Blogs and Stories
Newt's War of Independence
Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP Photo
Having reenacted the Battle of Trenton via Twitter this weekend, Newt Gingrich talks to The Daily Beast about Sarah Palin's flawed fight for "ideological purity," his own "betrayal" of conservatives in New York, and what George Washington would do about Afghanistan.
Newt Gingrich is in full warrior mode this week. While he’s stepped up to battle national Republican leaders over the rightful heir to a Republican congressional seat in upstate New York–-dodging fusillades from the likes of Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Gov. Sarah Palin and buckshot from the blogging Right–-the former House Speaker is also consumed by a fight from an earlier time: the Battle of Trenton, 1776.
Over the weekend, a hardy of group of Gingrich acolytes huddled by their computers and drew out the battle plan for a Twitter re-enactment of the Trenton campaign, the victory of the American rebels over the Red Coats which inspired the iconic painting “Washington Crossing the Delaware.” And so online, for the first time in 243 years, General George Washington
Gingrich directed particular attention at Pawlenty and Palin for their apparent drive for ideological purity: “You should call and ask them and say what’s the purity test for the governor of California? Does anyone pass the purity test?
The twitter campaign, Gingrich said, was the first of its kind, but it isn’t the former Georgia congressman’s first venture into creative tweeting. This summer, he started
For Gingrich, recalling the triumphs isn’t just an act of historical daydreaming. America’s first president, Gingrich said, shows the 44th one the proper manner of how to handle the current predicament in Afghanistan. What would George do?
“Washington was very slow in making decisions,” Gingrich said. But the former Speaker added that at Trenton and elsewhere, he made the right ones.
“Washington crossed the Rubicon. He never looked back. What if he thought, ‘Gee, maybe I can cut a deal with the British?’ Our very honor depends on us winning this war. Young Americans deserve to have their commander-in-chief say that we are accepting defeat after eight years or announce that this so, so important for Americans. He is not consultant-in-chief, not orator-in-chief. He is commander-in-chief,” Gingrich said.
• Lloyd Grove: Newt’s Reagan Fantasy
• Newt’s Reading ListGingrich isn’t the only one in a military state of mind. The bellicose spirit has spread to New York’s 23rd congressional district, where conservatives see Gingrich’s support of the Republican Party candidate Dede Scozzafava—over the more conservative Doug Hoffmann, running on the Conservative Party ticket—as an act of betrayal. (The seat was left vacant when John McHugh was tapped by Obama to be secretary of the Army this fall). The rural district has been called a “Hill to Die On” for conservatives. “Did [Gingrich] cross the Rubicon?” another conservative blogger asked. Whatever the metaphor, the district, which will elect a new representative on Nov. 3rd, has become an unlikely place for everyone in the Republican Party looking for a fight.
Gingrich defends his decision to back the less conservative of the two candidates. “I think that’s silly,” Gingrich said, of critics’ accusation that he was betraying the right. “Because there are many issues that matter in America. I think my record as the conservative who balanced the budget, created a Republican majority…These are facts. They don’t come and go.”
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
10 Palin Hits the Leakers Missed
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
Samuel P. Jacobs is a staff reporter at The Daily Beast. He has also written for The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.
The Missing Pages in Palin's Book
Samuel P. Jacobs is a staff reporter at The Daily Beast. He has also written for The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.
The Greatest Filibusters
Samuel P. Jacobs is a staff reporter at The Daily Beast. He has also written for The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.
Ideological purity? Cute!
Every politician has an ideology and people can either agree with it or disagree. What Palin got ridiculed for was not her ideology, but her lack of intelligence, her stupid answers and remarks, her strategy of trying to appeal to people by acting like a redneck, her hypocracy (abstienece only education????), her way of trying to fumble through legitimate questions without having any knowlege on the most important topics, etc, etc.
I laughed out loud out when I read your comment. Many of you liberals are adorably cute and remind me of toddlers. First you criticize Palin for "...her lack of intelligence, her stupid answers and remarks...", then you refer to her "...hypocracy(sic)..." for supporting "...(abstienece(sic) only education????". You liberals claim to have the answer to every problem but apparently using a "Spell Check" feature on your computer is beyond your ability. Thanks for pointing out who REALLY lacks intelligence.
PS Try reading "Born Liberal, Raised RIght". It's available on Amazon and it might help understand yourself. As for that "spell check" thing, read the manual.
What's your point? I misspelled a word. So what? I speak 4 languages fluently and 2 others on a basic level. How many languages do you speak?
Is the incorrect spelling of a word your strongest counter-argument?
Yes, it was her ideology.
If she was a liberal, Gibson, Couric, et al wouldn't have asked her a single substantial question about anything as their questions of liberals are so often void of anything news worthy.
What is you reading material? What is the Bush Doctrine? Please! They would have asked her "How do you feel about being the first Republican female nominee" That would have been the extent of her questioning if she wasn't a Firebrand Conservative.
I don't recall Barack Obama being asked about the "Bush Doctrine" and it is doubtful if he would no what the hell Charlie Gibson was talking about. "You mean to tell me, you don't know what the Bush Doctrine is?"
Charlie Gibson probably didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was either until that morning when he was compiling his "gotcha" questions.
Matter of fact, there wasn't an official term to describe the Bush administration's foreign policy objectives that was known to anyone with the possible exception of a few sanctimonious Washington insiders, which had come to be known by everyone after the Gibson interview as "The Bush Doctrine"
Judging by the rest of your comments, you seem to be pretty content with yourself that you are in fact, the smartest person in the room where ever you go.
So, I will leave you with that.
the Bush Doctrine is substancial - it broke with two hundred years of American foreign policy. Given that Obama graduated at the top of his class at Harvard, and is a seriousl political scholar, I might imgaine he would be prepared to answer that question.
Its not really a gotcha question if you are informed about foreign policy. IMO one might hope a serious presidential candidate would have some expertise in that area, regardless of ideology.
Another entertaining counter-argument! This one based on a "what if" premise. What if Katie Couric had asked Obama about the Bush doctrine?
What if Charlie Gibson didn't know what the Bush doctrine was 2 days before the interview? What if Palin was a liberal- would she have gotten better questions?
"What if" is irrelevant here. I'm basing my judgment on "what was". And what was, was Sarah Palin giving idiotic answers to relevant questions. Obama answered all sorts of questions from all sorts of people and didn't manage to make a complete and utter fool of himself. McCain was able to tell left from right during his interviews. Mitt Romney, Hilary Clinton, etc. Despite all their political differences, and ideological diversity, at least they could handle questions and give speeches without looking like an ass.
Let's not underestimate the importance of intelligence and knowledge among politicians.
You are witless. I am still laughing at your belief that the Gibson and Couric interviews -- both approved by the McCain campaign, which was already worried about Palin's word-salads befroehand -- were tough. Is a question about what one reads regularly a tough one? Oh, please, Palin stumbled on that because she reads PEOPLE and AK bloggers and couldn't even come up with a reference to her mentor's WSJ. Couldn't name a Supreme Court case beyond Roe v Wade. Couldn't discuss foreign affairs. Created a word-salad out of health care reform that takes the breath away.
Here's the bottom line you hate to examine. Palin doesn't have thoughts, ideas or a platform; she has sound bytes. She tries to skate through life on the surface of complex issues, counting on winks and you-betchas to win the day.
Bad News: she was found out. We don't want her in ANY federal office. The Good News: she won't run. She discovered that political office is too hard. Instead she took the easy way to riches: milk the poor slobs who don't read much, don't think much and think she's hot. And she's got you!
Mariafrania -- don't forget Palin's missing ethics too.
Maria, I think you confuse lack of intelligence with lack of knowledge. There is plenty of that going around, no matter the ideology.
Sarah Palin and others can endorse sexual abstinence for teens but it is up to the individual to practice it. Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the spread of STD's and teen pregnancy. It works every time!
I do not confuse intelligence with knowledge. Sarah Palin's answers to many of the questions she got reflected her lack of knowledge. (For example in the famous joke that the Canadian radio broadcasters pulled- Sarah Palin didn't seem to have enough knowledge to know that Quebec, which itself is not a country, doesn't have a foreign minister, or that French singer Johnny Halliday is not France's American advisor.)
And her idiotic behavior, redneck strategy of communication, and inability to manouver around questions like "what do you read?" exhibits her lack of intelligence.
As for the abstinence issue- there is no doubt that abstinence's effectiveness in preventing pregnancy is 100%. However, an intelligent person would accept the fact that not all teens choose to abstain from sex and there's no way to force them to. An intelligent person would work at lowering the unwanted pregnancy rate by not excluding those teens, but informing them on what all their options are. Intelligence allows us to see the different facets of a problem and approach it from an angle which incorporates dealing effectively with those different facets, rather than ignoring them.
Yah, it works every time. Just ask Bristol.
Sippe, It wasn't abstinence then, was it?
While I don't agree with all of Newt's views, I do have respect for the guy. There's not a lot of conservatives these days that are willing to openly criticize the fanatic blowhards that command the talk-radio airwaves and, these days, indirectly control the GOP.
(And before you ultra-rightists get your BVDs in a bunch, I'm not saying ALL right-wing jocks are like that. In fact, I listen to Andrew Wilkow's "The Wilkow Majority" on a daily basis. Rational Thought, people!)
Newt Gingrich, please go away. YOU as the Republican who balanced the budet, engineered the 'Contract with America", and made everything okay is a joke!
By the way, who's telling you what to say now? Certainly not your conscience, of which you possess none. It must be a savvy advisor who for some reason can't be at the forefront of the conversation.
We've seen your personal choices.
Shall we go into them? One of your marriages? How you serve legal papers? Crucification of an adulterer while duplicating the very deed you denounce?
Just go away, now please. Please don't make the real conservatives who possess a conscience and moral values repudiate your nonsense and your unbelievably poor judgement yet again.
Once again, these crazy christian freaks please stop using religions luring people into your political agenda. It's obsurd and not fair.
Live a little, go a little crazy.
For a while Newt was my guy and one of the go to guys of the GOP. That was then, this is now.
He has had a lot of good ideas, at least on paper but he never had the courage to walk the talk. He took a powder when he had the chance to run for President and we ended up with McCain who we though we owed.
Newt's time has passed and he burned his bridge. Now is the time for new faces. I don't know if Palin is the one but the public will decide that argument, not screames, spitters, frothing at the mouth Liberals and haters we hear so much of.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Because it is a convient argument just like Bush lying about missile warheads in Iraq. Don't waste a good argument by letting any truth in.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Thank-you Jinglebob, well said.
I am registered Republican and have been since I was 18. I do not need you or anyone else telling me that the nose on my face is anything other than that. I believe one of the reasons that voters have shunned my party is because of the incredible lengths the wingnuts in the party will go to justify their stupid actions.
From you and others claiming that it was because Clinton lied, to Bush et al claiming it was WMDs and al quaeda in Iraq, to even more wingnuts claiming they hate Obama because he's supposedly a Socialist (not because he's black).
We lost because the loudest and most obnoxious of us are dishonest and don't give a flying fuck about about good sense and decency. Frankly, I'm sick of it and refuse to be silent any longer. You represent a dying breed, dabeall. Good riddance to you when you're finally gone.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Perfect....just what we need. Another indie who knows more than everyone else.
As for me? I'll show you my card. It says Republican Party right on it. My philosophy of conservatism is mine and mine alone. I don't claim to speak for anyone other than me. I know from experience that being a conservative who thinks for himself is a dangerous and rare thing to profess these days.
You can say what you want about me, from "...neither are you." to '...you're not far enough right, you don't belong here.'
If you're not a part of the party, then move along and don't tell those of us who have remained loyal and steadfast how to run our own show or how to think. Go with the rest of the indies and snipe from the sidelines, wherever the wind blows you. If you need me, I'll be right where I've always been.....a little to the right of center.
How can anyone take Newt seriously? Particularly, after he tries to present such a ridiculous, convoluted analogy between the Revolutionary War and the current involvement in Afghanistan.
I really can't believe how Gingrich even attempts to draw any parallels of any sort between the U.S.'s battle for independence in the 1770s and the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Unless, of course, Newt equates the revolutionary colonies with the Taliban fighting to throw off the shackles of tyranny imposed by the international super power of the era, there is no analogy that can be made.
While I applaud Newt's attempt to dissuade the GOP from sticking with a two-plank anti-abortion and anti-homosexual religious platform, he does the entire conservative movement a disservice with his deliberate butchering of the real history of our nation.
Twitter? Really? Twitter?
Come on Newt, you are a history professor for God's sake. Comparing yourself or the current state of the neo-conservative movement with the founders of the nation or for the ideals that the founders embraced is ego driven, historical revisionism of the worst kind.
Newt, there is absolutely no comparison between your evangelical, neo-conservative, National Corporatism and the Deistic, State's rights, Federalism of Washington.
Newt, you are no George Washington and you will never be George Washington even in your wildest megalomaniacal fantasies.
Yes Washington would have done it differently; Washington would not have put the nation into the position that required an invasion of Afghanistan in the first place. But, then again, Washington would have dismissed the current religious conservative movement for what it truly is: as a bunch of over zealous, fanatical extremists who are trying to overthrow the two things that Washington was willing to die for, individual freedoms and complete separation of church and state.
Newt, I hate to tell you this but I think the cheese has finally slipped off the cracker.
Why compare Newt to George Washington? Why not Jesus or Moses or God? Was it a question of modesty or not thinking big enough?
I wasnt aware of Newts military leadership qualifications. I must have missed the part where they describe Newts battlefield acomplishments and his graduation from westpoint and etc.
I remember the grinch from the 90s. He lost the republican majority and was under investigation for scores of ethics violations when he was exiled from DC. Why does he think he's welcome back?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Gingrich obviously has forgotten about Ronald Reagan, who not only was elected Governor of California but also carried 49 states when he was, re-elected President. He seems to be spending his time these days on Bareback Liberal Mountain with McCain and Lindsey Graham. All of these sellouts RINO types are really worthless. Why would anyone want to vote for a Democrat wannabe when they can just vote for the real thing? The Republican Party should stand for principles.
Despite the often heard platitude that the US is "center-right" there have always been more registered Democrats than Republicans. For Republicans to get elected, on a national level, they need to create coalitions. These coalitions have recently included Latinos and the far right (religious right, fiscal conservatives). They have abandoned Latinos and now are paying the price for engaging the far right. I'm not rooting either way here but this seems pretty obvious.
Newt is trying way to hard!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
« OPEN LETTER TO THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT | COLINDALE 's Blog | London NETANYAHU has almost certainly cost Obama and the Democratic Party, a second term in office. »
Now is the time for Europe to divorce itself from the AIPAC-controlled, American foreign policy on Israel
November 1, 2009, 11:01PM
Now is the time for Europe to divorce itself from the AIPAC-controlled, American foreign policy on Israel that accepts gross human rights violations i.e. the killing of 900 civilians in Gaza, in January last, which included the deliberate killing of 320 children and the illegal use of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon.
The official United Nations Report of the Fact Finding Mission. April/May 2009 by independent South African jurist, Judge Goldstone, concluded that there were:
1. Deliberate attacks by the Israeli army on civilians
2. 1400 Gazans were killed in three weeks
3. There was illegal use of white phosphorus
4. Israel violated the right to free movement
5. Dehumanization was carried out
6. There was illegal torture and punishment
7. There were violations of international human rights and humanitarian law
8. There was arbitrary deprivation of life
Obviously the United States will act as it, or the American Israel lobby group, sees fit - but Europe will hopefully conform to the principles of democracy, international law, the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights and basic morality.
The armies of western democratic nations would never be ordered to target civilians, unarmed women and innocent children. It is incumbent, therefore, for Europe to show its condemnation of such acts of barbarity.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.