printNewt 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.”
Your account of the difference between the characters of these two men is right on the money. I think though that you are wrong about why Republicans like Newt more, at least for the time being: I believe it’s because they think Newt is more Conservative. It’s about the policies.
Positively thinking, who ‘can’ be elected, & ‘best’ lead the United States of America through 2016? Regards, MM
[Ron Paul.]
Newt’s “history” of Palestinian nationhood is true but irrelevant. 500 years ago, many people thought of themselves as Bavarians, Braunshweigers, Prussians, Austrians, or Hanoverians and 70 years ago their descendents were all Seig Heiling Adolph Hitler. Many Israelis are the descendents of people who fought against each other for Austria or Italy or France … So yes, Newt, you are historically correct but people do have the right to organize themselves as they choose. However, since Palestinian “self-determination” insists of Israel’s extermination, I don’t think Israel will accept that.
Lester observes that people conceive Newt as “more Conservative” – but what then, is “Conservative”? The man is a consummate influence peddling global meddler, ethanol subsidizing, cap-n-trading, health mandating, bailout, education meddling busybody. He bubbles with all sorts of “ideas” on how to straighten out the world. Why not go with LIBERTY and let the world straighten out itself?
Frankly, I see Newt as more a babbling Obama for the white country club set.
Jon Stewart did a good takeoff on the 6 Republicans who went suck-up in front of the Republican Jewish Committee (which banished Ron Paul). I will have to send the link.
I don’t get why Newt is not being destroyed by the media. They hated his guts when he was in Congress, and now they are treating him with a certain amount of respect. Maybe it is because he is a liberal, globalist, and an advocate of the new world order. Plus, he worships FDR and Teddy R. Maybe I just answered my own question.
Thanks for Ron Paul update Ilana! Now we have a goal in mind. Your verbal ‘spankings’ require no apology. The individual should appreciate historical ‘societal’ facts, & ‘pop culture’ political analyis. ‘Mercer-isms’ might influence some to realize the importance of the 2012 Presidential election. PS. Barbara Simpson at KSFO is an impressive moderator/ journalist! [She is amazing.]
@ IM – great answer to Mark
Newty is Not a great debater , He is great at pontificating & running his jaw & makes so many either misleading or outlandish very hard to believe statements most anyone one could pick him apart, especially in a one on one debate as we will have after the primaries !
In 2000 W was portrayed as such a terrible orator that you would have thought they would have had to push him on stage in a hospital bed hooked to a IV in order to debate some one LOLL !!! Gore was supposed to be the worlds best debater , W won the debates just for walking up to the podium without injuring himself !
Same with Newty Vs. Obie , Obie will win by just showing up , because Newty has been artificially raised above Pluto heights in debating skills !
Here is the video of the answers The Next President of the United States, Dr. Ron Paul delivered in Iowa last night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-3QJL6IiNYo
Also word on the street is the Hermanators support in Iowa is getting split between Paul & Bachmann … Stay Tuned !
Ilana,
In regards to Palestinians, is there a distinction between Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Moslems or does the Arab race trump these distinctions? Is it true that at one time, Palestine’s population was as high as 25% Christian? Are the Christian Bishops in Palestine more favorable towards the Israeli governmnt or the Palestinian authority? I ask because I would trust your judgement in these matters much more than I would trust the platitudes of Newt Gingrich.
Here’s Jon Stewart on the suckup fest at the Republican Jewish Committee which exercised the Paul Exclusion Principle and banished Ron Paul:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-8-2011/the-matzorian-candidate?xrs=share_fb
Certainly, Jewish identity is 3000 years old as opposed to “Palestinian nationhood” but German, Italian, Croatian, and Slovakian nationhoods are relatively recent constructs. However, you don’t see too many Thracian, Medean or Burgundian nationalists around these days. Judaism has endured 2500 years of exile, pogroms, Holocausts, inquisitions, etc. and survived.
Whether “Palestinian Nationhood” existed in 1917 doesn’t impact how 3 million inhabitants of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria CURRENTLY think – which, arguably, is a superposition of idiotic beliefs that (mainly) Moslems living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean sea have concocted out of victimization, Jew hatred, Islamic Jihadism, and Arab Nationalism into a “Palestinian Nationalism” since the end of the Ottoman Empire (via the Mufti, Arafat, etc.). It certainly appears that these beliefs have become thoroughly embedded into these “Palestinians” for the last few generations.
The debates: Ron Paul is true to his Constitutional oath and to limited government while the others basically “wing it” with a hypocritical “welfare-state Global-interventionist conservatism” that is about as much an ideological concoction as Palestinian Nationalism.
Ron Paul is ONIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Newty Selling Access
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdqGKA782A&feature=youtu.be
Dr. Ron Paul The Next President of The United States !
[Too long; I lost interest. Ads need to focus on Paul first, not last.]
That is the Internet version , it will be cut down to a 60 second ad for radio/TV just like the serial hypocrisy ad was !
Good point on the focus on Ron 1 st !
Thank you, Myron. You spoke well. Persians, Egyptians, Turks, Greeks, Romans, Indians and Asians have been around a while too. I hope the Israelis are not putting all their eggs in the American basket of Romney/Gingrich, or Obama/Biden. These types have never met an issue they could not change their mind about.
It’s Game On!
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html
Ron can win this … Think It Live It !!!!!!!