► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Newt Gingrich’

Mitt Romney’s ads taking toll on Newt in Iowa

by Phantom Ace ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Headlines, Mitt Romney, Republican Party at December 19th, 2011 - 4:33 pm

Progressive and Nativist Mitt Romney has launched ads smearing Gingrich. the result is Newt has lost support in Iowa.

CLEAR LAKE, Iowa — If Iowa voters are thinking about New Gingrich these days, there’s a good chance that one word in particular is coming to mind.

“Newt’s got a lot of baggage,” said Betty Peterson, an 85-year-old retiree in Clear Lake. If Gingrich were the Republican nominee, Peterson said, the Democrats would not “let it go.”

That word, “baggage,” came up frequently in conversations with Iowa voters over the past few days. In a few dozen interviews with Iowa voters, several repeated the line or some form of it.

Maybe that’s because it’s the refrain of an attack ad being run by a super PAC supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future.

If I were Newt, I would hit back Romney with ads attacking his actions at Bain Capital. Newt better fight back and soon.

The Headline and the Story Don’t Quite Match

by coldwarrior ( 79 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Politics at December 19th, 2011 - 8:30 am

Read the headline, then read what Newt actually said.

 

 

Gingrich: Send U.S. Marshals to arrest uncooperative judges

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich showed no sign Sunday of letting up on his assault on “activist” federal judges. During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings.

When asked by host Bob Schieffer how he would force federal judges to comply with congressional subpoenas, Gingrich said he would send the U.S. Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to arrest the judges and force them to testify.

Gingrich, who in recent weeks has surged to the front of the pack in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has come under fire from the left and the right for his attacks on the federal judiciary. Michael Mukasey, former attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, said some of Gingrich’s proposals were “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.”

Read the transcript of Gingrich’s exchange with Schieffer:

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this and we’ll talk about enforcing it, because one of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, the congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing. Some people say that’s unconstitutional. But I’ll let that go for a minute.

I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the capital police down to arrest him?

GINGRICH: If you had to.

SCHIEFFER: You would?

GINGRICH: Or you instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word “benediction” and “invocation”? Because before you could — because I would then encourage impeachment, but before you move to impeach him you’d like to know why he said it.

Now clearly since the congress has….

SCHIEFFER: What if he didn’t come? What if he said no thank you I’m not coming?

GINGRICH: Well, that is what happens in impeachment cases. In an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not — the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them. As a general rule they show up.

I mean, you’re raising the core question — are judges above the rest of the constitution or are judges one of the three co-equal branches?

 

Congress want to ask you some questions, you refuse, Congress may sen a law enforcement officer to come and get you. Pretty standard stuff there. Now does that match the headline?

 

I have no problem with this regardless. For some reason, the Judicial has become more equal than the other two branches. Often they can act with impunity because there are no real consequences for bad decisions.

We are closing in on the anyone but Obama nominee

by Mojambo ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Election 2008, Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney at December 16th, 2011 - 5:00 pm

The Knish analyzes the Republican candidates and thinks that Romney is more electable but that he (the Knish) would be more comfortable with Gingrich  in the Oval Office (particularly regarding Foreign Affairs). He also says that for all their faults, Romney, Gingrich,  and Perry would be far superior to Obama. That should be obvious.

by Daniel Greenfield

A year ago today few of us probably thought that the primaries would come down to debating whether Romney or Gingrich are more conservative. It’s a rather thankless and pointless debate currently being settled by cherry picking statements on single issues. The bottom line is that neither man is particularly conservative, certainly neither man is a small government conservative. But the odds of anyone like that getting to the finish line were never very good.

[…..]
Over the last several weeks we have gotten a thorough grounding in each man’s negatives. But we have also gotten a reminder of how each man got here. And we have gotten heavy doses of hysteria.

Gingrich and Romney are both widely hated. Gingrich is hated by the insiders, Romney is hated by the outsiders. As Speaker, Gingrich was a convenient way to make Clinton look better. Now he’s being used for the same purpose again, to make Romney look better. And Republican voters are being asked to choose which of the men they hate less. This is not a particularly good process for choosing a nominee. But it’s also how we have consistently ended up with poor nominees.

The game isn’t over yet. People still have a chance to unite around an alternative candidate. Perry is still hanging around looking for support. He’s marginally more conservative than Romney and Gingrich, but with a much lower profile on the national stage, it’s hard to say how much. Bachmann and Santorum are also still in the race and they may surprise everyone.

This is still an open process, which is why threatening third party runs or demanding that a candidate drop out of the race is unconscionable. If your candidate can’t win Republican primaries, then how is he going to win the general election? Particularly a three-way election.
[……]

Yes we are rapidly closing in on the “Anyone but Obama Nominee”. Whoever it will be will have major minuses. That’s life. If we can elect a right of center congress, then even a marginal Republican will do. If we can’t, then anyone is still better than Obama.

Back in 2008 the argument was that rather than voting for McCain, we should let Obama run the country into the ground for four years and radicalize the base. Mission accomplished. Obama has done more damage to America in four years than Fat Man did to Nagasaki in an hour. The base has been radicalized. And we’re still back at the table with the old McCain dilemma.

The people who told us to wait four years may now tell us to wait another four years. And then maybe another four, until a proper candidate stands for office and makes it to the nomination. Doing it that way is like trying to win a war by losing battle after battle until the right general comes along. The Union won the Civil War that way, but it doesn’t seem like the best strategy for the rebels.

Despite all his flaws, I think four years of McCain would have been much better for this country. I think four years of Gingrich or Romney or Perry will be better for the country than another four years of Obama. Anyone who wants to test that thesis can look back at the last four years and then imagine what they would have been like if Obama was a lame duck fowl.

Anyone who is unhappy with that choice, there’s no one stopping a Bachmann or Santorum surge. No one but the same conservative media that got us where we are now. And if that doesn’t happen, then we’ve still got the same calculations to make.

Romney is probably more electable. Gingrich is better on the issues. Gingrich currently seems better under fire but everyone keeps saying that he’s bound to implode. We’ll see. Romney hasn’t melted down either, though he has made some mistakes during the debates and in interviews.

On foreign policy Gingrich wins by a landslide. On domestic policy, Gingrich will go with his own ideas, which will have shades of Teddy Roosevelt to them. Romney will have his experts in the room to develop a centrist policy. The difference here is that Gingrich will go his own way, Romney will follow a practical variation of the liberal consensus.

Neither candidate is very conservative by Tea Party standards, both men are fairly conservative by the standards of the alternative. Anyone claiming that there is no difference between Gingrich and Romney and Obama except race is engaging in hyperbole. There’s no doubt that either man will do his own brand of damage and that the country will shift X degrees in the wrong direction, but it’s better than shifting Y degrees in the wrong direction.

Personally I like Gingrich well enough. I have no idea if he can get elected, he’s not the ideal man for the job, but he also bounced back from a trouncing by his own party, and won the debates without playing the ankle biter. He can speak intelligently about an issue and appears to think about them, instead of shoveling out a safe position. He isn’t afraid to take controversial stands or confront the invisible hand of the media.

Romney is probably a surer bet for winning the election, but, and this is not an endorsement, I would be more comfortable with Gingrich in the Oval Office, because when the 3 AM call comes in, I don’t think he’ll work out a consensus and then bring the least controversial response to the table.

[……]
We have seen Gingrich turned out for all the world to see and we know some of what drives him. Romney’s guts are still a mystery. When McCain tried to transform himself into a non-threatening smiling mannequin to win the election, he fumbled the ball badly. And yet I think the angry McCain, the direct to the point man would have done better. Romney doesn’t have those negatives, but he lacks positives. His only real appeal is a projected sincerity and a prospective electability. Is that enough? Who knows.

This is not going to be an ordinary election, but it has been a depressingly ordinary enough primary. We aren’t going to walk away from it with a man or woman that everyone believes in, but maybe we’ll walk away with a winner. It’s not much of a consolation prize, but there’s a joke about rather being right than being president. I would rather that the right man was president, but I will settle for any man other than the one already filling the office.

Read the rest – Anyone but Obama

Tom Friedman hits rock bottom, continues to dig

by Mojambo ( 171 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Conservatism, Elections 2012, Israel, Mitt Romney, Palestinians, The Political Right at December 15th, 2011 - 8:30 am

Thomas Friedman, a Communist Chinese admirer takes issue with Newt Gingrich’s and Mitt Romney’s support for Israel while he channels his inner Walt and  Mearsheimer. I have noticed that Friedman has become increasingly deranged (almost like Charles Johnson) as his inner Jew hatred starts coming out and Obama is exposed as the most anti-Israel president ever.

by Jennifer Rubin

Today’s Tom Friedman’s column has set off a firestorm. Now, he says and writes many wrong-headed things, about China and other dictatorial regimes, primarily. But today he hits rock bottom:

I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby. The real test is what would happen if Bibi tried to speak at, let’s say, the University of Wisconsin. My guess is that many students would boycott him and many Jewish students would stay away, not because they are hostile but because they are confused.You see, in Friedman’s eyes, the entire U.S. Congress is bought and paid for by a cabal of Jews.

Rep. Steven R. Rothman (D-N.J.) is the first elected leader to go on the record. He has released this statement:

Thomas Friedman’s defamation against the vast majority of Americans who support the Jewish State of Israel, in his New York Times opinion piece today, is scurrilous, destructive and harmful to Israel and her advocates in the US. Mr. Friedman is not only wrong, but he’s aiding and abetting a dangerous narrative about the US-Israel relationship and its American supporters.

I gave Prime Minister Netanyahu a standing ovation, not because of any nefarious lobby, but because it is in America’s vital national security interests to support the Jewish State of Israel and it is right for Congress to give a warm welcome to the leader of such a dear and essential ally. Mr. Friedman owes us all an apology.Others are weighing in as well. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams responds by citing recent Gallup polling that shows support for Israel is at an historic high. He writes:

[…….]
On Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats alike were fuming. A senior GOP adviser e-mailed me: “Bibi’s standing ovation in Congress was bought and paid for by the American taxpayers who overwhelmingly support Israel. They vote, they pay our salaries and they stand with Israel. Statements to the contrary can be chalked up to frustrated leftists who can’t understand why they stand alone.”

A Senate aide on the other side of the aisle put it this way: “Today, Tom Friedman did a cheap imitation of [Steven] Walt and [John] Mearsheimer as he charged that the ‘Israel lobby’ bought a congressional ovation for Bibi. If Friedman did actual reporting rather than opining from his anti-Israel perch at the Times, he would have learned that, in an otherwise polarized Congress, there is genuine, bipartisan support for Israel that reflects America’s heartland.”

The good news here is that, while Friedman’s views are ingested readily on the Upper East Side, he’s entirely irrelevant where it matters — everywhere else in America.

Read the rest – Tom Friedman, hitting rock bottom

The guys from Powerline weigh in

by John Hinderaker

Tom Friedman isn’t the worst of the New York Times columnists–not while Paul Krugman is around–but he is the most overrated. If Friedman has ever had an original thought, he has chosen not to share it with his readers. Unfortunately, the thinkers he recycles keep going downhill. Now he has come to the bottom of the barrel, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

In his current column, Friedman blasts Newt Gingrich for his “invented people” riff and Mitt Romney for saying he would move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a long-time Republican Party Platform plank. These criticisms are par for the course for Friedman, a loyal Democrat. But he goes on to bash, simultaneously, all of Congress, the “Israel lobby,” and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government:

[……]

I can’t explain the weird obsession that so many on the Left have with the “Israel lobby.” In some cases, it is transparently driven by anti-Semitism; Mearsheimer and Walt appear to fall into that category. But that diagnosis doesn’t seem to apply to Friedman. Maybe in his case, like so much that one reads in his columns, it is just a reflexive repeating of something he heard someone else say. But one hardly needs a nefarious “Israel lobby” persuading Congressmen–let alone bribing them, as Friedman claimed–to support Israel.

Israel enjoys broad support among the American people, and it is natural to see that support reflected in Congress. This graph from Gallup shows how Americans have answered the question, “In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?” from 1988 to 2011:

Support for Israel is strongest among conservatives, but the poll data suggest that it is likely the broadest bipartisan consensus that Americans share on any contentious issue. As for the claim that Congress has been “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby,” Jennifer Rubin notes the blowback from Capitol Hill.

Friedman’s thinking on this entire subject is hopelessly confused, as shown by his casual smear of Newt Gingrich:

That thought came to mind last week when Newt Gingrich took the Republican competition to grovel for Jewish votes — by outloving Israel — to a new low by suggesting that the Palestinians are an “invented” people and not a real nation entitled to a state.

Stop to consider that for a moment. Gingrich and other Republicans are “grovel[ing] for Jewish votes” by supporting Israel? How much does Friedman know about the demographics of America west of the Hudson? As of 2010, there were 6,190 Jews in Iowa out of a population of more than three million–0.2% of Iowa’s population. How many of those do you suppose are Republican caucus-goers? A few hundred? Then there is New Hampshire, where Jews represent 0.8% of the population; Republican Jews, a smaller proportion still. Or South Carolina, where a little over 11,000 Jews are sprinkled among a population of more than 4.5 million. And finally–I can’t resist this one–ask John Thune what he thinks about Israel. Thune represents South Dakota, home to a grand total of 395 Jews, which rounds to 0.0% of the state’s population.

Friedman is unable to think outside the crude boundaries of stereotype, but it is obvious that the GOP presidential contenders are not “groveling for Jewish votes.” Rather, they are reflecting the strong support of conservatives generally, and Christian conservatives in particular, for Israel.

It isn’t easy to display such comprehensive ignorance of a topic in the space of a 900-word newspaper column, but Tom Friedman has pulled off the trick.

Read the rest – Tom Friedman goes Mearhseimer and Walt