George Will Rips Gingrich, Huckabee and Malzberg
As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was lambasted by numerous liberal media outlets for comments he made to conservative radio host Steve Malzberg regarding President Obama's past.
Surprisingly joining in the harsh criticism was George Will whose column to be published in Sunday's Washington Post also excoriated former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as well as Malzberg:
If pessimism is not creeping on little cat's feet into Republicans' thinking about their 2012 presidential prospects, that is another reason for pessimism. This is because it indicates they do not understand that sensible Americans, who pay scant attention to presidential politics at this point in the electoral cycle, must nevertheless be detecting vibrations of weirdness emanating from people associated with the party.
Will then quoted one of Malzberg's many questions to Huckabee during his Febuary 28 interview, and actually said the former governor's answer should have been, "I've seen paranoia, goodbye."
After noting some of Huckabee's actual answer, Will continued:
Republicans should understand that when self-described conservatives such as Malzberg voice question-rants like the one above and Republicans do not recoil from them, the conservative party is indirectly injured. As it is directly when Newt Gingrich, who seems to be theatrically tiptoeing toward a presidential candidacy, speculates about Obama having a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" mentality.
After indirectly referring to Dinesh D'Souza's Forbes piece from last year involving Obama's Kenyan anti-colonial worldview, and how Gingrich spoke of it to National Review's Robert Costa, Will concluded:
To the notion that Obama has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview, the sensible response is: If only. Obama's natural habitat is as American as the nearest faculty club; he is a distillation of America's academic mentality; he is as American as the other professor-president, Woodrow Wilson. A question for former history professor Gingrich: Why implicate Kenya?
Let us not mince words. There are at most five plausible Republican presidents on the horizon - Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts governor Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
So the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.
What is one to make of Will going after two prominent Republicans this way, especially as Huckabee is currently leading the possible GOP candidate field according to a just-released NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll?
After a snippet of Will's piece was published by Politico early Friday morning, it was all the rage at MSNBC getting covered by Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow on their respective programs.
One can only imagine how much play this will get in the next 48 hours, as liberal media members love quoting conservative commentators when they go after folks on the right.
Will, of course, is no stranger to leaving the reservation. His September 2009 comments concerning our involvement in Afghanistan raised a lot of Republican eyebrows.
But Gingrich and Huckabee are highly-respected in most conservative circles making it a metaphysical certitude Will's comments will upset many of his readers. What will likely most worry conservatives is these opinions being published ten months before the first primaries and caucuses especially as Obama's reelection chances have greatly improved since November.
Numerous legislative victories in the lameduck session along with an exploding stock market and a firming economy have made the current White House resident a far more formidable opponent. The unemployment rate plummeting from 9.8 percent to 8.9 percent the past three months also complicates things for Republican challengers.
In addition, potential favorites such as Jeb Bush and Chris Christie continue to claim disinterest in running. Athough neither has said so, it's possible their decision is a result of Obama's suddenly strengthening position.
With this in mind, exactly how do Will's comments assist Republican efforts to oust the 44th president? Chris Matthews gave us a clue in his closing segment on Friday's "Hardball":
"Let Me Finish" tonight, and this week, with a challenge to the Republican Party.
Here’s how it goes: Don’t do what Huckabee did this week, skip the talk about the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya back in the 1950s, about the influence of his African father or grandfather, what influence they might have had on the president and make this campaign about how this president has performed as president. The policies he’s advanced and how they’ve performed.
Our country has a lot to talk about between now and November 2012. Don’t waste time talking about a country, Kenya, Barack Obama never lived in, a distant father he hardly even met, or a grandfather he never met.
Why?
For one reason, and I didn’t think of it, talk about something as far away and as exotic as the Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s seems a strange way to address the 2012 American presidential campaign, more important that you’re getting economic and other challenges facing the country right now.
Indeed.
This battle over Obama's background may have had its place in 2008 despite many on the right believing the fight never occurred because the junior senator from Illinois and his devotees in the media didn't let it happen.
Maybe that's so, but do most Americans, in particular independent voters, want to discuss the President's upbringing instead of issues that we're facing right here at home such as high unemployment, high gas prices, high food prices, low housing prices, and burgeoning revolutions in Africa and the Middle East that could quickly threaten our national security?
Don't we have far bigger fish to fry in 2011 than where the President was born and what influenced his worldview as a child? If he couldn't be beaten with such tactics in 2008 when he was just a totally unqualified junior senator, how can that possibly be a winning strategy now that he's got over two years presidential experience under his belt?
Malzberg in a telephone interview Saturday agreed that this potentially was Will's point, but felt questions about this president's background - birth certificate, college records, health records, etc. - would indeed be fair game if he was white. As he's African-American, such matters when raised always have the smell of racism even when it doesn't exist.
Although that is likely true, it doesn't necessarily validate the strategy.
Sitting presidents are difficult to beat. Despite the ongoing housing crisis and high unemployment, Obama's favorability rating has remained quite high, making defeating him even tougher.
Will like most conservatives desperately wants this to happen sending the current White House resident packing, and therefore most certainly wants what he believes is best for the Republican Party to accomplish this.
What he's saying is that some potential presidential candidates are focusing on extraneous issues that not only don't resonate with the majority of the public but also detract from the stronger message.
"[T]he nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons."
In sum, the vast majority of Americans don't care where Obama was born, and care even less about his father and his grandfather. The more Republicans talk about such things rather than jobs, gas and housing prices, exploding deficits and debt, and a totally unstable Middle East and African continent, the less the public cares what such they have to say.
Bill Clinton's motto in 1992 was, "It's the economy, stupid!"
To a certain extent, Will is saying the same should be true for Republicans 20 years later.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
George Will the Under Current RINO
Submitted by garyd99 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:33pm.
Yes the Republican's should be very concerned with what are this inept President's current policies are and why he should be defeated. However, it is very important to understand where these policies and programs originate from.
According to Will we don't need to know about Ayers and Jones. We don't need to know that almost everyone connected to him has extreme socialist or Maoist intent. We don't need to know what is driving his current foreign policy in the mid-east. We don't need to know about the connection to one of the worst individuals in the new world order.
All of these things drive this inept President but let’s not let anyone know because we sound like bad guys. For the last twenty years I have listened to the Will's, Doles, Bushes and McCain’s of the of the party only to suck hind teat.
I don't propose to know all the answers but I think Will should stick to baseball where at least has a 50% chance of being right.
Kool-Aid
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:01pm.
I guess liberals aren't the only ones who drink kool-aid, conservatives also sometimes take a sip. Garyd99 misses the whole point which is that McCain and Palin hammered Obama with Ayers and Wright in 2008 when he was virtually unknown and it did no good what so ever. Its now past history and to most of the voting public, he is inoculated to those issues. To beat Obama, who now has the power of an incumbant president, the Republicans need to show how his inept policies have hurt them (shouldn't be too hard) and have a candidate with a record of doing it better. Not just talk or ideas, but an actual track record.
McCain and Palin hammered Obama with---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:04pm.
Ayers and Wright, but the media effectively tamped that aspect down while campaigning full bore for Obama.McCain/Palin mentioned Ayers . . .
Submitted by Benjamin on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:24pm.
but not Wright. McCain was afraid of being called racist, which was stupid since no matter what he said, he was going to be called racist anyway. I don't know if the Wright issue would have mattered; however, at the time it became public in March 2008, over 60% of the country stated it would make them "less" likely to vote for Obama. Palin wanted to mention Wright in her stump speech, but was prohibited from doing so by McCain.
Benjamin---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:36pm.
good point. I should have put my subject sentence in quotation marks.Fairly or not, the PR battle
Submitted by kurt mueller on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:01pm.
Fairly or not, the PR battle regarding Obama's background has been lost -- the vast majority of Americans are not interested in the subject and a lot of people view those who are interested in his background as fringe figures or racists. Those are the facts as we find them and we must accept them at this point because absent some smoking gun evidence that Obama has been a Manchurian Candidate all along, nothing is going to change this. Huckabee should know this as well as anybody. Instead, he has shown incredibly poor judgment in making the comments and, if these comments harm his chances of gaing the nomination, I for one will be happy.
Don't forget that Huckabee
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:10pm.
Don't forget that Huckabee was the creep who tried to slime Romney in '08 by "innocently" asking...Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers?
I don't put anything past him.
"As he's African-American, such matters---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:05pm.
when raised always have the smell of racism even when it doesn't exist." - "Although that is likely true, it doesn't necessarily validate the strategy" - So if there is a possibility a comment, regardless of the subject, could be perceived as racially tinged if it pertains to Obama, maybe we best just keep our mouths shut altogether, as any and all criticism of Duh One is touted as being racially based anyway. Life, and especially politics, in this once great country, now officially sucks.I think Will is right. It IS
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:08pm.
I think Will is right. It IS the economy, stupid.
No one cared in 1992 or in 1996 about Bill Clinton's dalliances, and no one cares now about Obama's grandfather. For that matter, no one wants to hear any more about Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright. You guys gave it your best shot, and it didn't work. Give it up already.
If the Republicans insist on going that route, the entire rebuttal from the Obama campaign will simply be: The American people heard all this in 2008 and made their choice. End of story. Obama won't discuss it, and will blister the Republicans for bringing it up again.
If that's the best they've got, with the debt, and deficit, and the failed stimulus, and Democrats proclaim a victory because the unemployment rate inched 1/10 of one percent below 9, when Obama said it wouldn't go over 8, then they deserve to have their arses handed to them.
Those unemployment #'s are Faux, mb
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:30pm.
How to make unemployment shrink when there are no jobs?
Change the full employment number. That way, it seems as though unemployment is better. Yeah, that's the ticket.
If Obama keeps acting stupidly (chances of that, 100%), ignoring the run up in oil prices, this economy, which is teetering on a true depression already, is going to tip over and die. Think they're having food riots in the ME? Wait until we have them here. I usually don't grow vegatables in the spring/summer, because it's so hot, but I may just do some container gardening in my orchid shade house this year. I can catch my own fish, too.
The unemployment number is as fake as Obama's college transcripts. It's not fooling anyone, particulary anyone who is unemployed or underemployed.
My great hope is that John Boehner and the House Freshman keep the hammer down on the budget, make the democrats look as foolish as they are.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Hmm. I think Palin said it
Submitted by T D on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:16pm.
Hmm. I think Palin said it before Will--these issues are "distractions". Think George Will might give her credit? Me neither.
To be fair
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:14pm.
I have heard as much from Levin, Beck, Rush, and others
edit: to correct the "Great One's" name,, zzzzzz
Well Intentioned, But . . .
Submitted by Junk Science Skeptic on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:23pm.
Will may have good intentions, but unfortunately for the rest of us, we live in the real world and that is where presidents are elected.
I agree that Huckabee shouldn't be very high on anybody's list, not because he has the stones to question and opine on Obama's worldview (as those on the left do to Palin on an hourly basis), but rather, because Huckabee himself is a creation of the media, propped up by the media in the 2008 elections to draw momentum away from an already week McCain.
In a perfect world where accomplisments and experience mattered, and where elections were polite, logical contests, and where votes were based on merit rather than image, Pawlenty, Daniels and perhaps even Huntsman, might be great choices. BUT, we've already tried a George Will-esqe candidate in the form of John McCain, and surprise of all surprises, the undecided, uneducated middle opted for Captain Crunch with Crunchberries instead of plain oatmeal.
As for Romney, forget for a moment his more liberal achievements, and consider that during the 2008 elections when it mattered, he had the opportunity to demonstrate leadership by uniting the Republican party early and forcefully, and instead he opted to look out for himself as a member of the traditional GOP circular firing squad. Added to that is his Mormon faith, which doesn't matter a bit to me, nor should it matter to anybody else, but the media will again rename him "the Mormon former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney" or Mitt Romney's controversial Mormon faith" and will continually beat that drum untill the great unwashed in the middle believe that there is something wrong with being Mormon.
Barbour is a great guy, and while he has done great in his home state, he has made little effort on the national stage. There also seems to be plenty of fodder to turn him into a caricature, unfairly so, but again, we live in the real world.
The benefit of candidates like Gingrich and Palin is that the left has already fired at them with all they had, repeatedly, so there are no attacks that can be made on these two that won't come across as tired, old canards. Will and those two his left can defend Obama's worldview, whine, and play the race card all they want, but these two have enough of a track record that it won't change the opinion of anybody who isn't already in the Obama camp.
That said, if selecting a lesser-known governor is the only option, then Rick Perry is the only one with sufficient name recognition and a track record to match.
Excellent comment, but one
Submitted by kurt mueller on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:06pm.
Excellent comment, but one quibble. You imply that Goerge Will was a McCain supporter and is a RINO. As a reader of just about every column Will has written, I can assure you that he has been a long-time McCain critic and, in my view, a conservative's conservative.
Pesonality, Not Politics
Submitted by Junk Science Skeptic on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:34pm.
That was not the intent. I was equating McCain's (and Daniels' and Pawlenty's) personality to Will's, not making a connection politically.
A personality out of "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" or "Wilfred Brimley's Oatmeal" won't cut it in today's political environment.
A personality out of "Mr.
Submitted by GregE on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:13pm.
A personality out of "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" or "Wilfred Brimley's Oatmeal" won't cut it in today's political environment.
And sadly so. Americans get enamoured with personalities (obama), then defend whatever the holder of the personality says. Americans should listen to the statements, and decide if that person understands the limits of the Presidency and overall federal government. Sadly, most of America cannot decide based on Constitutionality, because most Americans pay as little attention to the Constitution as do the politicians that get they elect. It is very sad for our nation that we don't put major emphasis on our Constitution in our schools. But that is government. If people knew our Constitution's limits on the federal government, things would change dramatically and we would have better opportunities for true "presidential" presidents. Those in power know this and will see to it that Constitutional understanding is almost nil. Our elections are instead about soundbites, personalities, and charisma. True substance need not apply.
I agree with garyd99
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:43pm.
The "recoil" from truth itself as it is is what has damaged the Republican party, the country and Liberty herself. It is the very core that has produced the species called RINO, particularly the trait described as "go along to get along". That has not expanded Liberty, it has curtailed it.
Newt and the Huckster are well respected in Republican circles but that is not necessarily conservative circles and that is leaving out the very real presence of a circle of libertarianism (small l, not capital L.).
As Rush noted, the feel good reporting of numbers from joblessness, to initial unemployment sign ups to growth in GDP has demonstrated a pattern of being "adjusted" downward after their first release. There is no reason to think this pattern has been somehow broken this instant. 8.9%? No substantial inflation? Hardly, and Americans can see this reality with their own eyes, no matter the media shilling.
For many election cycles, conservatives and libertarian minded folks have been convinced that they must compromise their base principles and vote for candidates with an (R) behind their names "because they can win". Because the (D) will otherwise win. No better example is there in Illinois, can you say Mark Kirk? Well guess what a (D) with an (R) behind his name won. How is that working out?
Th time has come for roles to be reversed. I would argue they already have been to a degree and the Illinois primary for governor showed it clearly. The idea that we must continue to vote for big government RINOs is being rejected. The Establishment GOPers are going to have to vote along with the conservatives and the libertarian minded folks if they want to win. No more will folks just buy into the idea that they throw away thier votes if the actually vote their principles. They are coming to realize that voting for someone who does not hold their prionciples is the actual waste.
Indeed, they are coming to realize that they do not win anything when they stray from what it is they actually hold dear. They are finally taking note of the lose-lose scenario that is a "voing for the lesser of two evils". The sentiment that is growing is this, and how true it is.
We will only get the Representation that we vote for. It is only by withholding our votes from those with which we disagree will the election's outcomes actually reflect our true constitution.
Obama's formulation is even more relevant now than it was in 2008. For his policies are what are in place this day. No longer is the dicussion about the possible, no longer is it held in the abstract. To be sure, it is about the here and the now.
Without our Constitution, without adherence to it, we dont have any "national security", regardless of what happens around the world. The same is true about gasoline prices right down to the cost of a box of cereal.
Without truth, we are lost in the dark. And lost we are.
It is asked how can this matters now when it did not before. But that question was already answered within the body of this piece. The discussion was not had openly and honestly last time around. That mistake must be corrected. The chips can fall where they may as a result, but that is not a reason not to have that debate. The "historic nature" cannot be replicated and the media cannot cover for him as it did last time.
The winning strategy is the same one that put the Republicans in Majority with the oft dismissed TEA Party no longer ignored. Where once James Carville said "It's the Economy, Stupid." Today the catchphrases at issue are "It's the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Stupid!" and "It's Liberty, Stupid!"
Let me repeat - "It's Liberty, Stupid!"
George Washington warned this nation and her Posterity about political factions, about parties, and we would serve ourselves, our Liberty, proper by hearing again the message he sent.
First, and above all else, we must remain true. The day we don't is the day Liberty herself falls asunder and there is no new land to escape to this time. Lady Liberty's last stand takes place here, in this land, in the here and now. That was true at the founding and it remains true today. We must not, we cannot, let her die while trying to save a party that has simply gone astray of Constitutional tenets and boundaries.
We must exercise our rights in order to keep them and regain those which have ben snaked away because we were not paying close enough attention or because we were too scared to stand up and be counted. The alternative is to be numbered - and history shows us that this alternative leads only to a dead end.
I'll only speak for myself
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:02pm.
I don't care about Obama's birthplace. I get concerned about Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, not for themselves, but as ammunition against the hypocritical charges of extremism. Other than that, I don't care about them.
We should be having a far more important discussion. Who are we? Are we just another country that lucked out with resources, or is this country a political experiment that proved some genuine and useful truths about how we conduct common affairs? Is the government our avatar, or are they simply hired help? That's the conversation we should be having.
When the conversation is about real principles and reflections about the American experience, we win. Everything else is a distraction. That's why the MSNBCs of the world want to talk about it all day. It distracts us from the conversations we can win.
KC,
Submitted by Ashrak on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:03pm.
Real principles do matter. Constitutional principles, al of them do matter, and we are at serious risk when only some of them do some of the time.
Example: Porgressives will champion the First Amendment in the same breath they show utter disdain for the Second Amendment. They take it one step further and claim the First Amendment as their own and it only applies when they themselves agree with what is being said.
Unless the Constitution is amended, it is an all or nothing deal. It is the kind of pregnant or a little pregnant argument. It either is or it isn't, there is no inbetween. As a result, the Natural Born Citizen provision has to matter. Specific qualificiations were listed precisely because it does matter.
We have to face this openly and settle it. If amending the Constitution is what it takes, well, our founders and framers recognized the possibility that such situations would come to pass and afforded a means to do so. Honesty, and honor itself, requires that we settle it, that we abide by the Constitution as it is, absent fundamental transformations done the way they are supposed to be.
I guess it then comes down to this question that Americans have to answer for themselves. Either our Constitution matters, or it doesn't. I choose to be on the side which stands firm that it does matter, that all of it matters. I do so because I can look across the world and see what happens when the "other side" wins the day.
An important distinction
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:15pm.
Maybe I should be more clear.
You're arguing that the constitution must be respected. No argument there. However, the constitutional requirement of birth-citizenship is one thing; the ongoing debate about whether Obama has proved his citizenship is another. They're not the same thing. I fully agree with you that following the constitution is crucial. That isn't the issue.
If Obama argued that he wasn't a citizen, but that didn't matter, then we'd have a legitimate fight. But Obama agrees with the constitutional requirement for birth citizenship. There's no question about whether he supports the constitution in that respect.
The only question is whether Hawaii has a record of his birth. And frankly, it's entirely predictable that a hospital in Hawaii in 1961 could have screwed up the birth certificate. The fact that there may not be one doesn't disturb me. I have four children. In two out of four certificates, I had to revise the certificates' spelling of the names -- so, bureaucratic mistakes don't shock me.
To me, this is just paperwork.
Ashrak: Constitutional principles
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:17pm.
The meaning and application of the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement of the Constitituion regarding presidential eligibility and the actual locus of Obama's birth are not unrelated issues, but neither are they necessarily interrelated. One is not predicated upon the other. To the NBC folks, proof of Hawaiian birth is irrelevant.
Now, it may be that at some point the federal judiciary and eventually the Supreme Court will render a clear and controlling interpretive ruling on the natural born citizenship clause, but there is no chance that even an unfavorable ruling to Obama would affect the legitimacy of his first term in office, and little chance that it would impact a prospective second term. At this stage there is just no conceivable litigation and appeal timeline which would prevent the abundant harm and disruption to the electoral process that such a ruling would unquestionably produce.
If it were proved that Obama was born in Kenya and such fact was concealed as part of a conspiracy to fraudently establish birth on US soil, then the "birthers" will have been vindicated and Obama would very likely be impeached and tossed out of office. But that is a different animal from the "natural born citizen" argument [which involves parentage, citizenship of the father, dual citizenship, foreign residency, etc.] And while the latter does indeed carry interesting, important and complicated constitutional implications which beg judicial clarification, it represents minimal threat to the current President.
Jer
will's batting .500
Submitted by michiganruth on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:26pm.
George Will is brilliant but he's only about half right here.
I agree that we shouldn't waste a lot of time and energy on Obama's birthplace. it does tend to turn people off, and really, it isn't important. fortunately for us, there are about a million other things he's done wrong that we CAN talk about.
but some things about Obama's background ARE important and pertinent, like his associations with Marxists and Islamists. they should have been talked about during the 2008 campaign but weren't. his associations with Rev. Wright for one...and let's see that video of the Rashid Khalidi farewell dinner that the LA Times has locked in a vault! it's critical to understand who this man feels comfortable with. wouldn't it have been good to know that Obama would pick people like Eric Holder, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, and John Holdren? that would have told us a lot about him.
Will is also wrong about the "obvious" GOP presidential choices. Chris Christie WILL be the nominee, hopefully with Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio as VP.
→ KC
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:58pm.
Additionally, I think it's worthy of note that The Blaze is reporting today that Harvard Professors made a lot of money from Gadahfi, for consulting fees.
I think it's more than possible "so-called" Professor ☪bama drank lustily from that well, given that Jeremiah Wright is also a close friend to Gadahfi.
Everything about ☪bama points back to a "Hate America First" agenda.
Wanna make a side bet on Christie?
Submitted by Benjamin on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:25pm.
The GOP base will never nominate him. The media loves him and I respect what he's doing in NJ on fiscal issues - but he's weak on Obamacare (he refused to involve NJ in the big 26-state lawsuit). He's also pro gun control and weak on immigration. I don't care how many good "you tube" moments he has - the GOP base in a primary will never nominate him once they learn all of his positions.
Will is right...Neither Huckabee or Gingrich are viable
Submitted by cbeyer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:38pm.
George Will is totally correct. Huckabee has made some really stupid comments recently highlighted most recently by making an issue of Natalie Portman’s pregnancy (unwed). Why in the world would he step into that as a subject for national discussion? What matters to Americans are the state of the Obama's economy, a disasterous foreign policy, the anti-business agenda that is resulting in jobs going overseas in record numbers. Odd comments about Obama's background will not connect with the electorate and will provide great fodder for the MSM in their efforts to circle the wagons and slavishly support Obama.
Gingrich has way too much baggage to be elected. Visions of his television ad with Nancy Pelosi indicating his support for the concept of man made global warming and his personal attacks on Obama will doom him early in the game. Saddly, we have a weak field of candidates. We can only hope that someone steps forward that has the timber to take on the overwhelming support Obama will have from the MSM in 2010. That candidate will have to articulate clear distinction on policies and the economy. Unfortunately, I believe Obama will be elected in 2012 and perhaps confortably.
I personally think there may be legitmate issues with Obama's true birthplace and I am totally convinced his link to Christianity is purely for political purposes. He is a globalist who sees being POTUS as a stepping stone to international leadership of the UN which he wants to strengthen. All that said, these matters will not gain traction with the electorate and if used in campaigns against Obama will only serve to help him. We need a highly articulate candidate who uses effective talking points that Americans can relate to that take head on the the policy issues that relate to where people live every day such as: JOBS/UNEMPLOYMENT, ENERGY CREATION USING AMERICAN RESOURCES, A WEAK FOREIGN POLICY, THE FAILED OBAMACARE DEBACLE, AND UNBRIDLED LIBERALISM.
A subject longed ignored
Submitted by brerol on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:00pm.
"Why in the world would he step into that as a subject for national discussion?" Real question is why are so many people afraid to talk about a serious problem in our nation. As Will has pointed out in many of his articles over the years the problems of single motherhood are immense. It is beyond debate about the challenges the children of single mothers face as opposed to children raised by both mother and father. The Natilie Portmans of the world have all the money and resources a single mother needs to avoid society ills. But the high school drop out teenage girl with a child in tow faces challenges she is completely unprepared for. And the cost associated to a single mother is quite large and hidden. And who pays these costs? The taxpayer and the child.
'Scarboroughing' George Will...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:07pm.
To paraphrase a favorite and frequently expressed observation of the esteemed Mr. Sheppard: What delicious irony!
When the almost always outnumbered but never outwitted Will casually and methodically devours his liberal adversaries every Sunday on This Week without even breaking a sweat, he is widely acclaimed and appropriately accorded the status of conservative superstardom. But let him dare criticize one or more of "his own" and--Truth and Fact be damned--he is suddenly seen by many as just another RINO turning against the herd.
Since the death of Buckley--with apologies to fans of Limbaugh and Krauthammer--Will is the primary living source providing the intellectual ballast for conservative thought and political insight. It would be well for both the left and right to keep that in mind.
Jer
I'm with you, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:41pm.
I'll take George Will's insight. Granted, Gingrich is a pretty good thinker, but I definitely don't want to see him or Romney up against ☪bama.
I'm ready for this one-term President to step down, and I just don't see Romney, Huckabee, or Gingrich persuading the voters away from him.
Jer
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:40pm.
Jer,
Are you suggesting that I'm criticizing Will for his piece? If you are, I suggest you read the entire thing and not just the headline and teaser.
Also, it seems to me that most of the comments are supportive of Will's view. As such, I'm not sure what you're talking about. ns
Noel...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:20pm.
No. I was commenting on the comments about Will in light of the fact that a slight majority [of the ones mentioning him] at the time of my post appeared to be critical of the conservative pundit. Subsequently, he has gained more support on the thread--but also a few additional critics. I haven't conducted an exact tally however.
Jer
It would be well for the right to keep the left ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:30pm.
at arm's length in both thought and deed relevant the left's ideas and practices. George Will is not infallible, and to fail to refute any and all who go after "one of their own" means comporting one's self as a liberal.
Are we taking political advice from Christ Matthews now?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:25pm.
"With this in mind, exactly how do Will's comments assist Republican efforts to oust the 44th president? Chris Matthews gave us a clue in his closing segment on Friday's "Hardball"
No offense, but when Chris Matthews gives "advice' to Republicans, most likely the best thing for them to do is ignore it. It's not like Mr. "thrill up my leg" wants a Republican to win.ckc
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:47pm.
ckc,
Taking advice from Matthews? Not at all. As he began his final segment yesterday, I was prepared for the worst. However, I thought the point he made at the beginning was interesting and coincided nicely with what Will said.
Chris Matthews has become a disgraceful shill, but there are still times when he says something I find compelling. This was one of those times. I'm comfortable enough in my beliefs to listen to what folks are saying without shutting them out completely because of their political leaning.
Let me scare you further by stating there have even been times when I have felt Olbermann, O'Donnell, Maddow and Schultz have made good points. At the same time, as I imagine you've seen me observe, I don't always agree with the views of those expressed on our side.
When the day comes that I find someone I agree with 100 percent of the time, I'll no longer feel the need for my own existence. ns
Heck Noel,
Submitted by Ashrak on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:49pm.
Sometimes I come up on situations where I argue with myself on certain issues. I was told that such a thing was a good quality, called critical thinking. ;)
I will offer that some folks confuse what you offer with something it is not and I will sum it up in this way.
We all don't have to agree with a particular choice made in order to remain in the same page. Indeed, we can hold diametrically opposing viewpoints regarding a perticular instance yet remain united in agreement on the level that each is tasked with, and responsible for, making their own decisions and that they are free to do so until such point as doing so brings tangible harm to another flesh and blood human being.
Said another way - we don't have to agree with or support a particular choice made, we can disagree profoundly, we just have to accept, and respect, the ability to make the choice, while recognizing the ever present balance-creating check that the scope of one person's rights stop where another person's rights begin.
When it comes to shills, I agree with and support what you said here. Sometimes those you mention do make valid points, but most often times they present them as if they carry more weight than they do, that they are some kind of trump card that they aren't or they imply that those points mean something they do not.
Shutting them out is easy, but unproductive. Shutting them down (or up depending upon how a person looks at it) is unjust. What you do is a fine example of the proper way, imho. And I say that as one who disagrees with you from time to time. More speech, not less of it, is the proper response. Expanding the free exchange of ideas is beneficial, while the curtailing of it is harmful.
As it pertains to Panama Tingles himself, his own words and deeds are sinking his credibility more than any opposition based debate ever could. As tough as it is to stomach though, a blind squirel does find a nut once in a while and a broken clock is correct twice a day, everyday.
Off the Reservation?
Submitted by Samshile on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:31pm.
The Reservation or Plantation mentality is what got us here. Overuse of the RINO tag sounds the collective drum beat.
I like individual thinking. Thank God for G. Will. Huckabee and Gingrich are selling books and bloviating to the press. Yuck. I have many concerns about the 2 wars, none of them shift me to the Left. Global progressive Bush is not my kind of Tea.
The Kenyan connection needs to be explored privately not publicly.
Will is right, but this article is depressing
Submitted by Lipton on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:31pm.
It certainly seems that the stars are aligning in Obama's favor, which is a travesty. I am glad that George WIll is calling out Newt for his lack of electabililty and Huckabee for the damage he does to the GOP brand. He sides with Michelle Obama on the food police, but then goes after Natalie Portman as an unwed mother. He just seems like a freindly old uncle, not someone I would trust with my country or well being.
Nothing is alligning for Obama.
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:49pm.
Nothing is alligning for Obama.
The GOP just needs to run a good candidate against him such as Barbor, DeMint, or Palin
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Well, 2 out of 3 aint bad.² I
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:37pm.
Well, 2 out of 3 aint bad.² I don't like Huckabee³ and Gingrich won't even appologize for supporting Cap & Tax.
2 - h/t Meatloaf
3- Huckabee is a RINO.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Good one, Free
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:38pm.
How come your superscript works, and mine doesn't1?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
ß
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:43pm.
Start, Run
type "charmap" and Enter
click on ² or ³ from the grid and click Select then click Copy, then . . . CTRL-V in the NB comment field
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Thx, but that's too much work.
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:49pm.
I have sub and superscript on my RichText, but it doesn't work.
It made me laugh to see you do it though....always fun! Plus the cool "B". LOL, I knew it was for me.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
íţš ăćŧůāĺĺŷ qũĩťę
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:55pm.
íţš ăćŧůāĺĺŷ qũĩťę šīm¶łě
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
So is movable typesetting
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:59pm.
But tedious to the max.
romney,pawlenty,gingrich, huckabee,..yada yada yada
Submitted by Paarl on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:43pm.
the sharpest knife in the GOP drawer of candidates is Michele (single 'l', double 'n') Bachmann..
watch or better yet read any interview that she has given in the last 2 years....this woman has political debating instincts that are scaryily strong and incisive...she NEVER gets diverted or flustered and is extraordinarily sure of her beliefs and knowlwdgwblw of the facts of all issues.
She sometimes goes off the reservation when attacking Obama but less often in recent months
Paarl of Rhodesia
Pretty good,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:07pm.
I like her, and
Cain
Barbour
Palin
DeMint
Also our ex-Gov Roemer is making a run, and a few other likely candidates are interesting to me.
Herman Cain
Submitted by GregE on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:15pm.
I'd love to see him nominated. Oh what a race it would be.
House Conservative
Submitted by BW222 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:45pm.
George Will is the ultimate "House Conservative" who makes millions saying/writing whatever his liberal masters want him to. Huntsman? Give me a break.
I'll give George this much: at lease his "tupe" looks like a dead animal. Sam Donaldson's "tupe" was still moving the last time he was on TV/
George Will
Submitted by swim-r-sink on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:49pm.
This Drooling idiot endorsed the Obamanation! Maybe he and Slobber Puss Matthews are seeking shelter from the inevitable crash of their Pop-Corn-Fart False Messiah who's every move is crashing down upon them? Nothing like doubling down on STUPID!
Next year,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:56pm.
I dont think I will be taking any advice from JernOlist, or pundits of any kind
The MSM is picking our guy
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:35pm.
Barbour would be a great pick. I hope the MSM ignores him and then BAM, he's in! Go gov' Barbour!
Gingrich obtained his Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview of
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:30pm.
Barack Obama from noted conservative author Dinesh D’Souza. D'Souza's latest book The Roots of Obama's Rage documents Obama's upbringing, and the influence his anticolonialist father had on his life.
From the inside flap of Roots of Obama's Rage: “Stunning...the most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.” — NEWT GINGRICH
Although I admire Gingrich's intellect, with the exception of his very foolish views on CLIMATE CHANGE, his time has come and gone as to a presidential contender.
I do agree with George Will that Republicans shouldn't emphasize Obama's upbringing. But every Republican candidate should read Dinesh D’Souza's book on Obama for a better understanding of what makes Obama tick.
Which One For President?
Submitted by Boil It Down on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:36pm.
Among all the names mentioned here, I see only one fit to be our next President....George Will. I think you'd have to drag him kicking and snarling to do it however, he's too wise to have that sort of ambition.
I would like proof
Submitted by RocktheJungle on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:39pm.
I would like to see proof that Gov.Huckabee is a RINO, i would like to see some dirt on Huckabee period, I'll say it again that those who oppose Gov.Huckabee think he is to good to be true.
Why Huck Sucks
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:47pm.
In this article, Huckabee demonstrates he is a complete foreign policy idiot. Right there, that is enough of a reason for me not to support him for President.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uhm, there is nothing wrong
Submitted by Bull Moose Prog... on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:59pm.
Uhm, there is nothing wrong with the article. I think most conservatives accept the fact that early on (Pre-Surge) the Iraq war was horribly mismanaged by Rumsfeld and he DID have a bunker mentality.
I think what we're seeing is a lot people afraid Mike Huckabee will win. So liberals and many so-called conservatives (the same ones who supported Obama and attacked McCain) are making a pre-emptive strike against anyone who looks like they have a chance at coming out on top of the Republican primary.
If Huckabee isn't your first choice, then fine get out there and get behind someone, but I'm tired of all the Obama lovers in hiding who complain about him but can't get behind Republican presidential candidates because they're "too republican" to support a Republican candidate.
Huckabee
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:45pm.
Actually, there is everything wrong with the article. Huckabee, by whining about Bush's "arrogant bunker mentality", shows me he absolutely understands nothing about foreign policy.
There is only ONE reason people like Huckabee, and it is the ONLY reason my parents voted for him in the primaries:
"HE'S A PREACHER!!!"
Great. Then he can set up a church. That might be something Huckabee is actually good at.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
RocktheJungle,
Submitted by Ashrak on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:29pm.
"Tax increases to balance the budget" something you subscribe to? The Huckster did. How about letting convicted monsters out of jail? How about siding with Michelle Obama on the federal government controlling "healthy" food in schools?
How about being squishy on carbon caps?
Hey, I like the guy, but he is an ordinary pendulum politicians who licks his finger and sticks it in the air to decide which way to go, and often times he keeps his options open. He fooled me into voting for him once, but that ain't gonna happen again.
I grow tired of George Will....
Submitted by Robert17 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:14am.
What elected position did George Will have again? Oh thats right, none. Does he follow Reagan's 11th commandment? No he does not. Does he give a damn about social issues? No, hes one of these clowns that is emarassed by people of faith, and just wants to talk about the money. Social issues are fiscal issues, George. He's a back seat driver because he was all for the Iraq war when, shock, wars don't go the way you plan them. He's an agnostic while being opposed to the death penalty...which is nonsensical. If there is no God to carry out justice in the end, then we must do it now. Criticizing Sarah Palin as unqualified while he has the marxist over for tea to discuss stuff. Barack Obama doesn't have any foreign policy experience George...he has experience talking about foreign policy. Sarah Palin was too busy actually fixing stuff to be reading the latest missive from the CFR.. Then there is this thing called the constitution. The founders, who were 10 times the man WIll is, required you to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Don't bother George with the facts. I personally believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but that doesn't make him anymore a NBC than a Mexican anchor baby. Do you want someone born in Loredo, Texas and raised in Mexico running for POTUS? If you do, you are a nut. Will says all this personality stuff didn't work in 2008, and hence won't work in 2010. Wrong, now people understand policy flows from character...they are ready to hear it now.
Bottom line. Obama won't even be on the ticket, there are going to be massive challenges to his eligibility. WIth or without George Will's blessing.
R 17
Submitted by kilrod on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:53am.
Robert17, I'm with you, hang in there.~!~
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Obama`s Interior Appeals Judge ruling opening up drilling ban.
Submitted by Scott Trent on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:05am.
I would ask that everyone filling their tank over the next 20 months remember this. When gas is over $4-5/gal., remember this. When you lose your home because you can no longer afford to drive to your job, remember this. And when your grocery bill goes through the roof because the cost of delivery is sky high, remember this. This is an Obama policy that will ruin him. He wants higher gas prices. His Energy Sec Steven C
This is the Obama energy policy and it alone should ruin him in 2012. His Energy Sec Steven Chu is on record preaching to us how we need $9 a gallon gas just like in Europe.
Newt, Huck & Mr. Will
Submitted by rvail136 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 9:35am.
Glenn Reynolds, The Blog Father, is on record as saying that he'll vote for a syphylic camel before he votes for Mr. Obama in 2012...
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/116216/
I have to 2nd that motion...though, during the primary season, I'll not vote for either Huckabee, who is a populist masquerading as a Republican, or Newt, who is...not someone I trust, or think could possibly win in a general election. Since I trust neither of these candidates, and I don't think that the current governor of NJ or LA will run, I lean toward either Mr. Pawlenty or Mr. Barbour.
Rich V.
www.thevailspot.blogspot.com
Sorry, I'm with George on this one....
Submitted by notinstl on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 10:11am.
He's not giving the libs as much "crazy" fodder as the potential candidates themselves. Forget talking crap about Obama....it's HIS POLICIES!
Will is also correct about the origin of Obama's beliefs: college faculty lounges....
As long as you talk about crap regarding his upbringing, you'll be labeled crazy....and that stuff isn't nearly as marketable as the impact of what the dems have done.
Here's the deal...
Submitted by Robert17 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:27pm.
Will says that Obama is a product of college faculty lounges...ok, where's the video?? For that matter, where's his transcript?? The guys in the lounges aren't saying anything different than Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers. BUT WE HAVE VIDEO OF THEM!!. Now, tie the video directly to the policies. This guy has a track record now. Explain why Obama won't allow offshore drilling...because he thinks America is a colonialist power stealing the world's resources, etc. etc. In 2008 when Hannity and a few others brought up these nefarious associations they were effectively saying "if this guy associates with these people then this is what will happen". Ok, fine people weren't willing to accept that then. Now we have the policies, there can be no denying now.
Whatever you want to call it.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:56pm.
Have you heard Beck talk about lefties like Bill Ayers and Van Jones dropping the radical pose to meet the radical ends? I think that's what we have to do. I believe the things postulated in the "The Roots of Obama's Rage", but it does no good to argue them with liberals. I'll go with the college elite crap because it's more acceptable. But Obama's still the same POS who's dragging our country down as quickly as he possibley can.
Funny... the collegiate POS claim
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:00pm.
falls sort of flat when you actually consider the contemporary evidence.
Jer
Sucking up to Obama is not---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:08pm.
exactly evidence. While a conservative will see and interpret as he chooses, so will liberals, and liberals will state than any criticism of their Messiah falls flat. That doesn't necessarily make it so.Sucking up to Obama ....
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:16pm.
is only useful if you happen to be a jet intake.
Matthew, your critique falls flat...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:46pm.
When I believe criticism of Obama is fair and warranted, I acknowledge it and agree with it. When I believe it is unjustified, I say so.
You on the other hand simply believe he is a POS who has never done or said one thing deserving of even the mildest praise. At least that's what I've gleaned from your comments here. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Jer
Obama is indeed, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:06am.
the person who put POS in POTUS. He is a lying sack who has never done or said one thing deserving even the mildest praise. You apparently feel that because you occasionally agree with criticism against Obama, that any criticism you don't agree with is simply not warranted. You could not be more wrong.Will correctly points out
Submitted by both-sides on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:17pm.
Will correctly points out that calling Obama a Kenyan, or saying he's not American is bad for business. My conservative friends are embarrassed by the birthers because it gives all conservatives a bad name of being paranoid and ignorant.
Thanks George.
Ask your "conservative friends", both-sides---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:22pm.
if they believe themselves to be paranoid and ignorant because of a blanket condemnation. If they do, then they deserve a friend like you.Newt Gingrich is a bonafide
Submitted by slegnaz on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:42pm.
Newt Gingrich is a bonafide member of the eastern liberal establishment. His years of membership in the Council on Foreign Relations has shaped his philosophy that national sovereignty is a thing of the past and that internationalism is the future. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2396-newt-gingrich-the-establishments-conservative
Newt's "conservative" rhetoric notwithstanding is purely for the benefit of those conservative ears since he has a lot to hide from us!
1. Education — Gingrich backed federal education from the get go!
He helped garner support to create President Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education in 1979. Since then educational spending has soared while educational standards have plummeted. Things got worse when he was Speaker. Gingrich’s Republican Congress increased education funding by $3.5 billion in 1996, the largest single increase in history.
2. Foreign Aid — Gingrich voted numerous times throughout his 20 years in Congress to increase and expand unconstitutional foreign aid and trade. He supported both subsidized trade with the Soviets and federally funded loans to foreign governments through the Export-Import Bank. Between 1994 and 1995, Gingrich voted for $44.8 billion in foreign aid. He also helped push through federally funded loan guarantees to China. Today, that murderous communist regime is the largest holder of U.S. debt in the world.
3. NAFTA and GATT — In 1993, Gingrich proved himself invaluable to Clinton and the Democrats in Congress when he garnered enough Republican support to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the precursor for development of an eventual North American Union, following the same trajectory that has occurred in Europe with the emergence of the EU.
Gingrich was to the hilt in support of the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). As Minority Whip, he could have postponed the lame-duck vote on GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) that subjected Americans to the WTO. Gingrich’s Benedict Arnold act helped to hand over the power to regulate foreign commerce, a power reserved in the Constitution to Congress alone, to an internationally controlled body, making America’s economic interests entirely at the mercy of the WTO.
Gingrich knew GATT sounded the death knell for American sovereignty. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee prior to the lame-duck session, he said:
“We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization.... This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected.... It is a very big transfer of power.”
4. Contract With America — It turned out to be a public relations smokescreen to cover various unconstitutional measures that Congress planned to pass under Gingrich’s leadership. The Contract included a “balanced budget amendment,” which amounted to a Republican excuse to continue spending while claiming to fight for fiscal conservatism. If the government only spent money on constitutional programs, the deficit would take care of itself.
I'm more electable.....
Submitted by notinstl on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 7:39pm.
than newt...
G_______, the EVIL CFR
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:51pm.
One of these days, you Conspiros are going to figure out that the EVIL CFR isn't equipped to take over a phone booth.
What do you have against Foreign Affairs magazine?
(I'm not supporting Newt G_______ anyways. For a large variety of reasons.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)