Archive for Newt Gingrich

A Modest Propsal

To show the Afghan people we mean no hard feelings, how about we burn other holy books that have already been defaced by messages of hate? After all, the Korans in question had been defiled with terrorist code or calls to jihad or some other message at odds with a Religion of Peace™.

I’m sure if we asked around at various churches and synagogues, we could come up with a few Torahs and Bibles that have the verbs “knew” and “lay” underlined, or some other juvenile graffiti. (The next Judeo-Christian holy book I see calling to kill all the Moslems will be the first.)

Everything should be included: the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Book of the Heavenly Cow, the Shabuhragan, Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy, Dianetics, Avesta—everything but the Kama Sutra. Don’t touch that.

But only damaged or otherwise useless copies. That way, we show our Islamic homies that we didn’t mean no disrespect to their Main Man, Allah, and his First Officer, Muhammad. It’s all good. We can even roast hot dogs over the fire (better make that marshmallows).

This, on the other hand, is degrading:

“It is an outrage that President Obama is the one apologizing to Afghan President Karzai on the same day two American troops were murdered and four others injured by an Afghan soldier. It is Hamid Karzai who owes the American people an apology, not the other way around.”

Gingrich added, “This destructive double standard whereby the United States and its democratic allies refuse to hold accountable leaders who tolerate systematic violence and oppression in their borders must come to an end.”

Preach!

PS: Jay Carney offered our “severe” apologies. WTF is that?

Comments (1)

Gingrich Makes Sense


He’s talking my issue folks – media bias.

- Aggie

Comments

Sometimes a Juan is Just a Juan

I realize Chris Matthews has to stay relevant—I guess that should read “try to become” relevant—but seriously?

A big moment of last night’s debate came when moderator Juan Williams and Newt Gingrich argued over Gingrich’s comments that many have seen as condescending towards blacks. However, Williams really should have been offended due to Gingrich’s incredibly insensitive pronunciation of the word “Juan.” At least, that’s the opinion of Chris Matthews who accused Gingrich of a racial motive in the way he used Williams’ name.

“That use of the name ‘Juan,’ the way he did it. You can’t argue these things. You either see them or you don’t. It’s just the way he did that. I sensed a little applause when he said ‘Let me help you’ when he answered the Juan question. It’s in the eye of the beholder. And, by the way, calling someone a racist is the worst way to get them to stop being racist because everyone gets defensive. … So it’s stupid to say it but, honestly, if you notice it, you sort of ought to blow the whistle. Because there is a dog whistle going on here.”

Again with the dog whistles! Liberals are obsessed with them.

Scary, huh? But with apologies to Chris and Janeane, the whole point of dog whistles is that only dogs can hear them. And my experience with dogs is that they don’t listen to them much either.

Comments (1)

Gingrich At His Best

- Aggie

Comments

Republican Candidates Confront Media Bias

What is the difference between media bias and out-and-out racism? Hasn’t the media selected one part of the population (conservatives) and treated them unfairly, gone out of their way to make sure that they cannot get ahead? Haven’t they spread lies and innuendo?

ABC News commentator George Stephanopoulos directed pointed, hard-edged questions to Republican presidential candidates during Saturday night’s New Hampshire debate, often attacking without providing evidence to justify his broadsides.

When questioning former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Stephanopoulos, a former senior advisor in the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton, premised some inquiries on the assertion — offered without supporting facts — that Romney’s job-creation statistics were inaccurate.

“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”

“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”

Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.

In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.

“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.

Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”

Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.

“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception,” Romney responded. “No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.”

The audience applauded.

As everyone knows, I believe that this is a serious problem in our society, because I believe it has the potential to tear us apart. If you go to the link, Gingrich had some good things to say about it, referencing the fact that the State of Massachusetts has shut down Catholic Charities adoptions, apparently. But the actual details are far less important than the underlying desire to pick a team, rather than simply to help the public learn about the candidates, report facts, etc. We’ve lost something here. The current administration is working diligently to weaken the separation of powers, and the media toils day and night to slime anyone who points this out.

- Aggie

Comments (5)

Gingrich: Palestinians Are An Invented People

BTL referenced this below;here’s a snippet (followed by a long ad, unfortunately).

A lot of liberal Jews will work for Obama as a result of this, but as many or more will work for Newt. It bodes well for his chances in Florida.

- Aggie

Comments

An Inconvenient Newt

Newt may say some pretty crazy things sometimes—and then not others:

“I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state,” Gingrich said on The Jewish Channel. “Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, who are historically part of the Arab community.”

He added: “And they had a chance to go many places and for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s. I think it’s tragic.”

His comments, seemingly off the path from United States foreign policy supporting a two-state solution in the Middle East, come days after Gingrich attended the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington, D.C. and as the current crop of GOP candidates compete for the GOP Jewish vote.

Describing the Middle East peace process as “delusional,” Gingrich placed heavy blame on the Palestinian Authority and the role of Hamas, the ruling political party in the Gaza Strip, for the ongoing unrest.

“Both of which represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel,” Gingrich said. “I think there’s a lot to think about in terms of how fundamentally you want to change the terms of debate in the region.”

Romney’s response?

“I’m not sure that kind of statement gets us any closer to accomplishing an agenda,” said Mary Kramer, former U.S. Ambassador to Barbados and Romney surrogate.”

Without taking sides (I’ll vote for either guy over Obama), does that not typify Romney’s reputation as cold-blooded technocrat? Israelis are taking missile fire right now—while all of us are in are jammies, sipping hot cocoa—and this former ambassador to Barbados talks about “accomplishing an agenda”, as if the world can be managed like a board meeting.

Tough assignment, Barbados, where the hardest decision is between SPF 30 and 50.

If Gingrich were elected, and John Bolton were his Secretary of State, there really would be a change in the terms of the debate. And I, for one, would be more hopeful about peace.

PS:

Gingrich sharply criticized the Obama administration’s approach to Middle East diplomacy, saying it is “so out of touch with reality that it would be like taking your child to the zoo and explaining that a lion was a bunny rabbit.”

Comments (2)

Would Gingrich Really Move US Embassy From Tel Aviv To Jerusalem?

Every Presidential candidate in memory has promised this, and each has declined to do so once in office. I will vote for him based on this promise, but if he fails to deliver, it will be the last vote I cast for him.

Newt Gingrich told a gathering of Jewish Republicans Wednesday that he would name former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton to be his secretary of state if elected president, and would immediately move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Mr. Gingrich showed his trademark flare for provocation as he spoke at a presidential candidates’ forum sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition, pledging not to let President Barack Obama dodge his invitation to debate and invoking Mr. Bolton, who advocates an interventionist foreign policy and hawkish stance toward Iran, a longtime antagonist of Israel.

All good, but Obama made similar promises. As did Carter, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Reagan, etc. I’m sick of politicians.

Here’s more:

But Mr. Gingrich has shown himself to be attuned to issues that may be obscure to the general election electorate but resonate with some conservatives. He accused the Justice Department of “an outrageous denial of truth” for pulling back law-enforcement training material that said mainstream American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers.

And he condemned the State Department for “censoring any anti-Islamic conversation,” apparently a reference to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s invitation to a Saudi-based group to attend a conference next week to build what the department called “muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance.”

“We are morally disarmed by a State Department incapable of articulating the cause of freedom,” he told a packed crowd that gave him repeated ovations.

I am betting the elderly Jews in Florida and elsewhere feel really, really burned by Obama and the whole Schlep to Florida campaign, where young adults convinced their grandparents to take a chance with Israel’s future. (And their own, as it turns out. Hope ‘n Change is a nightmare for young adults). A lot of those people will vote for Gingrich. Romney isn’t clear about Israel stuff – intentionally, I think – so Gingrich will probably get their votes. No one cares about his marriages. They all voted for Clinton, right? But how does this translate into the general election? Obama is such a total disaster, I just wish we could run Superman.

- Aggie

Comments (5)

Gingrich, Romney

Karl Rove expresses real concern about Gingrich

…In the short run, Mr. Gingrich must temper runaway expectations. For example, his lead in the RealClearPolitics average in Iowa is 12 points. But what happens on Jan. 3 if he doesn’t win Iowa, or comes in first with a smaller margin than people expect?

That could happen in part because Mr. Gingrich has little or no campaign organization in Iowa and most other states. He didn’t file a complete slate of New Hampshire delegates and alternates. He is the only candidate who didn’t qualify for the Missouri primary, and on Wednesday he failed to present enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio. Redistricting squabbles may lead the legislature to move the primary to a later date and re-open filing, but it’s still embarrassing to be so poorly organized.

Organization truly matters, especially in low-turnout caucuses. Four years ago, for example, 118,917 Republicans turned out in Iowa—and only 424 votes separated the third- and fourth-place finishers. The total turnout was considerably less than the 229,732 Iowans who voted in the GOP primary for governor two years later. Being organized in all 99 Iowa counties means more people can be dragged to caucus meetings who might otherwise stay home on a wintery eve, believing their vote doesn’t matter.

Mr. Romney’s campaign prides itself on being well-organized, and not only in states voting in January and February. His war chest is also bigger than that of any other contender, and his team is ready for the long march.

Still, better organization and resources are not enough. Mr. Gingrich has shown in the debates that the quality of message matters. Mr. Romney will need to step his up if he is to prevail.

His speech on Wednesday to the Republican Jewish Coalition is an encouraging sign for his supporters. He defined the general election as a big choice between President Barack Obama’s social democratic radicalism and Mr. Romney’s agenda of limited government, economic growth and conservative reform. He offered contrasts with the new front-runner, implicitly endorsing Congressman Paul Ryan’s call for bold changes in Medicare that Mr. Gingrich earlier rejected as “right-wing social engineering.”

In presidential primaries, as in life in general, we often learn more about people when they face adversity. Voters want candidates to struggle and earn the right to represent their party.

So, on the one hand we’ve got a guy with shockingly poor organizational skills – and believe me, the Obama campaign will be organized – and on the other hand we’ve got a guy who was born without a personality. What do we do?

Will Gingrich self-destruct, making it easy for us?

- Aggie

Comments

Here Come Old Flat Top

Don’t shoot the messenger:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Last week, Gingrich trailed the president by six. Two weeks ago, he was down by twelve.

After dalliances with Bachmann, Perry, Cain, et al, Gingrich is the last girl at closing time. You may not want to think about where his organ has been (that’s his brain, you sickos), but he’s better than the alternative. We’re a month away from the first vote being cast, but Gingrich leads in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida—and coming on strong in New Hampshire. I’ve referred to Romney as every Republican’s third choice (being charitable), but Gingrich barely cracked the top five. But if he can beat Obama, he’s looking a lot better to me than he did earlier. Less Helen Thomas, more Bar Refaeli.

And I wonder if this might not be Romney’s Waterloo:

Here’s the sort of “uncalled for,” out-of-left-field word grenade that Bret Baier was lobbing at poor defenseless Mitt Romney:

BAIER: About your book, you talk about Massachusetts healthcare. We’ve heard you many times, in the debates and interviews, talk about how it is different in your mind than the president’s healthcare law, Obamacare. The question is, do you still support the idea of a mandate? Do you believe that that was the right thing for Massachusetts? Do you think a mandate, mandating people to buy insurance is the right tool?

Romney’s reply: “Bret, I don’t know how many hundred times I’ve said this, too. This is an unusual interview.” Actually, if there’s any criticism to be made of Baier’s questioning, I think that’s it — not that the questions were “uncalled for” but that they were a little too called for because they cut right to the heart of conservatives’ concerns about Romney. He’s been asked this stuff a thousand times on the trail. But the repetition is inevitable and even necessary when he’s stuck at 25 percent in the polls with Iowa 34 days away. There’s a reason for that, and Baier’s giving him a chance to address it. Another example:

BAIER: Like the “Union Leader,” your critics charge that you make decisions based on political expediency and not core conviction. You have been on the both sides of some issues, and there’s videotape of you going back years, speaking about different issues, climate change, abortion, immigration, gay rights.

How can voters trust what they hear from you today is what you will believe if you win the White House?

That’s a perfect distillation of the right’s objection to Romney. How is he not supposed to ask about it? How is Romney not expecting it? What was he expecting from this interview?

This is FOX, and it’s Romney’s chance to explain himself to conservatives. Instead, he whines and cavils. I’ve given Romney the benefit of the doubt. I’ve assumed that he has answers for these challenges at the ready. If he doesn’t hear them in the primary (and he does), he’ll certainly hear them, amplified, in the general.

And this is how he responds? I’ve assumed too much.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »