Newt poked at the Palestinians yesterday, and the matter was rehashed during another debate between the GOP candidates. That’s the only interesting thing there is to report about the ABC moderated debate in Des Moines. I mean, there might have been more, but since transcripts are unavailable, I can’t tell.
You must have noticed how these presidential candidates are tripping over themselves to make nice with Israel and distance themselves from the “plight (or is it the blight) that never shuts up.” (You already know my position on foreign aid to Israel and to all the rest: NADA.)
Gingrich defended the controversial comments he made Friday, when he said the Palestinian people were “invented.” He said tonight that his statements were “factually correct.”
“Is it historically correct? Yes. Are we in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States — the current administration, tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process. Hamas does not admit the right of Israel to exist and says publicly not a single Jew will remain,” Gingrich said.
“It’s fundamentally time for somebody to stand up and say enough lying about the Middle East,” he said.
I will say that I am amazed at the love caucus goers are showing Newt and the disdain they’ve heaped on Romney. Leave aside politics and my own political philosophy; Mitt Romney is the better character (as in human being). But Americans hate success when it is combined with good looks, fidelity to family and faith—and when these traits belong to a man who is mild-mannered and contained and not given to Oprah-like abreaction.
A slimy statist slob like Newt; now that’s a candidate Americans can relate to. I’m sorry; I don’t get it.
Idiot alert: From the fact that I have mentioned Mitt’s character and carriage favorably, please do not deduce that I support his polices. The last does not follow from the first. If you are a newcomer to this space, do read my commentary before you implode at my impartiality.
I’m a paleolibertarian, not a Republican. I apologize in advance for offering a dispassionate opinion about Mitt’s character while not being a supporter of his policies. I know how confusing an impartial comment could be to many who’ve come of age in the “Age of the Idiot.”
UPDATE I (Dec. 11): “WHY COME YOU DON’T HAVE A TATTOO?” My apologies to all those who were offended by my comments above. However, I am sick of being forced into tribalism. Because I’m libertarian—with certain political allegiances and loyalties—I’m expected to refrain from offering an impartial analysis of the political and cultural landscape, if that assessment fails to favor “my side.”
This tribal logic (or rhythm rather) works as follows: If she supports Paul she must not say a good thing about Romney’s private persona.
Forget about it. Get used to being exposed to more that cheerleading for “our” side. You come here for analysis; get used to it. My assessment of the political and cultural landscape will be forthcoming irrespective of my political allegiances and loyalties.
People who can’t tolerate this remind me of the “tarded” doctor character in the film “Idiocracy,” when he discovers that his patient doesn’t have the tribe’s stamp of approval: a special tattoo.
Doctor: “And if you could just go ahead and, like, put your tattoo in that shit.”
Joe: “That’s weird. This thing has the same misprint as that magazine. What are the odds of–”
Doctor: “Where’s your tattoo? Tattoo? Why don’t you have this?”
Joe: “Oh, god!”
Doctor: “Where’s your tattoo?”
Joe: “Oh, my god.”
Doctor: “Why come you don’t have a tattoo?”
Next: Myron, are you on a liberal (of the leftist kind) binge today? With respect to your comments below: If the singular reason for political organization is pelf—the destruction, murder, robbery, and delegitimization of the relatively civilized entity adjacent to it—then, I would argue, a “people” does not have a right to organize. Or, at least, such “organization” should be disrupted by its victims.
Reality tells us that this is the reason for the Palestinian push for self-determination—the gains to themselves must always coincide with losses to their Israeli neighbors; loss of life, land, political legitimacy. By reality I mean their ACTIONS, political and other.
Second: The fact that Jews fought in the WW II, or on the South’s side during the War Between the States, for that matter—does nothing to invalidate or vaporize their biblical ties to Israel. Those ties are validated in reality, by the fact that certain Jews have revived Israel for the better, and at huge costs to individuals pioneers. The place was a no-man’s land before modern Jewish settlement commenced.
UPDATE II: PAUL BRINGS IT. Paul, who by the way agrees with me and called Romney “more diplomatic than Gingrich,” was presidential during the debate. I glean this from snippets the moron media screens. Here’s some script at last via The Liberty Tree:
It was Texas congressman Ron Paul who delivered the most substantive responses and drew the loudest applause.
Early in the debate Congressman Paul was asked to comment on Gingrich’s flip-flopping. “He’s been on so many positions on so many issues,” Paul responded, but drew attention to his own record, stating, “you might have a little bit of trouble competing with me on consistency.”
On the subject of Gingrich’s earnings from Freddie Mac, Paul said, “He was earning a lot of money from Freddie Mac while I was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from,” In a rebuke of the former Speaker, Paul added, “I think you probably got some of our taxpayers’ money.”