naykdpoet

To anyone keen on global politics, the Republican Party presidential nominee primaries has to be at the top of the chart of things to watch and listen.

To date the campaign has been a roller-coaster ride with each of the original field of eight candidate hopefuls having their `kick at the can’ as favorite with the exception of media cast underdog: Ron Paul.

Exiting the most recent primary of South Carolina it would appear of the remaining four: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingerich, Rick Santorum and last but not least, Senator Ron Paul; Newt Gingrich seems the flavor dejour .

Gingrich’s South Carolina win comes as somewhat of a surprise though rumored leading up to the day of voting as likely to unseat rival Mitt Romney who won New Hampshire and seemingly tied with Santorum in Iowa.

As observer to the 2012 GOP nomination process, what is increasingly disturbing, listening to the rhetoric of the three candidates as each takes turn basking in the spotlight of Republican delegates amour, is the unabashed `call-to-arms’ when discussing the perceived Iranian nuclear program. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate countering the `war-mongering’ position.

By virtue of Romney, Gingrich and Santorum sharing the spotlight if not momentarily, as front runner, what is most alarming and should be of concern to everyone around the globe, is the unanimous support suggested by Republican voters support of continued United States hegemonic and interventionist foreign policy and anti=Islamic propaganda. It is as though a significant segment of US citizens have amnesia when it comes to starting war in the Middle East and their cost to life and treasury.

As stated, Newt Gingrich won South Carolina taking 40 percent of the votes cast against Romney’s 28 percent; Santorum and Paul taking 17 and 13 percent, respectively.

With a commanding win by Gingrich,, with the real potential that he be elected 45th President of the United States, it would be intriguing to know more of his political track-record.

Not surprising, Internet search results are more commentary on his marital misgivings then his politics however, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) [http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Gingrich_Newt] provides a detailed analysis of Gingrich’s path to present glory.

A review of Gingrich’s rise through the mine-laden chasm of politics, it can only be conclude that, despite a concern for Gingrich’s erratic nature and inconsistency in setting policy, the overwhelming concern for all people, should be his stated willingness to pursue military solution to threats and foes to the United States – unilaterally and without consent of its allies if necessary.

The current, greatest threat to world stability is the quagmire of the Middle East: the powder keg being Iran, the fuse Israel, the match, the Untied States. That said, a Gingrich quote taken from the ISP web-site: “waging war against us since 1979,” he has explicitly espoused an emphatic regime-change line, telling CNN in October 2011, “Our goal should be the replacement of the Iranian dictatorship.” should give pause to everyone when considering Newt Gingrich for President.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the United States electoral populace is more then split on issues of policy both domestic and foreign, they are `scattered’. There are many important and relevant issues by which to divide the electorate, namely: declining economy, rising unemployment, financial crisis in the national debt and, foreign policy related to impending war with Iran to name the most significant. However, what is most telling about the state-of-mind of the voting public and reflected by the main-stream-media is the blatant and obvious disregard for the one candidate most consistent in his platform to address all of these issues is Senator Ron Paul.

To an outside observer it is increasingly difficult to understand how the erratic, vacillating, egregiously blatant lying and, documented ‘flip-flopping’ on policy and other matter by the three leading candidates versus Ron Paul’s consistent and grounded platform, does not permeate with a greater majority of voters then he now enjoys.

Though many find Ron Paul’s platform a radical shift in American doctrine both domestic and foreign, confidence should be garnered from at least knowing what he stands for and what he would do as President unlike his opponents whom have demonstrated conclusively their fallibility of consistency and willingness to acquiesce to pressures imposed by Lobbyst over the interests of the citizens of the United States and the balance of the World.

In conclusion, considering the performance of the Obama administration over the last three-plus years in Office and, the President’s obvious departure from the platform on which he was so stridently elected; should any of the three leading Republican contenders ultimately become the 45th President, seems almost irrelevant. The four years following the January 20th, 2013 inauguration and potentially beyond, will undoubtedly be filled with strife, tension, impending if not full-out conflict that will continue to erode any possibility for sane, peaceful well-being for all people, throughout the World.