Stories #1 thru #3 are about the new front runner in the Republican field, Newt Gingrich. #1 tell us why Gingrich will get the nomination. #2 has two videos with Newt testifying about Climate Change. Finally #3 talks about the latest polls and Gingrich. #4 relates how the Young Communist League has declared the need to reelect Barack Obama. #5 tells of a White House official who seems to have some doubts about Obama’s chances of reelection. In #6 President Obama asks for more time to ‘fix’ America. We then change types of stories and look at the difference between sophistication and clarity. It seems some think nuance is better than explaining something clearly. Or perhaps they simply want to pretend to know more than they do. #7 discusses this. We move to foreign affairs in #8. It appears Iran is under attack as they try to become a member of the nuclear club. Are Iran and Israel already at war? #9 is our final story regarding Obamacare. We’ve passed it. We now are seeing what is in it. And it isn’t very good.
1. Why Newt will Win
…Gingrich is also a different kind of animal than any of the other contenders who’ve risen to the top slot. The people who supported him did so knowing he had baggage. Newt had affairs before he converted to Catholicism. Newt has also taken some positions in recent years that aren’t doctrinaire conservative. So, most of these people are unlikely to be swayed by pointing out Newt’s baggage or positions he took that they disagree with because that was baked in the cake from the beginning when they supported him.
Moreover, Newt is inoculated against charges that he’s not a conservative because of his accomplishments. This is the guy who led the first GOP takeover of Congress in 40 years. He came up with the Contract with America. He helped balance the budget, made welfare reform happen, and worked hand in glove with Reagan and Bush as they took the Soviet Union apart. Other than Ronald Reagan, no one has actually accomplished as much for conservatism in D.C. over the last 40 years as Newt Gingrich — and despite the complaints about his leadership, there certainly has been no one since who has even come close to filling his shoes in Congress.
Worse yet for Mitt, the “not electable” charge won’t hold against Newt either. Although polls this early don’t mean much, Rasmussen currently has Gingrich up 45% to 43% over Obama with likely voters. That should be good enough to convince people that at a minimum, Newt is as electable as Mitt….
Newt is an appealing candidate because he is so bright and articulate. In addition, his dirty laundry has already been put out there so there won’t be much the Democrats will be able to sling without people thinking, so what else is new. Finally the revelation by his daughter Jackie about what actually occurred when Newt visited his estranged wife at the hospital (she is alive and it was she who filed for divorce months before the visit) takes off the biggest negative. In fact, Gingrich more than any other Republican is more or less bullet proof this election.
2. Newt on Climate Change
Mixing it up with Representative Waxman
I especially liked when Newt lectures Waxman on not considering the American public the same as foreign dictators. Slam dunk.
3. Gingrich Grabs Huge Lead in Florida
IN FLORIDA GINGRICH IS AT 47% TO 17% FOR ROMNEY, 15% for Herman Cain, 5% for Ron Paul, 4% for Michele Bachmann, 3% for Jon Huntsman, 2% for Rick Perry, 1% for Rick Santorum, and 0% for Gary Johnson....
In addition to his support for the nomination, Romney's personal popularity is down too. His Florida favorability was +43 (65/22) and it's declined 28 points to +15 (51/36)....
THE BIGGEST REASON FOR NEWT GINGRICH'S RISE IS THAT HE'S PICKED UP THE VOTERS OF HERMAN CAIN AND RICK PERRY AS THEIR CAMPAIGNS HAVE FALLEN APART. But these numbers make it pretty clear he's doing more than that- some of Mitt Romney's '25%' is starting to fall off and move toward Newt as well.
THE MAGNITUDE OF GINGRICH'S LEADS NOW IS AN INDICATION THAT HE'S APPEALING TO EVERY SEGMENT OF THE REPUBLICAN ELECTORATE. He's up with the Tea Party in both states (53% to 24% for Cain and 7% for Romney in Florida, 42% to 18% for Bachmann, 13% for Cain, 10% for Paul, and 5% for Romney in Montana.) But he's winning over party moderates as well (33% to 22% for Romney in Florida, 31% to 17% for Romney in Montana.) GINGRICH'S FAVORABILITY IN FLORIDA IS 72/21 AND IN MONTANA IT'S 65/23. YOU DON'T ATTAIN THOSE KINDS OF NUMBERS WITHOUT HAVING A LOT OF APPEAL TO EVERY FACTION IN THE PARTY….
This is a PPP poll (democrat poll). There is no doubt that Gingrich appears to be the strongest candidate against Romney.
4. Young Communists in the USA declare for Obama
While addressing a gathering the international communist front World Federation of Democratic Youth, in Lisbon Portugal, November 10, 2011, YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE ORGANIZER LISA BERGMANN, BOASTED OF COMMUNIST LEADERSHIP IN THE US “OCCUPY” MOVEMENT AND THEIR DESIRE TO HARNESS THE MOVEMENT TO THE RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.
So far Obama has been endorsed by the Young Communist League, the KKK, and the American Nazi Party. I’m thinking we won’t see those endorsements in any of the Democratic ads in 2012.
5. W.H. Associate Director Doesn’t have Much Confidence Obama will be Reelected
President Obama “has been pretty clear” in his support for big-ticket items on the homosexual activist agenda – like trying to repeal the "so-called" federal Defense of Marriage Act -- according to a top White House liaison to the LGBT community.
But now, “IN WHATEVER TIME WE HAVE LEFT” IN OFFICE, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONCENTRATE ON LESSER-KNOWN ITEMS ON THE LGBT ACTIVIST AGENDa – including HIV/AIDS and helping homeless transgendered teens, Gautam Raghavan, associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, said Tuesday night.
They have until January 20, 2012.
6. Change: Obama asks for More Time
Barack Obama asked voters yesterday to keep believing in the 'hope and change' he promised in 2008, saying he needed more time to turn America around.
But the President admitted it was 'tempting to believe that change may not be as possible as we thought.'
His plea came as Occupy Wall Street protesters began to turn on him, with dozens of demonstrators calling for a stop to re-election politics and economic inequality.
At a series of fundraisers in New York, where he raised a reported $2.4million for his campaign and those of other Democrats, Mr Obama acknowledged frustration over the stalemate in Washington which has soured views of his leadership.
'It has been three wrenching years for this country,' said Mr Obama, who said he needed another term to fully address the economy, the environment and other issues….
What does the left mean? We’ve had plenty of change. We have increase the debt by over $4 trillion in less than three years. We’ve raised unemployment to 9 plus percent for the past 30 months. We’ve lent money to failed solar companies, armed Mexican drug cartels, shut down oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, delayed the building of a pipeline from Canada, and have sicced the EPA on coal burning generating stations. And the reason it’s been three wrenching years for the country has to do with Barack Obama being the President.
7. Warning: If there’s ‘Nuanced,’ You’re Being Had
Clear speaking and clear writing are foundational to clear thinking. These concepts do not imply a crude command of language or understanding, but rather a solid command of thought. UNFORTUNATELY, CLARITY OF EXPRESSION IS TOO OFTEN CONFUSED WITH PRIMITIVENESS, AND OBSCURITY (OR EVEN GIBBERISH) IS TOO OFTEN CONFUSED WITH SOPHISTICATION (OR THE DREADED ). These confusions are especially common in liberals and so-called intellectuals….
….NUANCED. Nuance is the holy grail of liberals and intellectuals. IT IS ALSO MEANINGLESS, EXCEPT AS A WAY TO OBFUSCATE MUDDLED THINKING AND PUFF UP AN EGO. The only way to understand difficult material -- pardon me, material -- is THROUGH A LUCID UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS UNCLEAR OR COMPLEX. A beautiful example of how clear communication does not equate with a lack of polish or insight involves Richard Feynman, the greatest physicist of his time. He had a unique way of explaining complex phenomena.
Shortly after the space shuttle disaster in 1986, mathematicians, engineers, researchers, and scientists of all stripes were tasked with looking into its causes. Feynman was among them. In a public demonstration, Feynman asked for a glass of ice water. HE DROPPED A PIECE OF RUBBER INTO THE GLASS, TOOK IT OUT, AND SHOWED HOW AT FREEZING TEMPERATURE, THE RUBBER LOST RESILIENCE. This demonstration -- no equations, no jargon, no blackboard -- illuminated to the general public and the struggling experts what had gone wrong (at least with the engineering) to cause the explosion.
S. Fred Singer's articles about global warming are also excellent examples of how genuine nuance arises naturally from clearly described questions and conditions.
Even in literature, nuance arises from clarity. You might think that the line "Jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule" is poppycock (from Bob Dylan's song "Visions of Johanna"). But at least you know what the poppycock is. You may appreciate the nuances of Hamlet's dilemma, but to do so, you must first understand what is bothering him.
ERIC HOLDER'S INFAMOUS REMARKS ABOUT OUR NATION'S COWARDICE ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT PASSES FOR NUANCE IN THE LIBERAL POLITICAL REALM. (As a bonus, he even threw in a "many ways" reference.) "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards[.]" Without further exploration of that notion, he then called for a nuanced discussion of affirmative action. How can you hope to sip from the holy grail of nuance if you're busy defending yourself against an ugly, unfocused accusation? (For a hilarious exposé of nuance gone wild, read Alan Sokal's book, .)…
This is a good article of how the left tries to use obfuscation to confuse and put down their opponents. In reality the nuances they talk about generally are simply facts they want to counter, but they can’t.
8. Iran Under Attack?
I THINK WE CAN OFFICIALLY SAY THAT A STATE OF WAR EXISTS BETWEEN IRAN AND ISRAEL. The Iranians are still denying anything happened at their uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan while the Israelis aren't even trying to hide their involvement.
Satellite imagery seen by The Times confirmed that a blast that rocked the city of Isfahan on Monday struck the uranium enrichment facility there, despite denials by Tehran.
THE IMAGES CLEARLY SHOWED BILLOWING SMOKE AND DESTRUCTION, NEGATING IRANIAN CLAIMS YESTERDAY THAT NO SUCH EXPLOSION HAD TAKEN PLACE. Israeli intelligence officials told The Times that there was "no doubt" that the blast struck the nuclear facilities at Isfahan and that it was "no accident".
On Monday, Isfahan residents reported a blast that shook tower blocks in the city at about 2.40pm and seeing a cloud of smoke rising over the nuclear facility on the edge of the city.
"THIS CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE FACILITIES IN ISFAHAN, PARTICULARLY TO THE ELEMENTS WE BELIEVE WERE INVOLVED IN STORAGE OF RAW MATERIALS," SAID ONE MILITARY INTELLIGENCE SOURCE.
He would not confirm or deny Israel's involvement in the blast, instead saying that there were "many different parties looking to sabotage, stop or coerce Iran into stopping its nuclear weapons program"….
While the West sleeps, someone is taking action.
9. Obamacare: We Have to Pass the Bill to Find Out What’s In It.
….In contrast to mandatory screening for terrorists, THE GOVERNMENT IS ACTIVELY DISCOURAGING AMERICANS FROM REGULAR SCREENING FOR COMMON FORMS OF CANCER. The federal government’s U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently declared that men should not undergo routine screening for prostate cancer with the PSA blood test — currently considered part of prudent preventive health care for men over age 50 by many primary care physicians and the American Cancer Society. In 2009, the USPSTF similarly recommended restricting screening mammography to women over 50 (and only at 2 year intervals), despite the proven medical benefits of the current practice of screening women starting at age 40 at yearly intervals.
After years of arguing that regular cancer screening saves lives, the government now warns that such routine screening creates unnecessary emotional distress, leads to further risky invasive tests, and raises overall health costs. Regardless of the scientific merits of these claims, blogger Glenn Reynolds notes that many skeptical Americans fear that the government’s real agenda is to save money at the expense of their health. UNDER OBAMACARE LEGISLATION, THE USPSTF WILL SET THE DE FACTO STANDARDS FOR WHAT PREVENTIVE SERVICES WILL OR WILL NOT BE COVERED BY GOVERNMENT INSURANCE (and most private health insurance), thus affecting millions of Americans….
The more we find out, the worse it looks.