Jesse Jackson in 2008: 'Obama will stop Zionist influence on White House'
For those who have forgotten, let's go to the videotape with @greta interviewing Newt Gingrich (Hat Tip: Marcy W).
Sounds to me like Obama lied again, especially in light of what has happened in the last several months. And 78% of American Jews, including Dumb Dumb Debbie listened but did not hear.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Saban described the
president’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
as “like oil and water.” That has fed a perception, he said, that Obama
has not been a friend to Israel, although Saban said he thinks that, in
reality, “there’s never been this level of cooperation with any previous
president.”
Still, Saban said that he
thinks Clinton would repair the relationship and that he has told her he
would spend “whatever it takes” to propel her into the White House.
That includes giving millions of dollars to Priorities USA, a super PAC
that helped Obama in 2012 and is revving up to aid Clinton in 2016.
“I
have told her and everybody who’s asked me, ‘Whatever it takes, we’re
going to be there,’ ” Saban said. “I think she would be a fantastic
president for the United States, an incredible world leader and one
under whom I believe — deeply — the relationship with the U.S. and
Israel will be significantly reinforced.”
Asked
if he would press his friend Adelson to give to the pro-Clinton super
PAC, Saban said, “I’ve got chutzpah, but I’m not suicidal.”
In
their public remarks, Saban and Adelson found common ground in their
disdain for Iran, and their fear for the danger they say that regime
poses for Israel. They expressed concern about U.S. negotiations over
Iran’s nuclear program.
Adelson said that Iranian fundamentalists are
instructed by their religion to “wipe out all infidels” and that “wiping
out the Jews would be a down payment on that.”
Referring to U.S. engagement with Iran, he said: “I would not just talk. I would take action.”
Saban
said that fundamentalist Iranians represent a real threat. If necessary
to defend Israel, and as a last resort, he added, “I would bomb the
living daylights out of the sons of bitches.”
Saban endorsed a
bill from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who addressed the group on
Saturday night, that would subject any Iranian nuclear deal to
congressional approval. Saban said a system of checks and balances with
the Obama administration on foreign policy is critical.
...
In their hour-long discussion, Saban and Adelson had few
disagreements, but one concerned how Israel engages with Palestinians.
Saban said Israel has no choice but to negotiate with the Palestinians,
whose numbers in the region roughly equal those of Israeli Jews.
“What
is Israel to do with these 6 million people?” Saban asked. “It is not
about granting the Palestinian state. It’s about securing the future of a
democratic Israel.”
But Adelson rejected the feasibility of a two-state solution.
“Newt
Gingrich was right: The Palestinians are an invented people,” Adelson
said, referring to a controversial statement made by the former
Republican House speaker whose failed 2012 presidential campaign Adelson
heavily funded.
Evenhaim asked the men
whether they think the news media are biased against Israel. Saban said
they are but cited two exceptions: Fox News Channel and the Wall Street
Journal. He joked to Adelson that they should have bought The [Washington] Post
together.
Is Israel better off with Romney in the White House?
On Sunday, I blogged a CNN interview with Michael Hayden, a former CIA director in the Bush administration and a key adviser to Mitt Romeny. In the interview, surprisingly (and in a minute I'll explain why it's surprising), Hayden defended President Obama's feckless Iran policy and the discredited 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, which claimed that Iran had given up developing a nuclear weapon in 2003.
Caroline Glick weighs in on the Hayden interview and asks some questions I've been wondering about myself, particularly regarding Jennifer Rubin's cheerleading for Romney (for an example of her pounding on Rick Santorum, go here).
The fact that this is the view of Romney's adviser has to make you wonder why all the pro-Israel American Jewish policy wonks have been going after every Republican candidate other than Romney with such intensity. It's fine to support Romney or any other Republican over Obama. Certainly, Romney would be better for the US and the US economy than Obama.
But the fact is that while Romney is more pro-American than Obama is and would be friendlier to Israel and the US's other allies than Obama has been, he isn't that great on the issues that these Jewish pundits care about. He certainly isn't as strong as the other candidates including Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and before them Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. He's okay. He's better than Obama. But he isn't the best the Republican field has offered. Certainly it makes sense to support him. But it makes no sense to go to to the mattresses for him against every other Republican contender.
But whether the Jennifer Rubins of the American Jewish punditocracy take note of the problem or not is secondary to whether Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu notices it.
The message that Hayden just transmitted to Netanyahu is very clear and it is crucial that Netanyahu hears it.
Hayden's oped is as clear a warning to Israel as Obama's statement to Medvedev about being more anti-American after he gets reelected. What Hayden just told us is that as far as Iran's nuclear weapons program is concerned, it doesn't matter who is in the White House in January 2013.
Caroline has got it right, and yet that this is Hayden's view is also surprising.
On CNN on Sunday, former CIA director Michael Hayden sounded an awful lot like he was advocating the exercise of a military option against Iran's nuclear program.
My personal view is that Iran left to its own devices will get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon," said Hayden, "and frankly that will be as destabilizing as their actually having a weapon.”
The former CIA director stated that an attack on Iran had not originally been a serious option, but in light of Iran's intensified pursuit of nuclear materials, the military option "may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.”
Has Hayden changed his mind? Is there a fix in? Why are Santorum and Gingrich getting such short shrift from many - if not most - Republican supporters of Israel? And why is Gingrich staying in the race if all he can hope to accomplish is to prevent Santorum from slugging it out with Romney?
For those of you who are not Jewish, or even for those who are but don't keep Kosher, you should be aware that the OU (Orthodox Union or Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations) is best known for it's Kosher seal of approval - the U with an O around it that you see in the picture above - on food products worldwide. It is also the largest organization servicing 'modern Orthodox' Jews in the United States and Canada. Has Barack Hussein Obama been granted an OU?
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu should not meet with Republican presidential candidates during his upcoming trip to Washington so as not to be perceived as taking sides in the campaign, Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Orthodox Union (OU), said this week.
...
A source in the Prime Minister’s Office said that while no final decision had been made on whether Netanyahu would meet the Republican presidential candidates, it was not likely he would meet with one if could not meet with all four – Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul – which was an unlikely occurrence.
In past election years, the source said, Israel’s prime minister had generally met only with presidential candidates after their party’s convention.
I can accept Netanyahu not meeting with any Republican candidates if he can't meet with three of the four (Santorum, Gingrich and Romney - I don't think he should meet with Ron Paul). But if the reason he's not going to meet with them is that he can't meet with all of them (a reason that makes sense given that the nomination is still contested), he ought to meet with the Republican leadership in Congress - John Boehner and Eric Cantor in the House and Mitch McConnell in the Senate. We can be assured that President Obama will do all he can to use Netanyahu's visit for the benefit of his own campaign, and Netanyahu ought to counter that by being seen with Republicans.
By the way, despite the best efforts of a certain Democratic activist within the OU's leadership (full disclosure: I was a national officer in the OU's youth group many years ago and am still in contact with the organization), Nathan Diament admits in the article that members of the OU's constituent synagogues voted 3-1 for John McCain in 2008. This time, God willing, that vote will be even more overwhelming in favor of the Republican nominee.
So no, Obama doesn't have an OU seal of approval yet, and given how unpopular he is in the modern Orthodox Jewish community, I doubt he'll be getting one any time soon. But there are still people within the organization who are doing all they can to minimize the damage that can be done to Obama's campaign by members of the modern Orthodox Jewish community.
It's Ed Morrissey's doing: Santorum wins Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado
On Monday, I reported that Ed Morrissey had endorsed Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination for President. On Tuesday, Santorum - whose only previous win wasn't even acknowledged until days later - swept the caucuses in Minnesota, Missouri (Hat Tip: Memorandum) and Colorado (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). This is from the Minnesota and Missouri link:
Santorum solidly defeated Romney in Minnesota and Missouri, and he narrowly edged the former Massachusetts governor in Colorado, according to state GOP officials.
The victories mark a sharp turnaround for the former Pennsylvania senator, whose candidacy had been sputtering after he failed to capitalize on his narrow win in Iowa last month. Santorum’s wins across the Midwest Tuesday could bestow new legitimacy on his insurgent efforts and boost his fundraising in the critical period before next month’s major contests.
Santorum now appears to pose a more serious threat not only to Romney, but also to Gingrich, who had been positioning himself as the logical alternative to Romney.
Santorum staked his own claim on Tuesday.
“Conservatism is alive and well,” he told supporters at his election night party in Missouri. “I don’t stand here and claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”
For Romney, his poor showing Tuesday raised anew the question that has dogged his candidacy all along: Can the relatively moderate, former Massachusetts governor become an acceptable standard-bearer of a party that is increasingly dominated by evangelical conservatives and tea party activists who have long been skeptical of Romney?
And the Colorado race was nowhere near as close as that previous article made it sound. This is from the Colorado link.
Colorado's race see-sawed throughout the night until 11 p.m., when Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call declared Santorum the winner, beating Mitt Romney 40 percent to 35 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting.
"This is a major upset," said Denver-based political analyst Floyd Ciruli. "Definitely, there is a new story now."
Even Romney, who easily won Colorado's Republican contest in 2008 with 60 percent of the vote, acknowledged in his speech from the Auraria campus his new challenger.
"This was a good night for Rick Santorum, but I still expect to become the nominee," the former Massachusetts governor said. "I look forward to the contest to come."
A few comments. First, Santorum didn't capitalize on his win in Iowa, because Romney was declared the winner there. It was only days later - after Romney had capitalized on the momentum - that it was announced that Santorum won.
Second, I think that George Soros video I posted and others like it are hurting Romney's claim that he's a conservative. You can't win the Republican party today without a credible claim of conservatism.
Third, I suspect that deep down, a lot of conservatives are uncomfortable with Gingrich's personal life. Santorum's squeaky clean image is far more appealing to conservatives if they think he can win. And apparently, he can win.
And fourth, on a personal note, Santorum was maligned for claiming that he had never sat next to a woman on a couch other than his wife. Well, that sort of behavior resonates with many Orthodox Jews. I suspect that Santorum could raise a lot of money in our community by letting people knew that in addition to being a strong supporter of Israel, his moral standards accord with ours.
Rasmussen's latest tracking poll shows that there is a Republican candidate who leads Barack Hussein Obama. It's not Mitt Romney and it's not Newt Gingrich. It's Rick Santorum (Hat Tip: Sunlight via Bret Baier and The Weekly Standard).
In a potential Election 2012 matchup, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is at 45% while President Obama earns 44%. This is the first time in any poll that Santorum has led the president. Several other GOP challengers have led the president a single time in the polls including Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. Each man briefly held the lead while they were surging in the polls, only to fall quickly. It remains to be seen what will happen to Santorum’s support. [...]
Only one GOP candidate has led the president in more than one poll and that’s former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. At the moment, however, he is behind. The latest daily numbers show President Obama at 47% and Romney at 43% (see tracking history). These matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
Hmmm. Check back with Rasmussen in a few hours for Sunday's poll.
Video: Newt Gingrich in 2007: Israel to blame for 'Palestinian suffering'
Oh dear....
Get a load of this video from @NewtGingrich on the Charlie Rose show in 2007 in which he blames Israel for 'Palestinian suffering' ('Israel has to bear the burden...).
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Yechezkel Gordon via Twitter).
Here's a fascinating video that shows Bob Kunst, who has been with the Democratic Left all his life talking about supporting Israel with Dr. Rich Swier. I'll tell you the conclusion because it's in the first video anyway: Obama must go. Kunst, who has never voted Republican in his life is ready to vote for Newt.
This investment in the survival of Assad indicates which of the four aspects of Hezbollah’s identity mentioned above are most important to it. The link with the Iran-led alliance and maintaining the ability to wage war against Israel are the cardinal interests. To maintain these, Hezbollah has to a great extent sacrificed its more nebulous self-image as a leader of pan-Islamic “resistance.” Syrian Sunnis leading the uprising against Assad now count Hezbollah among their enemies. The movement’s flag has been burnt at opposition rallies. So the uprising in Syria has served to remove the veil of “resistance” from the face of Hezbollah. The sectarian visage beneath has been revealed. Hezbollah has been exposed as a sectarian, Iran-aligned Shia force, backing a vicious, non-Sunni dictatorship in its war against its own, largely Sunni people. Polls show the resulting disappearance of the high regard in which Hezbollah was once held across the Arab world.
Nothing stopped Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister in Gaza, from making Ahmadinejad-style declarations that Israel’s days are numbered and calling for the establishment of an Arab Jihad army for Palestine’s liberation. Yet behind the pretentious slogans lies a grim reality for Hamas that can no longer be hidden. First, Hamas’ alliance with Iran has come to an end. This pact was unnatural to begin with, given that we saw a Sunni organization endorsing a non-Arab Shiite state. Yet when Hamas refused Iran’s orders to support the fading Bashar Assad, Tehran shut its door to the group. What’s worse, the flow of money used by Hamas to pay some 50,000 officials and troops in Gaza has ended.
Saturday's crackdown on Shiites - occurring as Hamas dismantles its headquarters in Damascus amid Syrian president Bashar Al Assad's political troubles - is an obvious affront to its long-time patron and may be a sign that one strut of that axis is rickety. It also may be an indication that the tectonic political shifts underway since the Arab Spring erupted last year may be affecting the Gaza Strip. "Because Hamas is straying from this Hizbollah-Syria relationship, that means they are freer to do these kinds of things," said Hani Habib, a political analyst and writer, who lives in Gaza.
Hamas might not suffer long term ill effects from losing its Iranian sponsor, with the Sinai being a new front, Hamas should be able to get significant new sources of financing and weaponry. Hezbollah's situation would appear to be a bit more tenuous.
For as long as it lasts the crisis in Syria will manifest the inter-Arab fault line of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states vs. Syria, and deepen the Persian-Arab, Sunni-Shiite, and historical Persian-Turkish (Ottoman) fault lines. Parallel to the metahistorical processes is the ongoing weakening of the United States in the Middle East and the rise of Islamic regimes that, albeit mostly Sunni, are much closer to Iran than to America. From Tehran's standpoint, the real challenge is Turkey, as illustrated by the crisis with Syria. Turkey sees what is happening in Syria - its backyard - as part of the Arab Spring and calls on the president to respond to the will of the people, while Iran keeps backing Bashar and claims the Arab Spring is just a pretext to get rid of him. Both of these states have a superpower-imperialist past they would like to bring back, and will continue their dispute as the Middle Eastern tumult intensifies and even when the dust of the "Arab revolutions" settles. Both, with their apparent Islamic agenda, are competing for the same public, but still a wide gap yawns between them. Iran appears to be at an advanced stage of reshaping what it calls the resistance camp. The fall of one of its mainstays, the Assad regime, would affect Iran's ability to help Hizbullah in "real time" in the event of another round of hostilities with Israel, and the freedom of action of the Hamas headquarters in Damascus. Yet, at the same time, opportunities will open for Iran in the region. In its view, the electoral victories of the Islamic forces (even if Sunni) and the possibility of communicating with them without fear of governmental repression - particularly in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, while in eastern Saudi Arabia the Shiite minority is still under tight control - opens for Tehran a new range of ideology-driven opportunities. As in the past, the common denominator around which it seeks to unite all members of the camp is hatred of the West and Israel. Here, Iran's rhetoric about the Syrian crisis, which it portrays as an attempt to harm a central Arab actor that has operated against Israel and has paid and is paying a price for its actions, plays a salient role. Iran will try to consolidate the resistance camp in accordance with the changing geostrategic conditions of the region. In the first stage, it will work to widen the camp's ideological reach to include both a religious basis of Islam and an ideological-political basis of hatred of Israel and the United States. As for the practical aspects of the struggle against Israel, Iran will continue to leave them in the hands of Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, attempting to broaden the scope of military-terrorist conflict with Israel in the future. Meanwhile, Iran is assigning an important role to its nuclear program and to formulating an appropriate deterrence concept that will be combined with its current "resistance camp" doctrine.
As the Muslim Brotherhood and its associated movement gain strength Shi'ite Iran holds less interest for the newly dominant Sunni Islamists coming to power. Colin Kahl writes:
When Mubarak fell, Iran's leaders moved out with swagger. They saw one pivotal U.S. ally gone, and perceived an opportunity to exploit unrest to undermine other pro-Western regimes, especially Saudi Arabia. They sought to develop contacts with Islamists in Egypt and Libya, expand ties to opposition movements in Yemen, and capitalize on the indigenous Shiite protests in Bahrain. And Iran's leaders seemed confident that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, Tehran's state ally in the Middle East, was immune from the populist wave because of its militant stance toward Israel and the United States. One year later, however, it is hard to find evidence that Iran has benefited from the Arab uprisings. In fact, Iran's regional position has taken a big hit. With the partial exception of Yemen, Tehran has struggled to build new networks of influence with emerging Islamist actors. Meanwhile, Assad's regime has been thoroughly delegitimized, expelled from the Arab League, and is wobbling in the face of nationwide protests. This, in turn, has created considerable anxiety for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that constitutes Iran's chief non-state ally. The perception of Iranian meddling has also decimated Tehran's "soft power" appeal across the Arab world. Surveys conducted in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates by Zogby International show Iran's reputation in free fall since the Arab Spring began. Just a few years ago, Iran enjoyed a strong majority of support among the populations of all these countries; as of July 2011, Iran had a net unfavorable rating in every country but Lebanon.
Furthermore, there is a resolution from the General Assembly from 20 December 2010, and while it noted the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank, it also stressed, in quotes, “the need for respect and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. So just to repeat that the United Nations will continue to refer to the Gaza Strip as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory until either the General Assembly or the Security Council take a different view on the matter.
Elder of Ziyon recently attended a lecture given by Prof. Eugene Kontorovich that addressed this very issue. Toward the end, Elder of Ziyon presents this summary of Kontorovich's conclusions:
Kontorovich didn't get into the issue of Gaza, which may seem to be a problem since it has a different government, but he argues that since Area A is unquestionably part of what is claimed to be Palestine, that West Bank entity is undoubtedly a state. Having defined territory is not the same as having defined borders, and "Palestine" has st least some territory that it can call its own. Therefore, the professor says, the entire issue nowadays between Israel and the Palestinian Arab state is not an issue of occupation or legality - it is simply a border dispute that must be resolved the way all border disputes are resolved (or not.)
The UN seems intent on maintaining the Palestinians' grievances against Israel. It is those who deny Israel's many concrete concessions over the past 18+ years and who attach importance to a phony definition of "occupation" who are undermining peace and keeping the conflict alive.
No other candidate in the race for president appears to be relying so heavily on the fortune of a single donor. It’s been made possible by last year’s Supreme Court rulings — known as Citizens United — that recast the political landscape by stripping away restrictions on contributions and how outside groups can spend their money. Sheldon Adelson is Citizens United come to life. “The bottom line is that it creates that potential for one person to have far more influence than any one person should have,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign finance watchdog group Democracy 21.
In addition to portraying Adelson as extreme here the article accuses him of (legal) corruption. Is there any evidence for Wertheimer's charge? Of course not. In the The mainstreaming of antisemitism, Meryl Yourish writes:
This is how modern anti-Semitism works. In the shadows of the mainstream press, with the wink-wink nudge-nudges of innuendo and reading between the lines. Sheldon Adelson has bought and paid for a candidate who is running for president, and it’s clear that the quid pro quo will be Israel. Watch for Andrew Sullivan and his progressive brothers-in-arms to wave this news article like a flag on how Israel is controlling America.
A brother in arms, Wayne Barrett has done exactly that at the Daily Beast. (h/t Lauri Regan) Of course the Jewish American press has been up in arms over this viciousness. Actually it hasn't. The Forward's Gal Beckerman piles on with the offensive What Sheldon's money buys, which isn't appreciably different from the AP article.
Generally when the subject is Jewish support for Israel, the media is willing to engage in all sorts of innuendo, suggesting that support for Israel is based on ignorance, misplaced priorities or even dual loyalty. Prior to the Democratic primary in Florida four years ago, Jodi Kantor of the New York Times wrote, As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts:
Because of a dispute over moving the date of the state’s primary, Mr. Obama and the other Democratic candidates did not campaign in Florida. In his absence, novel and exotic rumors about Mr. Obama have flourished. Among many older Jews, and some younger ones, as well, he has become a conduit for Jewish anxiety about Israel, Iran, anti-Semitism and race. Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern’s friends told him in Aventura. (He’s not.) He is a part of Chicago’s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)
The gist of the article is that the only reason Jews wouldn't vote for Obama was out of ignorance. The tone of the article was extremely condescending.
Since then, U.S. policy has been in step with Sharon's. The peace process is "quiescent," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's special envoy to the region. "I've kind of gone dormant," he added. In December Bush appointed an articulate, hard-line critic of the traditional peace process, Elliott Abrams, director of Mideast affairs for the National Security Council. "The Likudniks are really in charge now," said a senior government official, using a Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon's political party. Neumann agreed that Abrams's appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams's views were shared by his boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, by Vice President Cheney and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "It's a strong lineup," he said. Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration who was convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal, then pardoned by President George H.W. Bush. In October 2000, Abrams wrote: "The Palestinian leadership does not want peace with Israel, and there will be no peace."
Later on the article suggested that support for Israel was also tied to support for attacking Iraq. While many American supporters of Israel did support the second Gulf War, official Israel didn't see Saddam as an immediate threat. Kaiser didn't consider the merits of the Israeli arguments, just that the administration was following Israeli or neo-conservative dictates. Pat Buchanan cited Kaiser as proof that Jews were leading the United States into war against its own interests.
The trend Meryl Yourish observed of grossly overstating Jewish influence in politics and ascribing sinister motives to that influence has been going on for awhile and unfortunately it is likely to continue.
Video: Romney and Gingrich both tell a 'Palestinian' why there's no peace
Here's a clip from Thursday night's Republican debate in Florida with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich both telling a 'Palestinian-American' why there's no peace in the Middle East.
Let's go to the videotape. I'll have more beneath the fold.
YNet refers to this as a 'rare agreement' between Romney and Gingrich.
All I ask is that whoever of them wins (or Santorum or anyone else in the race other than Ron Paul), please God let them beat Obama.
Becoming Christian isn't the only thing about Newt that's changed
You won't find George Bush or Rick Santorum meeting with Arafat. I'm told (and hope it's true) that you won't find pictures of Mitt Romney with him either. (Hat Tip: Jack W via Astute Bloggers).
Has Newt changed? He sure talks like he has. Let's hope he has.
Full interview with Marianne Gingrich plus Newt's response
Here's the full interview with Newt Gingrich's second wife, Marianne Gingrich.
Let's go to the videotape. You can shut off the Ron Paul ads (sorry - they're the only ones who have the video up at this writing) by clicking on the rectangle with the stub coming out.
Here's Newt Gingrich's full response at the debate.
Can Newt win? (With video from Marianne Gingrich interview)
Rick Perry is planning to drop out of the South Carolina primary on Thursday and endorse Newt Gingrich (Hat Tip: Memeorandum), a move that is likely to make Gingrich the man to beat for the anti-Romney candidacy in the Republican party, notwithstanding Thursday's news that Rick Santorum actually won the Iowa caucuses. Gingrich has been making a lot of very pro-Israelstatements lately.
But can Newt win? Over lunch today, Mrs. Carl told me that she thinks Newt is a disaster, and that if he wins the nomination, the Democrats will attack his personal life and Obama will be reelected. Mrs. Carl even told me that Newt divorced his first wife while she was dying from cancer (which of course made me think of John and Elizabeth Edwards). But Newt did not divorce his first wife while she was dying of cancer. She's still alive thirty years later.
Although the thrust of the story about his first divorce is not in dispute — Gingrich’s first wife, Jackie Battley, has said previously that the couple discussed their divorce while she was in the hospital in 1980 — other aspects of it appear to have been distorted through constant retelling.
Most significant, Battley wasn’t dying at the time of the hospital visit; she is alive today. Nor was the divorce discussion in the hospital “a surprise” to Battley, as many accounts have contended. Battley, not Gingrich, had requested a divorce months earlier, according to Jackie Gingrich Cushman, the couple’s second daughter. Further, Gingrich did not serve his wife with divorce papers on the day of his visit (unlike a subpoena, divorce papers aren’t typically “served”).
Gingrich’s marriage to Battley had been troubled for many years before it dissolved 31 years ago, both parties have said. Battley, who is seven years older than Gingrich, had been Gingrich’s high school math teacher in Columbus, Ga. They began dating after he graduated and were married in 1962, when Gingrich was 19 and a freshman at Emory University in Atlanta.
In time, the marriage grew contentious, and the couple spent several years in counseling. In spring 1980, Gingrich left her, Battley told The Washington Post in 1985. Around this time, the couple gathered their children, then ages 16 and 13, around the kitchen table at their home in Fairfax County and told them that they intended to divorce, Cushman wrote in a syndicated column in May (none of the family members nor Gingrich would comment for this article).
Gingrich's second wife has been interviewed by ABC News (Hat Tip: Memeorandum), which is now apparently going to run the interview on Thursday night's Nightline - two days before the South Carolina primary. This is from the first link in this paragraph.
Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
But now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!
ABCNEWS suits determined it would be "unethical" to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.
A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.
Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter.
"He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," Marianne Gingrich, Newt's wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year.
Developing...
What did Marianne Gingrich tell Brian Ross? Here's some of it.
In Europe, this would be considered a joke or a sign of machismo. But in the US - which still has some moral decency left - one's family life is not a matter to be taken lightly. On the other hand, in the last 20 years Americans have had a President who was provided with oral sex by a woman half his age while attending to the affairs of state in the oval office (and that's just the tip of Bill Clinton's iceberg). Will the American people really vote against Newt Gingrich because his ex-wife tells them to?
I don't know the answer to that last question. But I'm glad it's coming out now and not in the summer after the convention. And yes, I would still vote for Gingrich over Obama, but we'd likely be better off with squeaky clean Rick Santorum (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Newt: 'Palestinians' must give up 'right of return' before negotiating peace
Republican candidate Newt Gingrich is making a big assumption in thinking that the 'Palestinians' want to negotiate peace, but if Newt wins, the 'Palestinians' might actually find themselves with little choice other than to negotiate or lay low for four years.
America's worst ex-President (for now) has called Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich a racist. Yes, really.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W).
The full interview is scheduled for 9:00 pm Eastern on Wednesday night. I can't wait to hear what Jimmy the Dhimmi has to say about Israel. How was this guy ever elected President?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
