Friday, January 20, 2012

Gingrich and the last debate

What’s new Today

Our #1 story tells my opinion of the South Carolina debate.  See who I pick as the winners and losers.  #2 gives you some other people’s opinion of the debate.  #3 looks at the double standard in the media.  #4 highlights the Marianne Gingrich’s revenge.  #5 relates who a couple of politician on trial for voter fraud claim that voter fraud is the normal course for elections.  #6 shows that indoctrination of school kids in AGW isn’t going very well. 

1.   The CNN South Carolina Debate

The CNN South Carolina debate did have its winners and losers.  None of the Republican candidates did poorly, but CNN and ABC and CNN moderator John King were taken to the wood shed by Gingrich.   King started off asking him if it was true – as Gingrich’s former wife alleged in an interview with ABC News – that he asked for an open marriage in the late 1990s.  Gingrich replied as the audience both at home and at the debate cheered him on with, “I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.” 

My personal favorite was Gingrich.  Most polls have him in the lead in South Carolina and his performance tonight did nothing to hurt that position.  He was tough, feisty and when asked if there was one thing he would do differently, he answered that he wasted three months at the beginning of his run trying to be a typical candidate, which wasn’t him.  He would be the candidate with the ideas and would run a different kind of campaign. 

Romney did much better than he did at Monday’s debate.  He showed more passion but was still flummoxed by some of the attacks primarily by Rick Santorum.  The one thing he said he would have done differently was not to criticize the people on the stage, but to keep his criticism for President Obama.   I did like it when he brought up Obama’s quashing of the Keystone pipeline. 

Santorum look a bit desperate.  He was eager to put down the other candidates at every possible opportunity which made him the least sympathetic person on the stage not counting John King.  He was trying to make his case and I don’t think he helped himself.  As I said I don’t think he did poorly, but he didn’t do as well as the first two.  I read one commentary that I think nailed it.  Santorum reminds you of Al Gore in 2000. 

Ron Paul reminds me of the crazy old uncle in the attic.  He has his fans and has some good convictions.  But his responses are somewhat simplistic.  I know he wants to bring the troops home from overseas and use that money to help balance the budget.  But whenever another problem was brought up, Paul solution was to bring the troops home and we would have money to take care of the solution.  Paul was hurt by King failing to ask any question regarding the deficit. 

I think it is coming down to Gingrich vs. Romney.  There’s still a lot to happen so we won’t know who will get the nomination for a while yet.  I think Newt needs Santorum in the debates for although Santorum is quick to criticize Newt, he’s even quicker to go after Romney.   This allows Newt to not look like a nasty old republican except where the press is concerned and the Republican voters love it when he does that.    

As for the Democrats I get the feeling they are praying that Romney is the candidate.  Gingrich is a wild card they didn’t think they needed to prepare for and I think they are scared to death about the debates. 

  2.  Other Opinions of the debate

Michael Medved

Ira Stoll

William A. Jacobson

3.   Is there a double standard in the Media for Democrats and Republicans?

As I watch the media circus surrounding Marianne Gingrich's interview regarding her relationship with her ex-husband and GOP candidate, Newt Gingrich, I am once again reminded of the double standard afforded to the Democrats and Barack Obama in particular. Coming on the heels of the Herman Cain melee in which the press had a field day parading one accuser after another before video cameras, it is difficult not to repeat the question of why the Democrats get a free pass. Why are calls for Mitt Romney to release his tax return not met with calls for Barack Obama to release his college transcripts -- something that is just as customary for presidential candidates?

However, of greater importance in my view is the silence, save for a few journalists and pundits on the right, regarding exposing a videotape recorded in 2003 of Barack Obama at the farewell dinner for terrorist-supporting Palestinian Rashid Khalidi. News of the videotape's existence came to light while Obama was a candidate, and the free pass given to him by the mainstream media was only just beginning to come to light when the enamored Chris Matthews' shared news of the tingle up his leg.

While the birthers' demands did draw some media attention, it was mostly negative and only made fun of the supposedly crazy loons on the far right who apparently were representative of all petty and irrational conservatives. No one seemed to notice that Obama had not written a single article while serving as editor of The Harvard Law Review, and no one pressed the issue of Obama's suppressed college and law school transcripts since it was a given that his brilliance was perhaps surpassed only by the likes of Albert Einstein.

But there is a videotape sitting in the vaults of the Los Angeles Times, and every American should be screaming from the rooftops for its release. In light of the Arab Spring, Obama's endless attempts to bully Israel into succumbing to all sorts of unprecedented and unsafe demands in the hopes that he would go down in history as the POTUS who made peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and the administration's ineptness in addressing Iran's nuclear program and military threats, exposing this videotape is of utmost importance….

Is there a double standard?  Is the Pope Catholic?

4.   Marianne Gingrich’s Revenge

Was that it then? After 24 hours of hype, angst and eager anticipation, ABC News aired its interview with Marianne Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House's second wife. Brian Ross said earlier that he had interviewed her for two hours. About two minutes of that was shown to televison viewers.

There was precious little that was new. The "open marriage" allegation had been playing all day. Not only had it been leveled at Gingrich before but it was clear that the term "open marriage" was Mrs Gingrich's, not his.

And then Ross went all chocolate boxy, reminiscing about how Newt and Marianne once enjoyed "holding hands on the Mall, hiking the mountains, dressing up on Halloween".

Much of the six-minute segment had the air of an attack ad against Gingrich with Brian Ross's portentous voice intoning that Gingrich "regularly expounds on family values the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman" and how Callista Gingrich (his third wife) is "probably best known in this campaign for the hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of jewelry Gingrich bought for her at Tiffany's".

The "family values" thing is a standard justification for going after conservatives over their private lives while giving liberals a pass. And Ross's phrasing disingenuously conflated personal morality and Gingrich's views on gay marriage.

Marianne Gingrich alleged that she has Multiple Sclerosis when Gingrich told her about his affair with Callista. "And he also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress," she said. "He knew [she had MS]." But as James Taranto points out her account tonight conflicts with a previous version she has told…

The conflict mentioned in the last paragraph was a story in 2000 which said she hadn’t had a diagnosis of MS at that time only some neurological problems that could be a precursor to MS.

5.   NY Pols:  Voter Fraud A Normal Political Tactic

As the city of Troy, NY, awaits jury selection in the first trial involving two Democrats and their alleged roles in a “massive” voter fraud scheme, new details have emerged from the investigation. Details involving two other veteran political operatives that have already pleaded guilty.

According to a recent Fox News report, Anthony Renna, a Democrat guilty of second-degree forgery, and Anthony DeFiglio, a Democrat guilty of first-degree falsifying business records, are trying to drag all local politicians, regardless of party affiliation, down with the ship. Thus far, eight people have been charged in connection with the ballot fraud investigation, four of which have pleaded guilty.

Reports emerging from the investigation indicate that the Democrats are trying to implicate Republicans of the same conduct they have been charged with. According to the state police, Renna and DeFiglio both claimed that, ”voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections, and faking absentee ballots was commonplace.”

Renna explained that the process of handing in forged ballots and fake votes ensures that “ballots are voted correctly.” He adds, “‘Voted correctly’ is a term used for a forged application or ballot.”

DeFiglio added that such fraud is actually “an ongoing scheme and it occurs on both sides of the aisle. What appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic.”…

…He added, “In fact, after the Democrats were caught in 2009 the records at the Board of Elections were searched. More cases of fraud were found dating back to 2007 or 2008, all attributed to Democrat candidates and operatives. Nothing from any GOP members.”…

Voter Photo IDs?  Which party goes crazy when you mention it? 

6.   Climate Change Teachers face Backlash

Teachers reportedly are getting push-back on middle and high school curricula that fuel the speculation that man is warming the planet. Their frustration is almost worthy of a celebration.

Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times recounted teachers' experiences with global warming instruction. The Washington bureau noted that "scientists and educators report mounting resistance to the study of man-made climate change in middle and high schools" and declared that "a flash point has emerged in American science education."

Frank Niepold, identified as "climate education coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who meets with hundreds of teachers annually," described for the Times what he has seen in these exchanges.

"Any time we have a meeting of 100 teachers, if you ask whether they're running into push-back on teaching climate change, 50 will raise their hands," Niepold said. "We ask questions about how sizable it is, and they tell us it is (sizable) and pretty persistent, from many places: your administration, parents, students, even your own family."…

I wonder if these folks teach the physics involved in the hypothesis or if they simply teach that it is happening. 

No comments:

Post a Comment