In Newt We Trust - Or Not?

It appears that the Newt affect is already starting to wear off, not surprisingly given his position as one of the key "flip-floppers" in history. An interesting article in the New York Times (Story) today reports on all the inconsistencies emerging in his record on healthcare over the years, as his political positions abutted with the interests of his healthcare industry angels, often leading him to support policies that were opposed by Republican politicians. While I recently wrote an entry arguing against our absurd adherence to "foolish" consistencies in our politicians, it is troubling when someone who has used the government to line his own pockets and those of healthcare industry clients suddenly changes his tune merely because he is running for President. The obvious question that emerges is whether we really want another corporate-sponsored president after eight disastrous years of Bush continue to plague us.

On the flip side is the foolish consistency of Ron Paul's economics: NYT. As Krugman points out, Paul is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics, that both rejects the Keynesian approach (which saved us from the Great Depression and led to the longest sustained period of economic growth in American history from about 1948-1973) and the more popular Republican Monetarist approach (which focuses more on Money Supply and Inflation and makes full employment an unnecessary goal). Paul continues to spout this philosophy even after it has been proven wrong with the Monetary injection that occurred during the 2008 financial crisis that essentially saved the world economy from complete disaster. The Austrians and their acolytes (like Paul) claimed that this would lead to hyperinflation, like Zimbabwe, and thus destroy our economy from the other side. The reality? Inflation has been moderate and they were wrong. So given the choice between a madman, who keeps doing the same thing over and over again even if it doesn't work, and a cynical opportunist, I suppose I would take the latter. But why not just stick with someone who actually has some convictions?