solutions. He can speak with authority and depth on any number of issues. If you don't like the answers he gives, that's fine. But calling him un-substantive is inaccurate.


Funny, because on his website it's not even mentioned.


I don't know if Newt would do it. The point is I'd trust him on fiscal issues (strike that...all issues) more than I'd trust Obama.


You can throw an tantrum about the system all you want, but it's the way it is. Come November, you'll have a choice between two candidates. You will have to decide who the best (or least bad) is. If you vote for Paul as a third party candidate, you will be deciding to vote for Obama again. So you can take your ball and go home, but don't blame me when President Obama knocks on your door and takes it.

So any law that is not in accordance with the NAP should be abolished? That is 1) never going to happen...ever and 2) probably not a realistic idea if actually implemented.


Then most of us are corrupt, because Fannie and Freddie propped up the economy for a decade. Beyond that, the fact that you don't like that Gingrich got substantial fees for his services doesn't add up to corruption.


True, no one can measure up to Paul's nutbaggery. The point is that saying he is without substance is absurd. You just don't LIKE the substance, which is fine.


Fair enough. Not sure how I missed it. I still say that Paul is less substantive than Gingrich.


Millions of people personally profited from "the mess." Anyone who bought a house and sold it before the real estate bubble burst personally profited. Anyone who borrowed money at low interest rates profited. Gingrich used his skill set, knowledge and connections and <GASP> MADE MONEY FOR HIMSELF. The horror!


Pardon me for this, but you are positively delusional on this point. I understand voting on principle, but I also understand acknowledging reality. If Paul runs as a third party candidate and you vote for him, you ARE voting for Obama. Bemoan the stupidity or ignorance of the electorate all you want, but that is just the way it is. You're clearly an intelligent person, and I think somewhere in your mind you must know this. I don't like it either, believe me...but it IS the truth. Vote for Paul in the primary. Campaign for him. Maybe this time he does have a chance at the nomination. If he wins it, I'll be happy to vote for him over Obama...without question. But don't give me this sanctimonious electoral martyrdom crap.

It isn't a false dilemma. It is the culmination of many choices made by many other individuals. The fact that your preferred choice wasn't among them means that choice represents a more narrow interest. The goal then should be to ponder how to advance the interests closest to that narrow interest and finally how to widen the number of people who hold that same interest.


They are being addressed. The people get the government they deserve. If they want better, they have to be more informed and care more. If they don't want to adopt those actions, then they get what that reflects. Disengaging from the discussion or tossing your vote into a non-contender camp just means when it is time to legislate, you are stuck on the outside looking in.

You can say that you were lied to or that you'd rather be on the outside looking in but here is the reality. Ron Paul isn't running to be the Libertarian nominee. He is running to be the Republican nominee. He doesn't register Libertarian, go to their convention and cast his power, clout and persuasion with that narrow interest. He goes within the big tent and tries to make a difference. The Republican Party is talking less about a social agenda now than at any time I can remember and it is likely the influence of guys like Ron Paul who have come into the big tent and participated rather than taken their ball and gone home.


I'd say that you are correct with regard to Compassionate Conservatism, Neo-cons and that wing of the party. There has indeed been a Rockefeller Republicans and will continue to be. There have been libertarian and paleoconservative wings of the party as well. The point is that leaving the big tent leaves that tent to the Rockefeller wing and then we end up with a center party with some right leanings aka what we got with Bush.


It is very clear that Obama is a hard leftist. A return to center-right while less than ideal would be far better than hard left. A return to a government policy of some subsidized health care for example instead of government run health care and $250 billion dollar deficits for some crony-capitalism instead of massive trillion+ dollar deficits with massive crony-capitalism, a return of claims of big oil for big money instead of big money for massive, fraudulent, unworkable alternative energy plans would be better than nothing.

I'm not claiming a vote for Newt would bring utopia or nirvanna. I'm not claiming he will set human kind above the human condition. I'd never claim that because I don't believe any person will deliver that. Better than what we've got now and probably better than the Republican president we had before is good enough for me and better still, it is real and workable.

My attitude..you mean seeing things as they are? Because that's all I'm doing.


I agree with that, with a caveat: Ron Paul won't win, so the discussion is academic.



I am quite in touch with reality, I assure you.

No, you're clearly not. You're looking at the issue as if you were writing a Mark Levin book, or perhaps a term paper. We are talking about reality. You're either going to get Obama, or the Republican candidate. That's what's going to happen, no matter how much you pray that Ron Paul can win as a third party candidate. That's your choice....Obama the disaster, or the Republican candidate, who will be better. Not great, but better. Sorry to break the news to you, but as I said, deep down I think you know I'm right.

I agree completely. You are largely preaching to the choir here with regard to where the country is and what we need to do. I think the difference is in thinking about not just what is needed and not just what we want but who can make all those other people want it as well and get them to take some steps toward the solution.


Obviously you feel lthat about Ron Paul and within the primary I would urge you to cast your vote for him and have your voice heard. If he doesn't win, then at that stage the number of candidates who will be able to make meaningful change will narrow as it the case with all elections when you go from primary to general. All these debates, elections, commercials are trying to help create a governing consensus and movement in a direction. It's hard to make that happen for 300 million people. Again, the choice will be yours. Join the consensus at some point or splinter off, leave the tent and wonder why the interests of the many end up working against you.

Understand I say this with no malice. I've been the guy my whole life with a few dozen extra I.Q. points on most adults when I was a kid, and most friends and family now. I'm a guy who bought real estate when most people were buying stocks and sold housing when most people said I was nuts because it would never come down again. (I was also the guy toasting their new patio/pool that they bought with the second but politely warning them that all the real estate would be worth half in two years.)

The thing I've learned is that being right is really the smallest part of the battle. The ability to persuade and inspire is the larger battle. I've also seen people who can lead and persuade adapt over time and end up ahead even if they have less than perfect ideas or a lower goal. The craziest part of all of this is part of Apple has shown us and that is that getting to a destination is itself a bit of a moving target requiring adaptation and occasion a bit of delusion and craziness. Part of winning becomes people believing in that entity as a winner and the feedback loop it creates. It can't be quantified or even completely explained.

For whatever reason Gingrich has shown it. Sure he has also shown the ability to blow it but the reality is he took a bunch of backbenchers, a minority party and united them for several years in a way that created a majority and that got the government to balance it's books. Paul has never done that even if in an ideal state, he would balance them quicker and better.

So to use your analogy, it isn't just that we are on the edge of a cliff, it is that there a millions of people hanging over that cliff who are on food stamps, wanting to work at the university forever espousing on poetry and oppression, wanting to be dependent. Gingrich moves and has moved that bar better than Paul. Those people have to come along for the ride. Something has to make them help climb out of that pit and start help pulling us away from the edge.

To put it another way, if the first string quarterback has a better arm but no one on the line will block for him and they would go to the mat for the second string quarterback, then I'll go with the second string because it isn't just about a man. The man is merely the top of a very large team that will all need to take action to help fix this country.

Stated more eloquently than my post. I agree completely.