Let the Battle be Between Newt and Mitt:…… Mitt Has a Better Chance to Bring in a New Congress!

Golden Oldies:

Newt and the “cancer bed divorce” myth

posted  by Jazz Shaw   at HotAir

“With Newt Gingrich continuing to surge in the polls, plenty of stories are bubbling to the surface, including things from the distant past. And let’s face it… Newt has been knocking around US politics for an awfully long time, with tales of many of his exploits being told and retold until they pass into legend. Of course, you know what they say about legends.

[countable] an old story about famous people and events in the past. Legends are not usually true

One of the more nasty ones is the persistent tale of how Newt went to see his wife as she lay dying of cancer in her hospital bed and presented her with divorce papers. Ouch. That’s a pretty unpleasant story to float about anyone, and apparently it’s so temptingly salacious that it keeps getting hinted at in the media and I’ve seen it cropping up again on Twitter as recently as last night. Unfortunately for the gossip minded, nearly every aspect of the story is false and has been roundly debunked by what should be considered a pretty reliable source – his own daughter who was in the hospital room at the time. (Hat tip to OTB.)

So, to correct the record, here is what happened: My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a “Miracle Mom,” as I titled her in a column this week.

As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me.

It was the spring of 1980.

I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign.

As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.

Yes, Newt is on his third marriage and some conservatives will raise questions about his marital track record, as they are entitled to do. But repeating this old chestnut is hurtful and slanderous. (For the record, I actually believed this story myself for quite a while and I know I made reference to it, so I’d like to apologize once again as well.)

There will be more than enough real material for critics to debate coming from Gingrich’s decades of public (and private) life, but we should focus on what is accurate and verifiable. So if you see anyone repeating this myth, do everyone a favor and point them to his daughter’s account of the story.”

Comment:   If you have been f0llowing the folks at HotAir for the past several months, you will know that this group is very critical of Mitt Romney, claiming not only that he isn’t conservative a conservative enough, but that he isn’t a conservative at all, which is nonsense.

I am far more  fond of Romney as a person, but I am not fond of his campaign habits and rhetoric.   I think he should listen to better advisors  to win the nomination……people who will advise him to speak positively of fellow conservatives…..rise above the cheap shots which are thought by so many to be the new wave of winning popular support.    In fact, I think he should take notes from the Newt Gingrich campaign.

One of the major reasons I believe Newt is the new front runner is that he has precisely followed the Ronald Reagan advice, that eleventh commandment, Thou Shalt Not Bad Mouth Fellow Conservatives.

I do think Newt can out debate the petulant, small minded, terse and tense, Marxist , Barack Hussein.    The Obama Left is already describing  Gingrich as a phony intellectual for the seven or so books he has written.   I do think that Newt is very circumspect as a campaigner and a conversationalist most of the time.   However, he obviously is an indoor person and seems to be as  confused about the fraud of global warming or cooling as the card sharks Al Gore and Barack Hussein.

Yet, Barack Hussein Obama is America’s enemy, not  Newt or Mitt.     Newt seems to understand that, Mitt does not yet articulate that.

The rest of the Republican collection of candidates should retire from their quest as soon as possible.   Upon this retirement they should pay all of their bills and give whatever surplus exists to be saved for final act of this nomination show, to support the person who must defeat  Marxist, Barack Hussein.

I loathe Congressman Ron Paul as he displays himself both personally and politically on the public stage.   The very fact he is already suggesting that he may be a presidential candidate  on a third party ticket should disqualify his narrow mind  from appearing on any stage pretending to be a loyal conservative  Republican.     But, I do not recommend that he be bad mouthed, just respectfully challenged to be loyal or withdraw.

I  am about to decide to support  Mitt, for the primary and perhaps sole purpose, I do think he has the better chance to defeat this imposter American, Barack Hussein Obama…….at today’s position, however.

I do think Newt would be a better teacher and leader of conservative political interests than Mitt.    But because Mitt is more likeable especially among American independents and the tolerant liberals,  if he  runs a good campaign as a domestic peace maker between the parties,  he has a great chance of sweeping the election, carrying huge numbers of Republicans into Congress with him.

Then, dear friends, America will see a new day for solving what ails us so.

There is Always Potential for the Insanity of Mob Rule by ‘Occupiers’!

Common Sense

An Uprising With Plenty of Potential

By JAMES B. STEWART

 

In the wake of this week’s eviction of protesters from Zuccotti Park in New York and other urban campgrounds around the country, it’s tempting to dismiss the Occupy Wall Street movement as little more than a short-lived media phenomenon. The issues that spawned the movement — income inequality, money in politics and Wall Street’s influence — were being drowned out by debates over personal hygiene, noise and crime.

By Wednesday morning, when I dropped by the park, about 20 people, including some who looked disheveled and homeless, shared food and barely listened to a speaker with a graying ponytail who denounced New York as an “illegitimate police state.” Thursday’s “Day of Action” led to some more arrests, but it didn’t spawn the mass demonstrations some local politicians had predicted, let alone attract the throngs that the Tea Party mustered for a march on Washington in 2009.

But critics and supporters alike suggest that the influence of the movement could last decades, and that it might even evolve into a more potent force. “A lot of people brush off Occupy Wall Street as incoherent and inconsequential,” Michael Prell told me. “I disagree.”

Mr. Prell is a strategist for the Tea Party Patriots, a grass-roots organization that advocates Tea Party goals of fiscal responsibility, free markets and constitutionally limited government. He’s the author of “Underdogma,” a critique of left-wing anti-Americanism, which includes a chapter on the Berkeley Free Speech movement of the 1960s, which may be the closest historical parallel to the Occupy movement.

“They claim to stand up on behalf of the ‘little guy’ (the 99 percent), while raising a fist of protest against the big, rich, greedy and powerful 1 percent,” he said of the Occupy movement. “The parallels between Occupy Wall Street and the Berkeley Free Speech Movement are too clear to ignore — right down to the babbling incoherence of the participants. The lesson from Berkeley in the 1960s and the protest movement they spawned is: it doesn’t matter that they don’t make sense. What matters is they are tapping into a gut-level instinct that is alive, or lying dormant, in almost every human being. And, when they unleash the power of standing up for the powerless against the powerful — David vs. Goliath — the repercussions can ripple throughout our society for decades.”

Mr. Prell hopes that doesn’t happen and is adamantly opposed to what he considers the movement’s big government agenda, but points out that “last generation’s protesters are today’s leaders.”

Sidney Tarrow, a visiting professor at the Cornell Law School, an expert in social movements and author of “Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics,” agreed that the movement could emerge as a more potent national force once the encampments were no longer an issue. This week’s evictions “could be the foundation for a national social movement,” he said. The 1964 Sproul Hall sit-in at Berkeley “created a communal basis for a future social movement. They hadn’t met until they were carried out by police. That’s a powerful solidarity-creating experience. We may well see networks of activists growing up because of this. People in the same encampments, and people in different encampments, are now in constant contact and can share experiences. They’ll build a community. That’s why occupation of space is important.”

Mr. Tarrow said he was sympathetic to the goals of the movement, “and I’m especially pleased there’s someone outside the Democratic Party establishment who’s saying these things. Someone had to seriously open a debate about the yawning gap of inequality in this country.” He added: “My advice to them is, ‘Move on.’ The encampments were running out of steam. They’ve achieved the best they could hope to achieve, which is to draw the country’s attention to extraordinary inequality. In my view, they should pack up their tents and march on Washington.”

Jeff Goodwin, a professor of sociology at New York University, who has both studied and at times joined the protesters, said he felt Mayor Bloomberg did the protesters “a big favor. The attempt to disrupt or suppress the movement will backfire. People involved think this is just the beginning. People are having a conversation about what’s wrong with the country. The police are not going to dissuade them from protesting or remaining active. It’s just going to anger people and radicalize them, and maybe draw new people into the conversation.”

While Occupy Wall Street has caught the attention of the White House and shifted the national debate over the economy, much as the Tea Party movement did from a conservative and libertarian perspective, it hasn’t yet had anywhere near the Tea Party’s impact, and it hasn’t elected any political candidates or raised significant funds. But it may have less conventional goals.

Cornel West, a Princeton professor who has emerged as a prominent voice of the movement, called me from Seattle, where he’d just joined Occupy Seattle protesters at Seattle Central Community College, and was en route to Oakland to participate in more protests there. “We’ve got to regroup and bounce back,” he said of this week’s evictions. “There’s already been a victory. Everyone is talking about corporate greed and income inequality, and that wouldn’t have been imaginable even a year ago.” He added, “To think that New York City spent all of that taxpayer money on policing the protesters and arresting people, while right there on Wall Street are all these financial criminals and no one has been charged. The oligarchs get away with everything. The hypocrisy is just too much to take. The shift towards truth and justice is what the movement is all about.”

Mr. West said he didn’t know where the movement was headed, but “you can’t evict an idea whose time has come.”

Perry: Obama “privileged”…… “never had to really work for anything”

Perry: Obama “Never Had To Go Through What Americans Are Going Through”

article from RealClearPolitics

“It reveals to me that he grew up in a privileged way. He never had to really work for anything. He never had to go through what Americans are going through. There’s 14-plus million Americans sitting out there, some of them watching this program tonight, that don’t have a job. This president has never felt that angst that they have in their heart. And I think he’s always when he has had problems he’s pointed somebody else and said it’s their fault, not mine. It’s like, his thinking that that he can go and negotiate because of his great debating skills anyplace in the world. We’ve seen a number of examples of that where it’s been an abject failure.

“And as a matter of fact, his thinking that he’s the smartest guy in the the room has hurt America around the world, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. And I think that mentality of ‘I’m the smartest guy in the room and therefore it couldn’t be my fault’ is really hurting America. And we need a president who has been through their ups and downs in life and understand what it’s like to have to deal with the issues of our economy that we have today in America. And that’s what this election is going to be about, Sean. It’s going to be about who has a plan to get America working again. And frankly, who has the ability to make Washington as inconsequential in people’s lives as we can make it,” Rick Perry told FOX News on Wednesday night.”

Jim Jones had the Obama skills of “Raw Politics” to deliver what Lefty politicians want most: POWER

“It was Raw Politics!”

This past week was the thirty-third anniversary of the end of a popular Marxist  via his Mass Murder of over 900 members of his Marxist colony, most of whom were long-time followers whose legs shivered from the spell of   this charismatic speaker and  honored California Democrat, Jim Jones.

Jim Jones was an American Progressive whose progress finally reached  full blown Marxism.   He had become very popular among leading Democrats in the San Francisco Bay area of the mid 1970s.     An obedient press encouraged his popularity until the San Francisco Examiner questioned  some of his charisma.

Jim’s feelings were hurt, so  he transfered his flock to the jungles  of Guyana in northern South America.   Jim was an Occupy-kind of guy of his day,  who turned out Occupying his flock the modern Marxist way…..with power, fear, drugs, intimidation and weapons.

Democrats don’t talk or write much about this Jim Jones  California hero of theirs a bit more than 3 decades ago.   Nor do they review his extraordinary charisma which made fans’ legs shiver with devotion and aided so many to reach their  early death.

Marxism is as Marxism does.    

As Dennis Prager so often reminds us Americans, both the wise and the unwise:   “ The Left  seeks POWER;   Conservatives seek PROSPERITY.”

Read again the following comment made years ago by a long time disciple of Jim Jones regarding the man’s peculiarities:

“One of Jones’ long time followers Tim Stoen explained, ‘There wasn’t anything magical about Jim’s power. It was raw politics.  He was able to deliver what politicians want, which is power.  And how do you get power?  By votes. And how do you get votes?  With people. Jim Jones could produce 3,000 people at a political event’.”

This  citation comes from a writing by Richard Ross at RealClearHistory of the Jim Jones Jonestown murders 33 years ago this past week.