Most of the candidates will listen to a question and then answer some question they wish they'd been asked. This is a standard approach to answering questions on television. It's a way to avoid letting the questioner control you, and you create an opportunity to say what you want to say.
That's not what Newt does. He listens to the precise question asked and examines it, then works out, before our eyes, what is wrong with that question and what the real issue is. He has a depth of understanding and flexibility of mind that allows him to do that, he cares about doing that accurately and well, and he has the style to want to perform reasoning for us. I like that. I try to do that all the time in class, and I know how hard it is, what presence of mind and grasp of the material it takes.
For example, in that little clip, the moderator Scott Pelley asks:
As president of the United States, would you sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?Pelley has framed a yes-or-know question, and instead of saying "yes" (or "absolutely" as Mitt Romney just did), Newt says:
Well, he's not a terrorist suspect. He's a person who was found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans.Newt says that in a puzzled and slightly peeved way that creates drama about whether he might be confused or combative. It puts us on edge. And Pelley is now required to speak again. Newt didn't launch into a lecture. He even ceded some time to Pelley, who says:
Not found guilty by a court, sir.Gingrich doles out a dollop of information:
He was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and reported to the president.Pelley is now put in the role of the student in a dialogue:
Well, that's extrajudicial. (CROSSTALK) It's not the rule of law. (APPLAUSE)Look at Pelley at this point — 0:32 — he's smiling and glowing, thinking (perhaps) that he's doing well in class, and the audience applauds for him. Gingrich swoops in:
It is the rule of law. That is explicitly false. It is the rule of law. If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court.Now, the applause is for Newt. The dramatic moment has happened, and now the professor makes it all very clear with an instant, crisp mini-lecture on the dimensions of the rule of law:
No, let me be -- let me be very clear about this on two levels. There is a huge gap here that, frankly, far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war, and the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.There's more applause. We hear one of the other candidates say "Well said. Well said." I think it was Mitt — Mitt, who had just been asked the same question. Mitt answered the question clearly and cleanly. ("If there's someone
that's going to join with a group like Al Qaida that declares war on America,
and we're in a war with that entity, then, of course, anyone who is
bearing arms with that entity is fair game for the United States of America.") Credit to Mitt for openly admiring the style and substance of Professor Gingrich.
IN THE COMMENTS: John Althouse Cohen said:
It sounds to me like Perry is the one who said, "Well said, well said."On another relistening, I agree.
पोस्ट्स
१९८ टिप्पण्या:
Gingrich is clearly the most substantive and thoughtful of the Republican candidates; pity his personal history and media animus will effectively disqualify him from the nomination.
Watch out for Obama to steal this answer when his lefty base whines. If Newt is the VP, can he coach the top of the ticket so he can take on Obama?
I'd like to see Gingrich put in charge of re-organizing and downsizing the fed govt [per the Constitution] and fixing the two big entitlement programs.
He has the brains and skills to get it done and get it done so most all Americans will feel they are part of a grand new bargain that will work for 95% of us.
I do wish that whoever the candidate may be can get a brain transplant from Gingrich and a humor transplant from Cain.
Smartest guy in the room. Forgotten more about subjects than most people know.
Probably not a great manager and likely not tempermentally suited for the job, but hey, no different that what we have now on those points.
Oh, and to hear his daughter tell it, the baggage isn't nearly as heavy as the MSM has told us all those years.
Word verification: "comming," as in no one saw Newt's increase in popularity comming.
Gingrich is the best man on the stage and yes he has a personal history for all to see.
Now lets look at Obamas personal history.
It is nonexistent, scrubbed from the face of the earth. Why this doesn't bother most people is a mystery to me.
Wow. No wonder you lose quality commenters by the dozen! Everyone else thinks Gingrich is an abrasive asshole.
Although many debate watchers are impressed with Newt's grasp and presentation of information, they hedge a little by critiquing his delivery as sometimes peevish.
I think he sounds like a grown up who understands we are in serious deep shit times.
Newt is clearly correct here, and he performed the process perfectly, from a lot of practice.
Now imagine all the same drama with Newt winning the debate and the optics, but with the difference that he was entirely wrong. That didn't happen here, but it is possible.
Newt is the most knowledgeable, and best debater - that's what he has done all his life and what he does for a living. He is clearly very intelligent and well informed, but he has made an inordinate number of bad decisions in his life - mistakes on big things.
I don't know why, but intelligence and knowledge don't protect one from that as much as they should. We all know people who are not the MOST intelligent or well informed, but who rarely make such mistakes. With enough information they will chose correctly, while the the smarter, better informed will often not. Half the people I know who have made a mess of their lives are very smart people.
I want to vote for Gingrich, and if I didn't know his history, it would be a slam dunk. He says all the right things, but past performance is the best indicator of future performance.
I like the Republican field in general. It is full of people who are smart or have accomplished a lot, or both. Not the best people in the country by a long shot, but good enough.
"Everyone else thinks Gingrich is an abrasive asshole."
It strikes me strange that outliers ever think they speak for "everyone else."
But that's one reason they're outliers, isn't it?
"Wow. No wonder you lose quality commenters by the dozen!"
Did you just insult yourself?
I wonder if you're responding to the same sort of sharp and substantive personality quirks that prompted the philandering Gingrich to dump his wife as she was in the hospital recovering from surgery.
That, Newt. He goes right for the kill!
Good luck selling your strange preferences to this electorate.
Yeah, but is legalistic arguing what we need in a president?
I'm not answering that question. I'm asking it.
Althouse, I've asked you several times to suggest what you're looking for in terms of characteristics in a president.
I don't think that legalistic argument is what I'm looking for.
Gingrich trusts an Obama WH Panel executing American citizens. Which means Gingrich trusts the gov to execute him too if they feel it's necessary. How's that for limiting the reach of big government!
"...but past performance is the best indicator of future performance."
Indeed so. Too bad for us the absence of any known past performance at all proved completely acceptable for the idiots who voted for our affirmative-action president.
Michaele said:
"I think he sounds like a grown up who understands we are in serious deep shit times."
Bingo! In a year or maybe two, we will be Europe unless we fix our spending trajectory now.
It strikes me strange that outliers ever think they speak for "everyone else."
But that's one reason they're outliers, isn't it?
Keep getting stricken, Tim (Theo?). Quoting and observing what others think is not the same thing as "speaking for them", but don't let that little distinction get in the way of your Gingrichian platitudes.
A lot of people have noticed what Ann noticed and this is a big part of the Newt Revival.
If there's a lie (or a hole) in a question, he addresses that, as well as the question asked.
We still have miles to go before we have a nominee, but we're getting closer to finding the Anti-Mitt.
PS The one debate Perry did well is, of course, the one the fewest people saw.
I bet one-third of eligible voters were too young to remember Newt when he was Speaker.
From the September 30th Washington Post:
-------------
The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.
The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.
“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.
...
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.
...
The administration describes al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as an associated force of the original terrorist group that was led by Osama bin Laden until he was killed, making AQAP subject to congressionally authorized military force. Officials said Aulaqi was part of an enemy force and posed an ongoing, immediate danger.
----------------
Note that the WaPo's question to the Obama Administration presumes — like CBS's Pelley, and like most lefties, and without a shred of justification — that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is somehow implicated by a wartime targeting decision of an acknowledged unlawful military combatant.
Prof. A: I'd agree that Gingrich's style is professorial, and in this instance it was on a topic that involves the Constitution and laws. But he's not a lawyer and doesn't, in general, strike me as having more in common with law professors than with, say, other history professors (like himself). (Apologies for quibbling.)
"Gingrich trusts an Obama WH Panel executing American citizens."
Oh, so now the abused liberal tries to pull away from the abuser's c*ck in his ass, yet we all know the abused will vote for Obama again, with orgasmic joy.
If sentient humans were involved, this would be sad.
As it is, it is too funny.
Ritmo, you need to read up on the facts. His wife is the one who did the dumping. From his daughter:
"It was the spring of 1980.
[...]
Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.
It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:
My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.
Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.
She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.
The tumor was benign.
As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.
As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on."
I read his daughter's self-serving whitewashing of that episode. So what? It doesn't change anything I just said.
BTW, given how much he paid off his wife to "let" him run (reported at just shy of a million), how much do you think he might have paid his daughter to do her own little job?
Still a bunch of gaseous phonies any way you look at it.
Ann Althouse said...
There's something I like about Newt Gingrich.
He reminds me of a law professor....
"She reminds me o' me"
John Wayne to Glen Campbell,
True Grit, 1969.
"Quoting and observing what others think is not the same thing as "speaking for them"
"Everyone" doesn't nearly mean what you hope it does; yet your misuse of the word was so transparent, I concede I superfluously cluttered up Ann's comment. My apologies to her.
"Yeah, but is legalistic arguing what we need in a president?
I'm not answering that question. I'm asking it."
I think some people want their President to be a certain type of person or look and act as they imagine a great President would. JFK was this in spades. This overwhelms any analysis of what they might do in the job.
I want the person that will make the right decisions and push the right agenda, and can get it done. I don't know of any better indicator of that than if they have done it before. If they haven't, then you are just guessing and hoping.
When we are looking to hire someone for a job, what is the most important information? I like my plumber to smell good too, but if he's no good at plumbing, I'm gonna be the one stinking when he leaves.
Oh, so now the abused liberal tries to pull away from the abuser's c*ck in his ass, yet we all know the abused will vote for Obama again, with orgasmic joy.
Hey at least I would try to fight that big government cock in the ass. You would compliantly line up for it.
ALWAYS TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
I read his daughter's self-serving whitewashing of that episode. So what? It doesn't change anything I just said.
BTW, given how much he paid off his wife to "let" him run (reported at just shy of a million), how much do you think he might have paid his daughter to do her own little job?
Still a bunch of gaseous phonies any way you look at it.
The gaseous phony called Ritmo doesn't care what someone who knows the facts has to say.
Facts are no good if they can't be used to smear someone.
I think David Obey said that.
"Fill yer hand, you son of a bitch!"
"Ritmo, you need to read up on the facts."
Ritmo knows the facts. Ritmo is just being a hack, again.
"Still a bunch of gaseous phonies any way you look at it."
We could just believe you instead, but isn't that the same thing?
New avoids the question with a legal nicety.
The question is, can we just kill American citizens?
Having a panel say "well, they did something bad" is not the same thing as having a trial.
But, trials are so slow and messy. Much better we just kill them & remove all doubt - dead=guilty.
It's so easy to think like a Republican sometimes.
I read his daughter's self-serving whitewashing of that episode. So what? It doesn't change anything I just said.
In other words, you like your narrative just fine and you're sticking with it. May you always find great comfort in it.
I'm not that excited about lawyers running things, Althouse. In fact, I think I'm against it.
I spent many years working for lawyers. I don't dislike lawyers (well, some of them I hate).
I'm not fond of a labyrinth legal system that requires a specially trained priest for decoding. That's money in the bank for lawyers and law profs, but I hate it.
You may think a labyrinth legal system is a necessity. I think it's a pain in the ass.
Ronald Reagan was not a lawyer.
Ending the rule of lawyers seems to me the very essence of ordinary citizens recapturing the electoral process.
So, I think I reject completely your assumption that legalistic argument is a favorable characteristic in a president.
Look what legalistic argument has gotten us in the area of sexual harassment. Law that makes lawyers rich, stifles the economy and gives every con artist and extortionist an opportunity for a payday.
And, sexual harassment laws make the workplace into a shithole where an ordinary person can't joke around, flirt and look for a sexual partner.
That's the sort of thing that we can thank lawyers (and legalistic argument) for.
Ritmo Re-Animated said "Wow. No wonder you lose quality commenters by the dozen! Everyone else thinks Gingrich is an abrasive asshole."
Right. The "quality commenters" are ones who like to read what they already agree with and then say that they agree.
Ironically, by your definition, you yourself are not a quality commenter.
Either you're confessing that you are a troll (or at least a low-quality commenter), or you are being sarcastic about other commenters, which would make you an abrasive asshole.
It takes one to know one.
(And yes, I meant that.)
No one denies that Newt isn't smart and insightful, but......
there is SO much baggage.
If he were nominated the Obama campaign would spend the entire election season going over Newt's personal past, his academically informed but PR-deficient past statements, his time with Fox, and so on and so on.
His voice would be drowned out by.
himself
In politics there is something called "negatives". Gingrich's are through the roof.
Anyone here who wants to promote Gingrich as the nominee, I say go for it.
The level of desperation not only among this field of nominees but among its defenders has become compelling in its absurdity.
And, oh yeah. A guy who pays off his shallow trophy wife by an amount just shy of a million to "let him run" for president? Not likely to have defenders who weren't paid off themselves, related to him or not.
Knock yourselves out, Obama haters.
It would be interesting to see a reporter really press President Obama on this.
(with thanks to commenter Daddy)
Isn't life hard enough? Now I have to be a quality commenter, and I can't even be an abrasive asshole. It's getting harder every day just to find a place to fit in. You learn and practice and put yourself out there, and all of a sudden the fashion changes, and you feel like a quality asshole.
If I was married to a wealthy man who wanted to run for President, I'd want paid off too. And since that would make me gay, I'd be all huffy about it too.
Right. The "quality commenters" are ones who like to read what they already agree with and then say that they agree.
That's one interpretation, albeit an incredibly self-serving and unself-critical one.
Ironically, by your definition, you yourself are not a quality commenter.
Not if I don't have trouble distinguishing between "all" and "some", "many", or "by the dozen".
It takes one to know one.
One what? One who graduated from grammar school insults to less crude ripostes?
Everyone else thinks Gingrich is an abrasive asshole.
Ritmo, to better understand your point I'd suggest looking the mirror.
Wow, Ann, great comeback.
Poor Ritmo is probably still trying to get up.
Ritmo Re-Animated --
"Wow. No wonder you lose quality commenters by the dozen!"
Does this explain your continued presence?
Tim said: ..."pity his personal history and media animus will effectively disqualify him from the nomination."
I don't know what you mean by "personal history"; perhaps you assumed the truth of the story Mother Jones (now there's an unbiased source) wrote about his divorce that became what "everybody knows." I believed it until I read his daughter's article here:
http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html
As for the claim that "media animus will effectively disqualify him from the nomination," well gosh, the audience sure was hostile to Newt when he stood up to the moderator, weren't they?
And why is a supposedly unbiased moderator arguing with a debater? What an egregious violation of ethics!
Bago:
Damn me to hell. I just spent the last few years getting my PHD in abrasive assholery and poor quality commenting! And I finished in the bottom of my class!
Well, at least I was insulted this time in the comments, as opposed to backhandedly getting it in a post devoted entirely to a single comment.
Sorry if I offended Ann (it's hard to predict what will and won't), but if anyone thinks Gingrich can overcome his negatives, they're free to make that argument. As it stands, I don't think that answering like a law professor (whatever that means) will be sufficient.
Sorry to be an asshole by pointing out these apparently incredibly controversial and mean ole' nasty observations.
"....pity his personal history and media animus will effectively disqualify him from the nomination."
What personal history? He's divorced and re-married, so what?
As for "media animus", many see that as a plus.
Not the best people in the country by a long shot, but good enough......for government work. sorry couldn't help myself
Everyone else thinks Gingrich is an abrasive asshole.
So?? Steve Jobs was an abrasive asshole too and got the job done, improved the quality of millions of people's lives with new technology.
I don't care if Newt is the biggest asshole at the party, if he can get the job done and turn our country around, his personality is a non issue.
We are on the USS Titanic, people, and I would rather be in the life boat with the biggest asshole in the world than to stand on the sinking ship singing kumbaya songs with the 'really nice' people.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
In politics there is something called "negatives". Gingrich's are through the roof.
That's polling, not politics, and polls are instruments to create opinion, not just measure it. That's why garage always quotes the KosKidz PPP polls.
And so are GodZero's.
All time high on disapproval on the economy, last I looked.
I don't care if Newt is the biggest asshole at the party, if he can get the job done and turn our country around, his personality is a non issue.
Problem is, Gingrich ain't running for the board of a corporation, but for an actual country where elections (at least last time I checked) are open to a whole lot more many people. So, his strong negatives are not only a problem, but a glaring one.
I thought it was funny when I was attempting the same argument Ann is now to Traditional Guy, and he assured me that, as a fellow Georgian, he could vouch for the guy having a personality like "the Kaiser", or something like that.
But what do I know? My mere pointing this out now qualifies me as an "asshole", according to some...
Aside from his multiple marriage infidelities, I'm betting Gingrich getting censured and fined $300,000 from the House for using a tax-exempt organization to pay for political activities won't impede him with Values Party voters either.
I blame journolist.
I will admit, however, that however strong Gingrich's negatives, however untested his theories on everything, he does like to think about ideas seriously and argue competently. And if that makes him an asshole, I'm happy to wear the label, as well.
See y'all in 2012.
My mere pointing this out now qualifies me as an "asshole", according to some...
Oh. I don't think it is 'merely' this that qualifies you.
:-D
Oh. I don't think it is 'merely' this that qualifies you.
:-D
Not outside of this thread, anyway, right? ;-)
I am not quite clear people aren't calling American citizens levying war on the United States "treason":
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
That the defense is defined in the Constitution suggests the founders felt it important to not deal with it flippantly as though it is okay to assume an American should be killed because an executive committee says it looks like he is at war with the United States. Surely there are precedents for how to convict people of treason. Since (according to Wikipedia) fewer than 40 people have been convicted of treason in the entire history of the United States, it's not like trying a few likely al Qaeda supporters for treason before killing them is going to open some sort of floodgate.
Well, at least he's "creative" in his consideration of ideas. "Thoughtful" might be moreso a matter of interpretation.
"Yeah, but is legalistic arguing what we need in a president?"
It's not legalistic arguing.
I do think that it would be interesting to see Gingrich debating against Obama. If the debate were anyway free wheeling, Gingrich would clean his clock - Obama is horrid at speaking extemporaneously, but extremely good at reading his teleprompter.
Gingrich is not a teleprompter type of guy. Rather, he learned (personally) from Reagan how to speak on the fly. Reagan rarely had set speeches, but most often spoke off of index cards, which he would often shuffle up in order to keep himself on his toes when speaking. After being taken aside by the Great Communicator, Gingrich has spent then last 25 or so years learning to do this. And, after that much time working to perfect this, there are probably few in this country who have the skill to compete with him in this regard (though I think I saw a number of them when I was in Toastmasters).
The reason that this was so humorous is that the MSM moderators mostly have a lower IQ than the dumbest Republican up on the stage. They became journalists because they didn't have the mental horsepower to do anything that took a lot of horsepower, and they haven't had to tighten up their debating and analytical skills because up until recently, they were setting the debate.
I don't know who the smartest Republican candidate is. Romney, for one, is also up there - two Harvard graduate degrees, coupled with a track record of making a fortune for himself and others through use of his analytical abilities.
He saw, in real time, the manipulation points in the journalist's question, and he isolated it elegantly, in a dialogue that was clear and crisp and interesting. He controlled the questioner well.
Gingrich has a Ph.D. in history, which is only one step below Cain's M.S. in computer science.
The media hates both of them -- I think that same media is startled to discover that that hatred is treated as a huge plus by good Republicans.
Would Gingrich make a better president than Obama? Hell, anybody would make a better president than Obama. Would he make a better president than Romney or Perry? Right now I'd have to say 'yes' to both.
"Prof. A: I'd agree that Gingrich's style is professorial, and in this instance it was on a topic that involves the Constitution and laws. But he's not a lawyer and doesn't, in general, strike me as having more in common with law professors than with, say, other history professors (like himself). (Apologies for quibbling.)"
I just said he remind me of a law professor. As someone who's been a lawprof for 25 years, I recognized something in him that I admire, because I know what it's like to be inside the process, trying to do that, and he did it very well, under extreme pressure.
Socrates wasn't a law professor. Or a lawyer. I don't consider myself a lawyer. (I retired from the practice of law in 1984.)
"She reminds me o' me."
Yeah, and in that regard, I do not in any way think I would be a good president. I don't think I would be good in any executive capacity. I'm not the "leader" type in the slightest.
After lauding Gingrich, it still comes down to the question of whether he would be a good President. I thought that Obama would be horrid, putting ideology aside, because he had absolutely no managerial or administrative experience, whatsoever, and no training in either area either. And, from that perspective, Gingrich also comes up short. Smarter and more experienced than Obama was 4 years ago, but still lacking in managerial and administrative training and experience.
The one thing that might help him would be that, in contrast to Obama, Gingrich is apparently insanely intellectually curious. This is the same guy who last week was flogging both his candidacy and another one of his alternative history civil war books.
But, maybe because of this intellectual curiosity, Gingrich sometimes does not appear to be disciplined enough to run this country. That he might get involved in writing another of his history books, when what we need is a hatchet being applied, day in and day out, to many of our federal agencies.
We shall see.
"I'm not that excited about lawyers running things, Althouse. In fact, I think I'm against it. I spent many years working for lawyers. I don't dislike lawyers (well, some of them I hate)."
That's all off point, in my view. Law professors are not much like lawyers at all. We're people who jumped out of a sphere where we did not belong.
When you're a lawyer you have clients, and you focus on getting them what it's in their interest to get. As a law professor, you don't have clients, you can be about ideas and truth-seeking. You have a duty to students and to society in general, but it's all coherently integrated with intellectual integrity.
He saw, in real time, the manipulation points in the journalist's question, and he isolated it elegantly, in a dialogue that was clear and crisp and interesting. He controlled the questioner well.
He controlled the debate. Loved it.
Having been, while in college, in the debating society and on several debate teams, I really admire Newt's (and anyone else's) ability to do this.
This is what makes debating fun. It was a great sport in my family when we would get together for family meetings. Debating. Debating about anything (although there were some subjects we just didn't 'go there' because they were too volitile...abortion, some political subjects) If one side started to lose, we might just jump in and help out the other side so the fun could continue.
People who were not of our family would often be confused or couldn't participate because they would become emotional and take umbrage a being trounced on their points. We were amazed that some people got angry. To us, it was a skillful game and if you got trounced, you just needed to try harder and come up with a better counter point. Know your subject and next time have better points.
"Ann Althouse said...
He saw, in real time, the manipulation points in the journalist's question, and he isolated it elegantly, in a dialogue that was clear and crisp and interesting. He controlled the questioner well."
Actually it wasn't in "real time", the question was asked of Romney first. That gave Newt some time to prepare.
@ Curious
Yes. Not exactly 'real time'. However, one of the KEY parts of being in a debate is anticipating the questions or points that will be raised by your opponent and being prepared with a counter. And then being prepared with a counter to their counter.
Like chess. You have to be thinking about multiple moves in the future and alternate moves.
This is why Perry comes off badly. He just doesn't seem prepared.
So while it wasn't 'real time', the strategy of being prepared and thinking ahead is huge and even though Gingrich may have some faults.....a President is well served by the ability to think in multiple layers and multiple time frames and to have prepared strategies to counter the moves of the 'enemy'.
Newt's biggest problem is that he's a "political survivor" of what had been a "duet."
Look at Newt. And, you remember Bill Clinton.
Sure. Newt knows how to "wow" a certain section of the "faithful." In a country where most of the voters claim no allegiance to either party.
And, "should" Newt land at the top of the ticket? The GOP would head into 3rd place. There'd be an INDEPENDENT PARTY. Not "United We Stand," this time. But ONE-NATION.
Would a majority of voters reject the GOP?
Heck they did for Truman, in 1948.
And, those were the voting block that Ronald Reagan grabbed in 1980.
Always look for the voting block you need to win. And, figure out how to appeal to them.
Reagan had done so by winning the governorship of California TWICE.
Did he have to be convinced to run for the governorship of California? Oh, yes! The elites in the GOP hated him. Goldwater called Reagan such a light weight ... all he allowed Reagan to do was "give one speech.
That speech is still viewed!
What's surprising is that Goldwater was listened to, back in 1964.
And, to prove the whole GOP elite tent WRONG ... Reagan ran against BROWN. A known successful democratic politician. And, he beat the pants off the guy.
You need to remember some of the bare assed stuff.
And, not get so enthused for conservatives who promise a religious experience. (Dubya will always hold the championship title on this score, anyway.)
Up unitl now, each of the debates has produced "sound bites." With the best one probably remaining ... on Perry's "brain freeze." And, how well he's been dealing with it since.
Every time someone "stalls" on giving a list ... after much hesitation. All you have to say is "EPA." And, it gets a laugh.
Not sure Perry would win.
But I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney would be McCain, without Sarah Palin as his veep.
I think anyone worried about Newt's negatives should come to terms with the fact that any GOP candidate will have huge negatives reported and trumped up in the press, and President Goddamn AmeriKKKa will get a free pass.
The NYT is already taking Romney apart for his buying and restructuring of companies in the 90's. Jug Ears never had a real job, so what's to complain about.
In politics there is something called "negatives". Gingrich's are through the roof.
Hmmm... and Nixon had thge worst such ever, yet not only was he elected President, he was re-elected in a 49-state landslide. Yeah, his ethical lapses allowed Congress to drive him out of office, but that doesn't take away from the fact that his negatives stopped people from voting for him.
Especially when his opponents had such problems of their own. As now. Pretty sure that Nixon's rotted corpse could beat Obama in 2012.
This is why Perry comes off badly. He just doesn't seem prepared.
Not to jump on him, but I don't know if Perry has the mental horsepower to be an effective debater. It takes a certain amount of mental flexibility. And, as DBQ suggests, some of that can be learned - I was much better at it after two Dale Carnegie classes, followed by several years of Toastmasters, but never better than mediocre.
Perry has repeatedly stated that he doesn't do well in this sort of forum. Never has, and probably never will. They just don't play to his strengths, as they do to Gingrich's.
Funny stuff, Althouse. Newt is not stupid and is verbally adroit but that doesn't make him a good presidential candidate. BTW, Newt was a history professor.
Reasons for Newt's unsuitability for president include:
* no exec experience
* character issues
* immaturity
* egomania
* poor judgement
* unattractive to normal people
...from the fact that his negatives stopped people from voting for him.
urr
... negatives didn't stop people from voting for him.
I have never thought that law was a very good basis for training to be President. McCain at least has Annapolis, War College, and command experience from O-1 to O-6 under his belt, when he ran for President. Obama had what?
One problem with law is that it doesn't train collaboration. Rather, it trains individual performance, in competition with all the others in your class, against the other attorneys in your firm, and against your opponent in litigation. But, nothing in terms of learning to lead, manage, and organize groups.
But, I don't see how being a real college professor, whether in law or history, is any better preparation (I used the "real" to distinguish Obama from real profs like Althouse and Gingrich). And, maybe, being an academic, these real college professors are less able to stay focused on long run problems and solutions than, for example, actual lawyers.
Just some thoughts.
Perry has repeatedly stated that he doesn't do well in this sort of forum. Never has, and probably never will. They just don't play to his strengths, as they do to Gingrich's.
True. Those strengths of Gingrich (quick extemporaneous speaking and debating skills) are not necessarily the prime considerations for a good leader. Thinker, yes. Leader....maybe not.
Perhaps Perry's strengths (whatever they are) are those that a leader would require. It seems to have worked for Perry in Texas anyway.**
The reality is that there is NO perfect candidate. I view the President/Vice President set up as a team (or it should be anyway) where each member brings their own strengths...and weaknesses to the team.
So if we have a Newt or a Romney or Cain (who I really only see as a VP candidate) as the lead actor in the team, who has the counter skills to fill in the areas that are lacking in each member.
We need to get over the idea that one candidate is going to be the perfect solution. This is what has brought to us the horror of Obama.
**as a side note. We have a friends whose relatives are all in rural West Texas and they all pretty much hate Perry. They call him "too slick". A real insult in West Texas. Perry's support mainly is in the urban areas of Texas. FYI
As president of the United States, would you sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?
My questions in response to the substance of the debate question:
Are those "death warrants" more in the nature of capture and, if not practicable, kill warrants?
Do such orders require capture, first, if possible?
Doesn't that give the American citizen overseas who is the target of the warrant the opportunity to turn himself in and seek trial on the underlying charge?
So, is opposition to such orders based on the belief that Americans overseas accused of such charges are above being brought to trial against their will, while all American in country accused of the same are?
Reasons for Newt's unsuitability for president include:
* no exec experience
* character issues
* immaturity
* egomania
* poor judgement
* unattractive to normal people
Overall, I agree with this list.
But realistically, this list would also be even more applicable to Obama, except, maybe, the unattractive to normal people and the character issues. But, his judgment is far worse than Gingrich's - it is just that his judgment issues were and still are being covered up by the MSM, whether they be his close relationship to known and admitted terrorists, attendance for 20 years at a White hating church, his cabinet appointments, Stimulus I, II, etc., ObamaCare, etc.
I like Newt, but don't know if he would make an even halfway tolerable President. Sure, he would be better than what we have now. Hard to do worse. But I just don't see Gingrich being able to connect with middle America. The same sort of mental gymnastics that Ann and many of the rest of us like, are just going to look too slick to many Americans.
In other words, should American citizens outside the country be afforded more protections than fellow citizens who remain inside the country?
Hmmm... and Nixon had thge worst such ever, yet not only was he elected President, he was re-elected in a 49-state landslide. Yeah, his ethical lapses allowed Congress to drive him out of office, but that doesn't take away from the fact that his negatives stopped people from voting for him.
I have a feeling that voters are in no mood for a candidate more abrasive than Nixon. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly buy you a drink.
Especially when his opponents had such problems of their own. As now. Pretty sure that Nixon's rotted corpse could beat Obama in 2012.
If you're not being tongue-in-cheek here, then God help the GOP.
I'm pretty sure that taken as a whole, it's their faction that is more out of touch. They do a good job of salesmanship, probably better than the Dems, but their proposals have been constantly polling worse. And with consumer demand this low, something tells me that salesmanship won't be the deciding factor. The reputation of snake oil is not very easily redeemed.
I would vote for any of the GOP candidates against Obama. That said, for Newt specifically, I've never been bothered by his so-called negatives, which have largely been fabricated by the conservative-hating MSM. Can he seem to be abrasive? Sure, but I think it would be nice to have a President who would be "abrasive" to, say, Iran's mullahs, instead of the gratuitous toadying and bowing we get from Obama.
But realistically, this list would also be even more applicable to Obama, except, maybe, the unattractive to normal people and the character issues.
LMFAO.
I've got to hand it to you, Bruce. You sure do know how to define the scope of your incredibly broad caveats. That's a kind of honesty that's worth appreciating.
So if we have a Newt or a Romney or Cain (who I really only see as a VP candidate) as the lead actor in the team, who has the counter skills to fill in the areas that are lacking in each member.
The best team I can envision from top tier competitors is still Romney/Cain. They speak the same language (business), and Cain can do what Romney cannot - be the attack dog. Romney does the above it all sort of thing well, but doesn't do the fighting very well. Cain is good at that, because, even when under serious attack, he is able to keep his smile. Mostly.
The problem with Gingrich here, to my way of thinking, is that his past doesn't give me any comfort, about being able to nominate or appoint a good team. Remember, his second in command was Tom DeLay, and the problem there was that it was DeLay who really institutionalized pay-to-play in the Republican party, and, thus, gave added support for crony capitalism. It took losing Congress and the Tea Party to finally start turning the Republican party away from this.
Has anyone even bothered to acknowledge that, lost in this whole debate, is the fact that Newt inspires and conspires and by taking the same position as Obama did? By endorsing the same action that Obama undertook?
Does anyone even care to identify the salient points, anymore?
Perry has repeatedly stated that he doesn't do well in this sort of forum.
Let's not forget that the Republican nominee will be "debating" Obama eventually. All Perry might do is make Obama look smart by comparison.
Newt, I want to thank you for doing a great job of explaining and defending Obama's position. Not only could you be his lawyer, you could...
;0
Ritmo,
Everyone else thinks Gingrich is an abrasive asshole.
I am trying to visualize an abrasive asshole. Whirled pease are easy in comparison.
wv: foracule. I couldn't swear that that's not a botanical term.
...that Newt inspires and conspires and by taking the same position as Obama did? By endorsing the same action that Obama undertook?
Scandalous! The Republicans should always do the opposite of Obama. If Obama kisses a baby, the GOP nominee should react by hitting it with a rolled-up newspaper.
pm317 said...
If Newt is the VP, can he coach the top of the ticket so he can take on Obama?
11/13/11 9:32 AM
No. Newt's skill at this is a result of innate analytical ability that allows him to separate the relevant from the irrelevant and to spot the hidden underlying assumption in a question. Moreover, Newt has a huge knowledge and historical data base in his mind that allows him immediately to call up facts that demonstrate the falsity in the underlying premise. Finally, while Newt is doing all of these things he is formulating the ultimate response that well articulates his fact-based view of the real question that should have been asked on the subject.
Scandalous! The Republicans should always do the opposite of Obama. If Obama kisses a baby, the GOP nominee should react by hitting it with a rolled-up newspaper.
With the ridiculous way they've been positioning themselves for the last three years, one would certainly think that, eh?
Are those "death warrants" more in the nature of capture and, if not practicable, kill warrants? Do such orders require capture, first, if possible?
I don’t think Obama wants to “capture” high level terrorists because he would then have the problem of what in hell to do with them. According to the policy into which Obama has frivolously locked himself a terrorist would then have to be tried in US courts and THAT spectacle could be counterproductive to Obama’s re-election.
My preferred policy would be to try to capture them in order to waterboard them to a fair-the-well in Gitmo for the intelligence to be gained. If capture proved impracticable the drones would certainly be deployed without a moment’s regret.
Whirled peas, of course, though actually "pease" was the collective noun way back.
I'm actually correcting this mainly because the wv is "restring." Having restrung many, many instruments, many times ... Dang, there's a D string on my viola with incipient unwindage. And while the viola d'amore is all right for the nonce, if your instrument has fourteen strings on it, sooner or later something's gonna give.
Ritmo - so tell me what makes Obama qualified to run the USA?
The best team I can envision from top tier competitors is still Romney/Cain. They speak the same language (business), and Cain can do what Romney cannot - be the attack dog. Romney does the above it all sort of thing well, but doesn't do the fighting very well.
Me too. While our choices have been whittled down by an antagonistic media that is actively trying to re elect Obama and many of our better choices never got to see the light of day....this may be the best combination.
I don't see either Newt or Romney taking the VP slot, and actually don't see them working well together at all.
Cain would be a good choice for VP as you say, because he could get down and dirty and say things that the other candidates can't.....while Romney can take the high Olympian above it all road.
I'm sure the Republican candidates approve of some of Obama's actions. Like keeping Gitmo open, for example.
That one required Obama break a campaign promise. I can only guess what Obama promise would be today if he was answering the question Newt answered last night.
Ritmo - so tell me what makes Obama qualified to run the USA?
A willingness to do things differently after Republican mismanagement drove the country into the worst recession since they did last time, nearly eighty years to the day before. And winning 55% of the vote based on it.
Yep. That'll do it. I mean, I know that won't matter much to someone who stands on a different side of an issue every day and who pretends to identify with a political faction that garners no more than 5% of the vote. But to run the USA, it'll work.
So Ritmo just said winning the election makes someone qualified to be POTUS. Duly noted.
BTW Ritmo - I just punked you badly. Nobody "runs" the USA.
"But, trials are so slow and messy. Much better we just kill them & remove all doubt - dead=guilty.
It's so easy to think like a Republican sometimes."
The first Republican President certainly thought that way. Got a problem with his approach? Should he maybe have just called in law enforcement?
Notice Ritmo has no way to attack Newt's intellect so he goes after his personal life. Very scummy tactic.
Yep, incumbency matters.
You're doing a splendid job running circles around yourself, Mr Say-one-thing-one-day-and-another-thing-the-next.
'Right. The "quality commenters" are ones who like to read what they already agree with and then say that they agree.'
I'd have to say that I agree with this.
Lol. The rodent-like idiot known as "Alex" (who's never run anything other than his mouth) calls any impugning of Newt's ability to politically overcome the soap opera that is his personal life, "scummy".
Hamster, meet wheel.
Carol Herman said,
"But I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney would be McCain, without Sarah Palin as his veep."
I just can't imagine Mitt Romney drifting around a town hall style debate stage looking like a lost Alzheimer's patient as McCain did.
McCain was a terrible candidate because he achieved his ultimate goal in winning the nomination to be the candidate. From that on, he was a sap who didn't want to attack the black guy because it might not have seemed honorable. Romney wants to be The President and will fight hard to win.
Anyone looking to run for president on the basis that he will do nothing, I've got a prospective campaign manager for you.
Oooooh! So punked!
"Since (according to Wikipedia) fewer than 40 people have been convicted of treason in the entire history of the United States, it's not like trying a few likely al Qaeda supporters for treason before killing them is going to open some sort of floodgate."
Did you know that millions of Americans levied war against the U.S. in the 1860's? So 40 convictions for treason when millions demonstrably committed it would seem to make it a meaningless statistic. The problem is that there is virtually no political will to charge people with treason (presumably and understandably because of the potential for abuse), even when they quite clearly deserve it. Another example of how lawfare affects the conduct of warfare.
As usual Ritmo engages in personal attacks. No wonder Ann called him out and did declare him an asshole!
Professor Gingrich.
The old-guard GOP--the Country Club-WASPs, Reaganites, moral majority dolts, Goldwater ghouls, etc--still admire Newt, who is admittedly a clever orator-salesman, sort of Jefferson Davis-like. The old-guard, at least rich ones, remember that NG took on Clintonomics, and along with his palsie Gramm, implemented de-reg, giving the financiers, executives what they wanted (also involved with Enron). Indeed, Newt's one of the best pals of the plutocrats, AND the defense people as well--and consistently supported BushCo. Elect Gingrich, and help him finish the job--ending democracy in the USA.
As usual J throws some racial epithets when nothing else is working. Why is it ok for white liberals to engage in anti-white racist language? Can anyone explain that one to me? I never got it.
Awww.... You didn't like being "punked"?
But I thought you were a libertarian who believes that a president should promise not to run things?
Don't you have a nanny's skirt to run and hide behind? I mean, someone should be tasked with making you feel better about yourself, lil' Alex. And as an asshole (and someone with a life), I'm just not up for that full-time job.
Lol.
Alex? Where did you go?
You were the only hope for saving this thread.
Do be gracious. It's important to not be thought Gingrich-like, or even grinch-like, in how you take offense to things. Someone might call you vulgar names if you do come across that way, like they did to me.
Shifting sands.
Newt Gingrich can't get elected.
Yes. He can bring baggage to the station, though! Journalists will get headlines out about him ... from his new cultish Catholicism. To Tiffany's.
Maybe, at some point, there will be a drive gainst the GOP cluster f#ck. And, there will be a demand to see Sarah Palin. What would Sarah Palin do if such an opportunity presented itself?
Would she deal with the 8 contendahs as being unable to win a national election?
Would she have to say anything at all? Even tbough Palin will get attacked for her religious beliefs ... if she plays her hands right ... the media would find out how good she is at playing hardball.
I can hear her saying "all good republicans" can be joined by lots of American Independents. To vote in someone who will deal with the business errors that have been running rampant since Jimmy Carter was president.
Her name for this is crony capitalism. She's already said this out loud. Including having said it in Alaska.
She has a way of dealing with the media, too, by not catering to them. Her last "cater" happened at the hands of McCain. Whose staff forced her into the Katie Couric interview.
Katie Couric no longer has "that" show. And, she's o longer a condendah for journalistic awards on any network station.
Does Sarah Palin have a team?
You bet.
And, all she has to do is wait and watch. As the 8 contendahs in the casino ... are still blowing through stacks of money. Without reaching "critical mass."
When would Sarah Palin pull out as an Independent? I've already picked June 2012. But maybe she'd just wait throughout the summer? While she and Donald Trump traveled the "landscape." Picking up points by ALWAYS attack Obama's weaknesses. PERIOD.
What, you think the voters will trade 4 years of being lectured by a law professor for 4 years of being lectured by a history professor? Obama, the condescending, skinny, African-American lecturer, and Gingrich, the arrogant, fat Euro-American lecturer, are opposites that repel. A contest between them might lower voter turnout to zero, unless Nader or Ron Paul brings out the looney left and ridiculous right.
Non sequitur, as usual Alex dumbass. (nor is that racist--besides, Gingrich even shifted alliances a bit. No longer WASP, he's recently gone...Marian. aka croppie. aka....roman Catholic.)
All of what I wrote about Gingrich's political record can be verified. Gingrich-Gramm ushered in the swaps, eased up on the quals, wanted to end the New Deal--now ya got the Newt Deal --he's up on stage yapping away about the economic crisis when he and Gramm (with help from Billy Bob Clinton) brought it about. Not the demoncrats.
If I were a Dem operative I would have a commercial ready w/ a pompous Pillsbury Dough Boy being deposed in a divorce proceeding about being a serial adulterer.
Q: isn't it true Mr. Dough you were having sex w/ Little Miss Debbie while your wife, Betty Crocker, was dying?
A: Well, first let me say, although Little Miss Debbie appears underage on her package, she is actually 37 years old. Now, I need to know your definition of sex?
Of course, we would have to clear the depiction of aforementioned Dough Boy through a team of barristers.
Alex, at 12:28 PM. ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Obama WON in 2008. Took the Oath of Office, and everything.
He's not a student taking a test.
He has been officially elected. And, sworn in.
To beat him in 2012 ... you need a candidate way better than ANY of the 8 contendahs ... who hold debates. Where the last one on CBS was limited to one hour (UNWATCHED) coverage.
While those who are discussing this latest one ... got to see Perry dealing with his "brain freeze." Which probably means Perry gains traction. By not losing any.
Back in 2008 all McCain could draw was 47% of the vote. How much of that number was due to Sarah Palin?
Let's say Mitt Romney gets picked. Runs. And, does worse?
The only place I see the numbers game being played ... is that Sarah Palin is waiting for the day she announces her Independent run.
And, she'd have a few months time to convince Americans she wouldn't be a religious nutter. (Reagan really wasn't.)
Who knows if we're not back, again, where Teddy Roosevelt forced the GOP to come in 3rd?
Woodrow Wilson's win set the stage for democrats to keep on winning across the board.
You know, even if Newt gets the VEEP slot, he outshines any of the other 7. What candidate would do that to himself? (Didn't McCain learn that Sarah Palin outshown him back in 2008?)
Sad to have to say this, but Obama is still ahead.
Wishful thinking didn't even work yesterday for Penn State.
Newt Gingrich can't get elected.
But Palin can?
It's unbearable to the inside the beltway establishment (of both parties) that it should live off the rest of us even a little less. That's why Ron Paul is CRAZY!!! And that's why the mildly conservative Gingrich will suddenly become the most amoral philanderer who ever trod the earth should he be the nominee. Romney the establishment can live with.
People who have met and known Gingrich do not think he is an abrasive asshole. I spoke with one today in church. She was surprised that he remembered her and her husband's names after only meeting them twice over a period of four years. They were impressed with his cordiality.
Newt looks relatively short in this photo.
Maybe you can work the Keebler Elf gag in if you get tired of Pillsbury Doughboy.
Hey Carol, we're in a GREAT DEPRESSION! A bucket of warm spit could and WILL beat Zippy.
Damn--there was yet another republican debat last nite? And people watched it?
hard to believe but there it is.
Republicans need to get off the debate thing with > than a year--It is totally counterproductive, plus, except the blogosphere, no one is paying attention--My guess is the Penn State Nebraska game got a much bigger audience share.
It is officially settled by Ol' Green Eyes' consent:
Althouse to Ritmo:
" Either you're confessing that you are a troll (or at least a low-quality commenter), or you are being sarcastic about other commenters, which would make you an abrasive asshole."
Ritmo's reply"
"Sorry to be an asshole...".
Done and done.
Been on this blog for quite a while, and except for the commenter known as Mary, have never seen the good professor go after a commenter before.
The times they are a'changing.
Gingrich may have come across as an abrasive asshole except for the cut-away to the other guy's exquisitely smug expression. He *glowed*. He *radiated* smug.
Didn't Gingrich make an even better pile of putty of one of the moderators in a different debate who asked a question assuming that profit was necessarily opposed to job creation?
Or was that someone else.
Running against the journalist class is not a bad strategy.
Then you're either losing your memory or haven't been opening your eyes, Roger. Ask Trooper for details.
Lionfart:
Better a donkey than a pussy.
Besides, ain't no one got a sense of irony no more?
Projecting the obvious impression that the electorate has of Gingrich onto me doesn't make that impression any less existent. Duh.
ALso, trolls are rarely self-defined/self-identified and the idea that anyone here (including the one at the top) hasn't been sarcastic with most other commenters is patently laughable.
Or, I could've just done the trendy internet thing and said: "Lol. You mad?"
It would have said about as much, and is deemed the successful retort in Tea Party-land.
Ripcord: The electorate doesn't blame Obama for all the things the Republicans have been trying to run from.
Ritmo--just one troopers site and thanked him for his great Vets day series of film clips
And, Ritmo, you are welcome for your kind thanks on that site as well.
dont get around as much any more, and my eyesight is failing.
:)
Anyway, sincere thanks.
Anytime, Rog.
Ritzy: Althouse didn't offer that you might be a donkey, just that you might be an asshole. I guess you could be a donkey's asshole if you prefer.
Most of you probably won't recall Newt running about pounding his fist over the fact that the 9/11 terrorists came to the US via Canada while trying to make some point about border security. Smartest guy inI the room maybe, but that's a misapprehension of some pretty key facts in recent American history that's indicative of...I don't know...something.
Me: Lol, you mad?
Kitty: Purr. Yes, my owner is mad.
miller said...
New avoids the question with a legal nicety.
The question is, can we just kill American citizens?
Having a panel say "well, they did something bad" is not the same thing as having a trial.
But, trials are so slow and messy. Much better we just kill them & remove all doubt - dead=guilty.
It's so easy to think like a Republican sometimes.
================
George Washington gave orders to kill US Citizens in insurrection during the Whiskey Rebellion and sort of got the ball rolling that US citizenship was no magical amulet from being summarily dropped by gun or cannon fire - if you war against America.
But the matter was really settled by Abraham Lincoln. Killing 240,000 US citizens, maiming another 200,000 and destroying up to 1/3rd of the property in the South - all without what progressive jewish lawyers of the ACLU call "sacred rights to due process and a trial".
And yes, Lincoln was a Republican.
But before Obama, democrats FDR and Harry Truman both ordered that US citizens fighting with the Nazis or Japs be whacked like any other enemy personnel facing us, or if captured, treated no differently than any other enemy soldier (while of course investigating if treason charges would be filed).
cokaygne said...
What, you think the voters will trade 4 years of being lectured by a law professor for 4 years of being lectured by a history professor? Obama, the condescending, skinny, African-American lecturer, and Gingrich, the arrogant, fat Euro-American lecturer, are opposites that repel.
============
A lot of similarities to the two "Perfessors". Both believe they are the smartest person in the room (Obama obviously isn't, and Newt has blundered into several situations where a smarter person - Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Mitt Romney - thought circles around him)
But both Obama and Gingrich have mastered the university faculty skill of speaking in a way that convinces the students, or the rubes in an audience, that each Are The Smartest Person in the Room.
Obama does it with soaring oratory of the Vision of The One - backed by what whites believe is morally superior black-cadence "preacher-speak".
Newt does it by showing how smart and bright he is by dissecting strawman arguments, then lecturing on his Latest Great Idea!! - which he does in a way that doesn't make the students or rubes think he is talking down to them. Newt SHARES his latest of 100s of Great Ideas with them. It is so cosmically important, transformative change agent fodder - and he is GIVING them the secrets..with of course even more detail on the Great Idea in the book of his they can buy in the lobby or through his Newt.com website when he hawks Newt on TV.
Both "Perfessors" are also quite similar in they tire quickly of their latest Soaring Vision or Great Idea - because both have incredibly lousy administrative and executive skills - and drop that and move on to a new speech or lecture on a different vision or great idea.
Even Newts "Contract" only lasted about 2 years. 1994-96. Then he tired of it and sabotaged parts of it. Moving on. Then Republicans sickened of his abysmal job as Speaker on executive and "routine matters" Newt thought where beneath him - forced him to step down as Speaker.
It took about 6 months to conclude that "Perfessor" Obama, while better than the wretched John McCain/Palin choice, was just about Soaring Bullshit.
I generally no longer read comments on this blog. But Althouse's post on this topic seemed interesting, so I decided to look in.
I'm surprised to find I still am part of the conversation, even though I have not been here for a long time. As a result, I would like to disabuse Ritmo, or anyone else, of the notion that I am the current commenter known as "Tim."
I am not.
I am the former "Theo Boehm." I used the screen name "Tim" for a while, but have settled on "TTBurnett," partly to avoid confusion with a number of other people named "Tim."
If Ritmo, or anyone else, wishes to address comments to or insult the present-day "Tim," that is his business. But please leave me out of it. I neither am, nor do I wish to be, part of this thread.
Thank you.
I've seen stories that some Americans of German ancestry left for Germany and fought for the Nazis in WWII. If an american killed one of these people, who were still american citizens, should they have been charged with something?
I really enjoy the moderator's "No" at 37 - 38s in the video clip, right after Newt says "It IS the rule of law." Shows the moderator's bias.
Well if that's how you feel, TT., then you should practice what you preach and not refer to people like "J." as if he were me.
Of course, you deleted your comments on that thread. For some reason, rather than letting the record stand and apologizing for what you did wrong or standing up for what you thought you did right, you delete all evidence. Apparently, morality, ethics, or even just a simple disagreement are matters that you think best left to what you wish were the case or how things appear than what anyone else could make of what you say upon consideration of it. That's a heck of an example to set, but it seems to be the standard you prefer to go by.
On that thread, "Tim" goes by the same Blogger ID as you do here.
And I am responding to you because you just appeared in this thread. You can delete what you said, you can regret that I'm asking for the same standard of you that you ask of others, but the record is there. And further, it displays a very simple and straightforward request:
Don't be a hypocrite. Credibility and integrity are not spectator sports.
Other than that, thank you for your contribution. Despite your animus for me, I never had anything against you and stood up for you (or at least for mercy on your behalf) when others here were clearly willing to let you fall on your sword.
Further, if you wish for me to delete the above comment (and even this one, or the comment that I just linked for that matter), I will grant you that request. I'm just asking for simple integrity and non-hypocritical standards. That's why I don't care if someone wants to accuse me of being a Gingrich. The topic here is (or should be) Gingrich, and I reserve the right to refer his actual strengths and weaknesses without that somehow reflecting on me.
But we've already gone over that.
So, until I hear from you next, the offer stands.
Take care --
dispatches said...
I've seen stories that some Americans of German ancestry left for Germany and fought for the Nazis in WWII. If an american killed one of these people, who were still american citizens, should they have been charged with something?
=================
Wasn't just Germans. We had tons of Italian-Americans that moved back to Italy during the Great Depression that we killed or captured in N Africa.
You had many Japanese Americans, and Filipino -Japanese (birthright citizens but accident of birth location gave them no loyalty to the US/Philippine Territory) - kebai - who were in the thousands and sometimes (like in the Philippines) were hunted down and killed in preference to ordinary Jap troops.
Hypothetically, if you were in the US Armed Forces and were down to one Hellfire missile you could launch at an Al Qaeda Islamoid who was Pakistani, or one that was a US citizen traitor of equal importance - most people would prefer to launch it at the traitor.
Don't worry about charges. War is not an extension of ACLU lawyers dreams that it is - an extension of civilian law enforcement.
Lincoln long ago made whacking US citizens arrayed against America accepted and legal.
"Oh, and to hear his daughter tell it, the baggage isn't nearly as heavy as the MSM has told us all those years."
Being born in Georgia in 1952, I was (naturally) a Democrat. (These still being the "Solid South" years)
I remained a Democrat even through the four years I spent at West Georgia College (1970-1974) I got to know Newt quite well.
What DID move me away from the Democrats involved Newt Gingrich nevertheless.
After winning a seat in Congress (surprised the heck out of me) I was listening to the "news" one day and I heard some things about Newt that I personally KNEW were flat out lies. Now this wasn't just a one time mistake, they kept coming up with things that, again, I KNEW were lies.
So I thought, "Hey....if they are lying about this, have they been telling lies before?"
So I put down my Gore Vidal and John Kenneth Galbraith and picked up William Buckley and Thomas Sowell.
After finally reading the thoughts of Conservative intellectuals (that had been for all intents and purposes denied me through 16+ years of education) it was made clear to me WHY they had to lie.
As the old saying goes, when the facts are against you, pound the table.
So after 38 years of punching a straight Democratic ticket, I made a vow never to vote for any Democrat ever again.
I have kept that promise.
Ritmo: I am sorry if I made the same mistake you did here, and took you for another commenter. I was mistaken, and I apologize. You were not "J." Like you did with "Tim" earlier in this thread, I thought I detected a certain style in some of "J's" comments. I think it became quickly apparent to everyone, partly as a result of your stirring self-defense, and partly because of "J's" increasingly over-the-top craziness, that "J" could not have been you, so I thought nothing more needed to have been said.
And, yes, I did use the screen name "Tim" at the time of the comment you linked. I changed it shortly after, precisely because I noticed other "Tims" here and there and wanted to avoid confusion. My previous comment was simply to let you and the other commenters who may remember me know that I am not the present-day "Tim."
All this is quite simple and straightforward. And I don't think it bears any more discussion, as I, for one, do not want to hijack this thread to settle old, quite silly, blogospheric disputes.
Ritmo - so tell me what makes Obama qualified to run the USA?
A willingness to do things differently after Republican mismanagement drove the country into the worst recession since they did last time...
I'd love to hear your version of what the "Republican mismanagement" consisted of during the Bush years, and why what Obama, Pelosi & Reid have done differently in the past three past years has been an improvement over Republican policy.
Because from where I sit, Obama/Pelosi/Reid's results make the argument against liberal policy better than any conservative pundit ever could.
Of course, the decision by a secret panel reporting only to the President that an American citizen is "guilty" of whatever the alleged crime may be is not the rule of law, however much apologists for state murder and tyranny may wish it to be so.
It no more validates a Star Chamber verdict to say of the accused "he's a terrorist actively engaged in war against America" than it would be for a secret panel of prosecutors to deem any one of us to be "guilty of..." whatever garden variety crime (assault, burglary, sale of drugs) without a trial in a court of law.
Once we accept this as "rule of law," then we have no law, we have only edicts by the state announcing who will next be assassinated or disappeared or imprisoned as an enemy of the state.
I cannot conceive of a single citizen who voted for Obama changing his mind and voting for Gingrich. There might be a few who stay home, but that's the best you could hope for. There is no possible way for Gingrich to win this election.
"Once we accept this as "rule of law," then we have no law, we have only edicts by the state announcing who will next be assassinated or disappeared or imprisoned as an enemy of the state."
I think Gingrich's point was that it's wrong to assume that "rule of law" is something that applies outside of positive jurisdiction.
I tend to think that citizenship is an important and powerful thing and that citizenship does/ought to invoke our legal jurisdiction, just as it invokes protection, for those citizens outside of our borders.
But the recent trend to view everything as being within the realm of US legal jurisdiction is simply wrong. There is an important difference between what is covered on one side of that jurisdictional line and what is not covered on the other side of it. War and other extra-national issues are outside of it.
Otherwise we get stupidity like Spain thinking their legal system applies to anyone in the whole world. What if we, instead, decided that?
The question of assassination, outside of a declared war is a sticky one. Within a declaration of war... yes, I think it's probably a good thing to go after some of these guys personally instead of wading through a battle field of knee deep blood to reach them. Outside a declaration of war I think I'd go for being above board and declaring war instead of getting into the habit of assassination by whim.
Do I think that we ought to have *ever* decided to assassinate a US citizen, no matter how undeniably guilty? No. As inconvenient as it is, I think that the magic talisman of citizenship ought to have far more weight than that.
Or if it's necessary, a real trial revoking citizenship ought to happen first.
If he gets killed by accident by being an ass in the wrong place doing wrong things, that's different.
Ritmo and other semi-rational A-housers--this freak "TTBurnett" --aka one Byro Bellami--note his vicious insults of the police-- mormon, Romney and Al Gore fan, reg at leftist sites like d-Kos (tho actually white supremacist), druggie etc--is responsible for at least 10+ names on here,including the blowhard sorepaw. He hangs with the perps at Trooper York as well with anonymous names. Note the similarities of rants--childish, unfunny anecdotes, endless insults, ad hominems, blatant lies, nothing specific, etc .
A cyber-stalker, and ex-con ...be aware.
Say no more, Sir. I'll delete the 10:12 AM post as it seems the only fair thing to do.
Aren't you worried that you won't be missed?
Um, no? LOL.
Listen to this moron Byro-sorepaw mumble, ritmo--he thinks he's like a "reg"--wow-- when he's a ridiculous druggie psycho, like flunked out of his RN program his first year--but did get a bit part in Death of a Salesman in Phoenix once. Tell the gang about yr fave Tofu recipe, Byro-Sorepaw, tough Al Gore guy. Heh heh. per Mr T--pity da foo
Running against the journalist class is not a bad strategy.
This.
But, trials are so slow and messy. Much better we just kill them & remove all doubt - dead=guilty. It's so easy to think like a Republican sometimes.”
Or – to “think like” Obama, who has increased drone-killing since he took office. Obama = “just kill them” even more and thereby neatly avoiding the potentially vexing political problem that capturing them alive might bring about.
With high-level terrorist operatives, whether foreigner or citizen, I see only 3 practical options: kill them, capture them or ignore them. He’s not capturing them. At least Obama’s not ignoring them.
Last I heard Obama was a Democrat.
" Ann Althouse said...
"She reminds me o' me."
Yeah, and in that regard, I do not in any way think I would be a good president. I don't think I would be good in any executive capacity. I'm not the "leader" type in the slightest."
WOW, a woman who knows her place.
Sorry, I couldn't resist, smile.
"Like keeping Gitmo open, for example.
That one required Obama break a campaign promise."
Well--it's not like he EVER broke a campaign promise. Remember way back when, in the primary, he 'promised' to accept public funding to wage a 'clean' campaign?
yo B-"frank" keep the evidence flowing, druggie. Yr verbal assaults on the O-town cops--good work there,bozo. Hasta la buh bye, perp
All these posts of 'killing' in wartime? is a neat intellectual exercise. Watched a 80 something
2nd LT. last week tell of one of his GI's in North Africa he had take a half dozen German POW's to the rear. The GI came back in short order and reported he had 'executed' them. The LT. started to tell him he was under arrest when his fellow soldiers explained the GI was an American-Jew whose parents were killed by Germans. The LT decided, due to combat, they needed to move forward--he 'forgot' about it. Situational ethics? I think he 'did the right thing'. Of course, the MSM was on our side in that war, smile.
Well, thank you very much J.
"Yeah, if Gingrich goes abroad to join Al Qa'eda and plan terrorist attacks on the United States, he might be taken out in a military operation."
Without a trial how could it be determined that the government's claims that Gingrich were a member of Al Qaeda and was planning terrorist attacks on the United States were true?
We do not accept the state's assertion that a street criminal is guilty of a crime without his first being adjusted guilty by a jury at trial, and we can no more accept on faith as true the state's assertion that an American citizen (or anyone, for that matter), is a terrorist, just because Muslim terrorist is our new boogity-boogity scare word to elicit Pavlovian reaction of fear and hatred in Americans.
Look how many lies the government tells all the time, including that Saddam Hussein was somehow a confederate of bin Laden and that Iraq had nukes mere minutes away from popping out of their E-Z Bake Ovens of WMD.
@ Robert Cook ...
In life--shit happens. In war shit REALLY happens.
Okay, Frank...if the President of the United States ever decides to declare that you are a terrorist or other vile master criminal and assigns you for assassination--on no evidence presented at trial, acting on no verdict delivered by a jury--well, I guess shit happens.
It sounds to me like Perry is the one who said, "Well said, well said."
Ah yes, the smug, self satisfied (but I repeat myself) look on Pelley's face before the take down. I note they didn't show his face while Gingrich schooled him.
We loved it at our house (and the gracious response to the set up to trash talk another candidate [Romney]).
Pelley came off as inappropriately opinionated by interjecting to say, "It's not the rule of law," which played right into Gingrich's hands.
"Look how many lies the government tells all the time, including that Saddam Hussein was somehow a confederate of bin Laden and that Iraq had nukes mere minutes away from popping out of their E-Z Bake Ovens of WMD."
I've no doubt it's true that the government lies, but these aren't lies that the government ever told.
Being hyperbolic doesn't help your cause.
Still, this may be a good illustration of the difference between what is appropriate in war and what is appropriate for police and a court room.
You have got a right to defend yourself without any proof or trial or anything to prove that the person you kill was really going to kill you. After all, the only way to know for sure is to wait until he does it, at which point you're dead. The standard is only that a reasonable person would believe themselves in danger of their life.
No one claimed that Iraq had nukes or would have them in minutes, only that they were working on it and would get them. There were many reasons to hold this view as entirely reasonable at the time. There is no requirement whatsoever that we, as a nation, wait as law enforcement is required to do, until after the murder is committed or the nukes exist or are used.
The standard you suggest is moronic, Cook. Nations have no more requirement to wait until a crime is committed than a woman has a requirement to wait until after she's been raped or murdered to defend herself.
Courtrooms and trials occupy a different purpose.
That's not to say at all that we need not be diligent but it would be better if our criticisms weren't flagrantly naive.
Yes Robert, I would not be the first American killed by 'friendly fire'in a war. I guess that's why 'governmental immunity' exists. As we said in VN, "There it is."
And Robert--I find no moral equivalence between killing a Muslim preacher who happens to be American in Yemen and the murder of a US Federal Agent in 'Fast and Furious' a Justice Department progran run for dubious reasons. There's your 'proper' need for the criminal justice system. Give Holder, et. al. a fair trial and then execute him/them.
Frank, being assassinated by one's own government does not constitute "friendly fire," as you well know.
By the way, here's a relevant quote from Thomas Paine, as true now as when he offered it:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
We have forgotten this plain as a fist in the face principle, and it will have have blowback for us, no doubt.
Paine also said:
"Character is much easier kept than recovered."
This is as true of nations as of men, and we have shed our character over these last ten years as readily as a stripper with kids to feed. We are a shabby relic of what we once were--or at least aspired to be, reality never living up to aspirations--a nation on a binge of killing and torture and glib excuses for betrayal of principles, and have disgraced ourselves.
With regard to the shocking and shameful sight of several of the terminal mediocrities clawing for the Republican nomination openly asserting their willingness to employ torture if they were to become President, Paine had another applicable observation, (as humans were were the same then as now, with the same swift eagerness to justify perfidy with honeyed oratory):
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."
Synova, no, the Bush administration never explicitly said Saddam had nukes mere "minutes" away from ready status, but their language was intended to (and did) create that impression in the minds of a fearful citizenry--we who had just been battered by the horror of 9/11, and whose Pavlovian fear responses were being conditioned with regular (and I have no doubt, fraudulent), escalations of the terror color code from cool to HOT every other day--with their repetition of the doom-laden phrase "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Make no mistake: our war in Iraq was predicated on lies.
No one claimed that Iraq had nukes or would have them in minutes, only that they were working on it and would get them. There were many reasons to hold this view as entirely reasonable at the time.
Sorry, this is simply untrue. Cheney's statement that there is no doubt that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program had no basis in fact or available intelligence (and they deliberately misread and only believed what they wanted to on the subject of other WMDs). There was zero evidence (let alone "no doubt") that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program.
The U.S. went after an Al Qaeda command and control node. Alawi wasn't targeted because he was an American, but because he represented a key communications node of an enemy force with which we are engaged in a declared war.
The target was Alawi's cell phone.
We would have attacked that cell phone even if Alawi was not a citizen. No "warrant" needed. The warrant was a Congressional use of force resolution to authorize the President to target Al Qaeda anywhere in the world.
As an avowed member of the opposing force, Alawi holds no claim to protection against the miltary actions of the U.S. Armed Forces at that point. It is only upon being taken alive that he can claim an entitlement to due process, including a trial. If this was important to him he had ample opportunity to seek justice by turning himself in to a U.S. embassy in the region.
Instead, he continued to wage jihad against the United States.
Jason,
Where is the proof of any of that? Say what you will, parrot the claims of the government all you like, as an American citizen Awlaki was entitled to and gauranteed due process of law. We even put Mafia capos and serial murderers on trial before we pronounce guilt or execute sentencing.
He was not killed on a battlefield or in a firefight with American troops; he was assassinated by drone bombing strike. If he was what the government claimed him to be, we should have presented evidence in court and obtained an indictment in absentia and made efforts to apprehend him.
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
From Trivial Pursuit:
I take it as read that you’re right about the CBS Saturday-night debate disaster and moderator Scott Pelley, but let’s look on the bright side: The MSM just did every conservative, including the candidates, a huge favor by letting the mask slip and flashing its true ugly face for the cameras. Mr. Newt has been rising in the polls not simply because the anybody-but-Romney (count me in that camp) vote needs to go somewhere, but because he’s taking the fight to the enemy — and the Enemedia — as thousands cheer...
What Newt is doing — finally — is showing the Right how to fight back, by turning the Left’s own weapons (in this case, of sneering disdain) back on them. Principles, not programs: those three little words, not 57-point manifestos, ought to be our mantra heading into the crucial 2012 election, and the candidate who can best make that case will defeat Barack Obama.
This article was about Gingrich getting the better of Pelley at the debates. Gingrich has shown that the right can get blood (of the leftist MSM) here and that getting such blood was popular. I expect to see more and more of this as the debates wind down - not just from Newt, but from other candidates too.
I think that it should be obvious why this put down was so popular with the audience. The MSM, living in their liberal cocoons, has been running these debates, to their own advantage. They could show how weak the Republican contenders were by their failing to address the issues as determined and outlined by the leftist moderators. Much of the audience could see it, but the candidates went on, apparently buying into the leftist world views of those moderators, debate after debate.
I think now that many now see that the emperor has no clothes, when it comes to the MSM and their claimed objectivity. They have none, because they live and work in a leftist cocoon. And, they aren't half as smart as they and the rest of the left think.
Its always shocking to me when I run into a liberal,
especially, an Obama supporting Liberal, for whom character is critical to political office. Specifically, I wonder how much analysis of character this Ritmo guy completed before he cast his vote for Obama. Since Obama's past has been scrubbed from the face of the earth, I wonder what Ritmo concluded from virtually no data so as to satisfy himself that Obama achieved his incredibly high moral standards.
I wonder when the libs started subscribing to that idea.
Let's not forget Weinergate. The MSM took Weiner's word, circled the wagons around him and tried to further the narrative that Breitbart hacked into Weiner's Twitter account.
Make no mistake: our war in Iraq was predicated on lies.
Have been hearing this mantra since not long after we went into Iraq. But almost all evidence is that what you claim to be a "lie" was, in fact, a global wide intelligence failure, made worse in this country by the gutting of CIA field operations by Democratic Presidents. Add in that the presence of WMDs were just one of a number of reasons repeatedly listed by President Bush before intervention into Iraq.
Nevertheless, this is getting far afield when it comes to the subject at hand, and may be evidence of hijacking the thread in order to take pressure off of the highly biased MSM and their performance here.
I wonder how much analysis of character this Ritmo guy completed before he cast his vote for Obama. Since Obama's past has been scrubbed from the face of the earth, I wonder what Ritmo concluded from virtually no data so as to satisfy himself that Obama achieved his incredibly high moral standards.
Not all of it was "scrubbing". Rather, some of it was intentionally not leaving any footprints. Apparently, all of those "present" votes, as well as many of the absent votes by Obama were the result of advice by former Sen. Tom Daschle, who was helping prepare Obama for running for the Presidency. Which, BTW, is why Daschle was offered that health care post (which had to be revoked due to the discovery of income tax fraud on the part of Daschle).
"But almost all evidence is that what you claim to be a 'lie' was, in fact, a global wide intelligence failure...."
If you believe this, I've got a Tower on 5th Avenue called Trump I can sell you for cheap!
When caught in a lie, all the liar need say is--"Oops! I guess we got it wrong! La dee dah!", akin to the standard courthouse testimoney dodge of "Ummm...I don't remember...."--and all questions just go away!
Everyone knows the government lied, but no one wants to acknowledge it, so everyone just agrees to accept that there was a "global wide intelligence failure."
It was baloney then and it's baloney now.
Where is the proof of any of that? Alawi's own words. His status as an adherant to and leader of Al Qaeda is not in contention.
We even put Mafia capos and serial murderers on trial before we pronounce guilt or execute sentencing.
They aren't combatants in a declared war. If they were, we'd kill them, too, by whatever means was at hand.
He was not killed on a battlefield Yes, he was, twit.
...or in a firefight with American troops;
If he were, you would have accused those troops of being war criminals, fool.
But why expose our own troops to danger if we can hit him remotely? Only an idiot would choose to risk troops' lives.
If he was what the government claimed him to be, we should have presented evidence in court and obtained an indictment in absentia and made efforts to apprehend him.
What are you? Twelve? Apprehend him? In Yemen? Jesus, Cook... you're stupid even for a libtard.
Combatants don't get trials. As long as they're combatants, on foreign soil, they get bullets. 'Twas ever thus. That is, in fact, legal.
His citizenship status only comes into play when he ceases to be a combatant.
Grow up.
The article in your blog reminds me some old memory .That is good .It gives me happy .I think we will have a harmonious talk.Do you agree?personal business coach
business coaching services
Jason, simply being an adherent of a terrorist group does not remove from an American citizien his due process rights...at least, there are no such due process exceptions in the Constitution. (And, the Mafia has killed more people in this country and caused more harm over time and over all than Al Qaeda will ever succeed in doing. Should we, perhaps, remove from Mafiosi--and other criminal gangs--due process protections as well, given their more real and present danger to American communities than AQ will ever pose?) And what evidence do you have--or has the government presented to be determined in court by a jury--that Awlaki was a combatant?
Again, this is simply a case of uttering the magic boogity-boogity scare words "muslim terrorist" to short circuit not just due process of law but logic.
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thanks, I’ve seen your blog before during my, all of the ex-pats are linked together, which is really cool. Thanks for the mention and I put your link up here too.personal business coach
business coaching services
Jason, simply being an adherent of a terrorist group does not remove from an American citizien his due process rights
This case wasn't simply a matter of "being an adherent of a terrorist group," dumbass.
And, the Mafia has killed more people in this country and caused more harm over time and over all than Al Qaeda will ever succeed in doing. Should we, perhaps, remove from Mafiosi--and other criminal gangs--due process protections as well, given their more real and present danger to American communities than AQ will ever pose?)
If they remove themselves from the reach of U.S. law enforcement, adhere to an organization that has declared war against the U.S., that the U.S. has itself declared war against, and by actively planning operations against Americans, make themselves active combatants in a declared war, then no, shit-for-brains, we should not invent a "due process" right for active illegal combatants in a shooting war that has NEVER existed.
They may have some protections as non-combatants. But NOT as combatants. Legally, that falls under the constitutional purview of the DoD, not the judiciary - and there it remains until such time as they cease to be combatants. That is, when they are captured or they are so disabled from wounds as to be combat ineffective.
You think that's not true, you ignorant half-wit? The Attorney General of a Democrat administration says you're full of shit. Yeah, maybe you'll have better luck with the Republicans.
Keep on fucking that chicken. The world will go on merrily ignoring you like a hysterical child.
Once again, Jason, you merely repeat unajudicated allegations. How do you know Awlaki was involved in "actively planning" terrorist actions against America, or that he was a "combatant?" Where have those allegations been proved in a court of law, or proved at all?
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
How do you know Awlaki was involved in "actively planning" terrorist actions against America
His own words.
or that he was a "combatant?" He was designated as such by the DoD, which is the legal authority for that process for those outside the U.S.
Where have those allegations been proved in a court of law,
Damn, your thicker than Foamy shaving cream. The "court of law" is wholly irrelevant here.
U.S. civilian courts don't get involved in shooting wars on foreign soil. They don't want to. They don't have the expertise to make combatant/noncombatant determinations.
That determination is the sole purview of the executive branch, delegated to the DoD. That is the constitutional process at work here.
Which Gingrich explains in so many words, but you're too stupid of a commie to grasp.
If he wanted a judicial involvement, he had ample opportunity to avail himself of it. He didn't. His choice. Cry me a river.
"Unajudicated?!?!?!?!"
Christ, you're a twit.
>>> We all know people who are not the MOST intelligent or well informed, but who rarely make such mistakes.
That's because all too often people confuse Wisdom with Intellect.
Intellect, measured fairly well by the IQ metric, is the capacity to learn from books.
Wisdom, with no equivalent "WQ" metric, is the capacity to learn from experience, or, even better, from the experience of others:
“Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others.”
― Otto von Bismarck
The two are not only not one and the same, but have no real connection to one another in terms of genetics or training. There are Foolish Geniuses (think Noam Chomsky) as well as the "Wise Uneducated".
More interesting still, I believe, is my own personal observation that, if there were such a thing as a "WQ" test, then one quality which could be found almost uniformly and without exception among the self-designating "Left" is that they are all "Widiots". I believe almost all of them would test out on the very low end of the "WQ" bell curve.
If you consider this, it does a remarkable job of explaining the observable "Liberal Midnight Reset Button"**, as well as their unending and erroneous belief in Communism, Socialism, and other forms of Governmental Collectivism.
They can't learn from experience.
Not won't. Can't.
===============================================
** Description of The Liberal Midnight Reset Button Here
"Ritmo - so tell me what makes Obama qualified to run the USA?
A willingness to do things differently after Republican mismanagement drove the country into the worst recession since they did last time, nearly eighty years to the day before. And winning 55% of the vote based on it."
So Bush was a great president then. I would like to point out that, first of all, Obama's policies aren't that different. Bailouts, deficit spending/stimulus, interest rate cuts, supporting amnesty for illegals, not enforcing immigration laws(even though not as openly as this current admin) etc are the same policies Bush had. Besides tax rates, can I know what exactly does Obama do differently? The only difference is in the details.
Besides your glaring misunderstanding of economics, it is also funny that Bush also won elections. So by your logic, Bush was a great president because he had for the most part the same policies as Obama and because he won the elections.
gcg is the recognized leader in legal administration services for class action settlement,bankruptcy cases and legal noticing programs.class action
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा