It’s Friday, December 2nd, 2001….and we once again interrupt our regularly scheduled programming for a shameless commercial plug. We hope you like reading The Gouge as much as we love writing it. As we’ve said before, this represents our humble effort to open the ears and eyes of a nation growing deafer and blinder by the day.
All we ask in return for the time it takes to put The Gouge in both a web and email format is a few seconds of yours; that’s all it takes to click on the website (www.thedailygouge.com) two or three times a day and forward our column to some friends.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up on the last Gouge of the week, as Commentary Magazine‘s Jonathan Tobin relates in this forward from Bill Meisen, like Newt, The Great Prevaricator’s a legend in his own mind:
Obama Pats Himself on the Back for “Supporting” Israel
Though Barack Obama has been picking fights with the government of the State of Israel since his first day in office, the flip side of that relationship is his desperate desire to convince American Jews he’s the Jewish state’s best friend. That’s been an even tougher sell in the last year, and polls have consistently shown Obama’s support among American Jews declining. But at a fundraiser last night at the home of Jack Rosen, president of the largely defunct American Jewish Congress, Obama was tooting his own horn again, in a way that reflects not only his political agenda but his well-known high opinion of himself:
And as Jack alluded to, this administration —I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration.And that’s not just our opinion, that’s the opinion of the Israeli government. Whether it’s making sure that our intelligence cooperation is effective, to making sure that we’re able to construct something like an Iron Dome so that we don’t have missiles raining down on Tel Aviv, we have been consistent in insisting that we don’t compromise when it comes to Israel’s security. And that’s not just something I say privately, that’s something that I said in the U.N. General Assembly. And that will continue.
As I wrote in the July issue of COMMENTARY, while Obama has maintained the security cooperation between the two nations that has been established by his predecessors, the idea that a president who has done more to undermine Israel’s position on its capital Jerusalem or to heighten tension over the peace process and territorial issues and has utterly failed to deal with the greatest threat to Israel’s security — Iran — should be patting himself on the back is more than political hyperbole, it is satire.
Let’s remember this is the same president who came into office determined to establish greater distance between the United States and Israel on the assumption that getting tough with the Jews would lead to peace with the Palestinians.Obama’s demands on Israel even exceeded those previously articulated by the Arabs who had never, before he took office, said that peace talks could not proceed without a settlement freeze, let alone a freeze on building in Jerusalem. Obama has picked quarrels with Netanyahu — including attempts to personally humiliate him — about building in existing Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem whose existence had never been protested by any previous presidents, including those known to be less sympathetic to the Jewish state, such as Jimmy Carter or the first George Bush. Nor had any president prior to Obama explicitly stated that negotiations must begin on the basis of the 1949 armistice lines, tilting the diplomatic playing field in favor of the Palestinians. (A total ignorance of reality Bibi Netanyahu….
….quickly corrected.)
It is true the security relationship between the two countries has continued to grow in the last three years, and for that, Obama deserves some credit. But it must be pointed out that this alliance is now part of the diplomatic infrastructure that could only be dismantled at great political cost. The Iron Dome project, which Obama bragged about to Rosen and his guests, was started and funded under George W. Bush, not the current administration. Had Obama chosen not to continue these policies — which date back to the Reagan administration — then Congress would have quickly acted to bring him to heel. Maintaining the alliance is praiseworthy, but at this point in time that is the baseline for support for Israel, not something for which Obama should be considered exceptional.
But when we speak of Israel’s security, Obama’s disastrous policies toward Iran and its nuclear threat cannot be forgotten. He began his administration wasting a year on a foolish policy of appeasement of the ayatollahs which he labeled “engagement.” When even the president realized it was a failure, he followed up with two years of feckless diplomacy aimed at creating international sanctions that have been a bust. On Obama’s watch not only has the U.S. failed to match Britain’s record on the issue (they have sanctioned Iran’s Central Bank, a measure Obama has not undertaken), but it has not even enforced the mild sanctions already in place.
Even worse, the United States continues to send Iran signals it will not consider the use of force and it is attempting to stop Israel from striking their nuclear facilities. Though Obama has continued to say he will stop Iran, nothing he has actually done appears to validate those promises.
As for Israel’s government validating Obama’s support, it must be said that despite numerous provocations by the president, Netanyahu and his ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, have been too clever to be goaded into an open feud. They have swallowed Obama’s insults and diplomatic attacks with good grace while continuing to shore up support in Congress. With only one superpower ally, Israel has no choice but to keep its complaints as quiet as possible, especially because Obama might be president for another five years.
But no one, not Netanyahu nor most American Jews, is fooled by Obama’s boasting. Though Jews who are Democratic partisans like Rosen (who once even defended Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky affair on the grounds that silencing criticism of his actions was a Jewish issue) will support him, many understand that this is a president who has a problem with Israel. He can pat himself on the back as much as he likes, but few doubt a second Obama term will be even rougher for Israel than his first.
The Obamao’s so full of it his skin’s brown! Friend of Israel?
Yeah….like Jimmy Carter and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
Since we’re on the subject of the self-impressed, in this forward from Conn Carroll and the Morning Examiner, NRO‘s Jim Geraghty lists thirteen more reasons we’ll never touch a screen next to Newt’s name:
Newt Gingrich Said What?
Recalling a speech where Newt Gingrich proposed abolishing tenure at state universities, I decided to go through the news archives for other examples of bold, intriguing ideas that went nowhere. There is no doubt that Newt Gingrich is one of the most creative and energetic thinkers in the Republican Party. Since leaving the House of Representatives in 1999, he has been bursting at the seams with unexpected, head-turning proposals. Of course, there’s more to political life than thinking, and only a small percentage of those ideas have ever moved past the drawing board or speech.
Instead, I found a slew of ideas and comments that… probably would not be helpful if one were hoping to win the votes of conservative Republicans in a GOP presidential primary.
A few of Newt Gingrich’s… Not-So-Greatest Hits:
August 30, 2004: “Now he’s back, preaching the gospel of party moderation. At an Aug. 30 forum held by the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, Gingrich heralded the GOP’s new, bigger big tent. “Everywhere I’ve been, I’ve argued in favor of electing the moderates,” Gingrich said… He even chastised the fiscally conservative Club for Growth — a group that finances primary challengers to Republican incumbents they deem too liberal — for not getting with the program. “Their strategy is explicitly wrong,” Gingrich said. “The key is to elect more Republicans and have a bigger majority and be more inclusive.” (See Chafee, Lincoln; Snowe, Olympia; Graham, Lindsey; McCain, John)
In June 2005, the New York Timesraved about a “balanced and thoughtful” report from a bipartisan task force headed by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, declaring, “Lawmakers should take the time to at least thumb through this report, especially those who have been demanding Secretary General Kofi Annan’s resignation, supporting the ill-conceived nomination of John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and backing the latest benighted attempt to withhold America’s legally obligated dues.”
In October 2005, Gingrich called for “universal but confidential” DNA testing.
In April 2006, Gingrich appeared to suggest that too many U.S. troops were in Iraq. At the time, there were 127,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq. With the surge, the number of troops in Iraq reached 162,000.
During speaking engagements Monday at the University of South Dakota, Mr. Gingrich faulted the White House for installing an American-run government in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was driven from power.
“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,” Mr. Gingrich told students and faculty, according to the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
In November 2006, Gingrich suggested “adopting rules of engagement” that would “break up” terrorists’ “capacity to use free speech.”
“My prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us,” Gingrich said in the transcript.
“This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement,” he said.
“Mayor Bloomberg’s potential presidential bid is getting a boost from a former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and a former Democratic congressman of Tennessee, Harold Ford, who during a visit to New York praised the mayor for his leadership and ability to make government run effectively.
During a lunch at the Four Seasons Hotel with some of the city’s biggest political donors yesterday, Mr. Gingrich said he takes his hat off to the mayor for proving government can be effective. He also credited Chancellor Joel Klein for his work in the city’s schools.
“The effectiveness they‘ve shown in actually getting the city to work is an integral story of what could happen in Albany or could happen in Washington if you had leadership that understood the power of metrics and understood the power of forcing really big decisions,” Mr. Gingrich said.
Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that “we should address it very actively.” Gingrich held up Kerry’s new book, “This Moment on Earth,” and called it “a very interesting read.” He then added a personal note about saving vulnerable species from climate change. “My name, Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there’s been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut,” he confided.
The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of “marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers.” Instead, Kerry found himself saying: “I’ve always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had.” He added that “your statement is very, very important” and gushed: “I frankly appreciate the candor.”
The debate ended. They shook hands. Kerry put an arm around Gingrich. Gingrich put an arm around Kerry. For a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug.
In 2007, he accused the Bush administration of fighting a “phony war” on terrorism, and declared “a more effective approach would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil.”
Gingrich put out a statement hailing McCain’s eleventh-hour intervention. “This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying, ‘I will go to Korea’.” Eisenhower’s pledge was enough to reassure voters that if elected he would find a way to resolve the Korean conflict. McCain’s high-octane involvement in the bailout is meant to convey the same sense of stature and leadership, and to provide cover to reluctant Republicans to support a deal that runs counter to everything they thought they stood for.
In December 2008, he criticized the RNC for its ad attacking Obama’s connections to Rod Blagojevich, calling it “a destructive distraction.”
In January 2009, he declared that newly-elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele would be “a force for real change in America.”
Alaska’s Governor Palin, John McCain’s running mate in 2008, could be “very formidable” as a presidential candidate in 2012, Gingrich said. But he stipulated that would be the case only if she “seeks out a group of sophisticated policy advisers” and “spends time developing a series of fairly sophisticated positions.” He noted that “Palin starts in Iowa with a substantial advantage. I think she has a very big base among the fundamentalist wing of the party.” He also mentioned two other potential Republican presidential candidates. “If the economy is still a mess a year from now, then [former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney’s economic credentials start to come back in an important way,” Gingrich said. He cautioned that “Romney has got to figure out how to close the sale.”
And if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison becomes governor of Texas, the second largest state, “she is an instantly formidable candidate,” Gingrich said.
If you thought Bush 41 & 43 were Conservatives, you’re gonna love Newt! With Gingrich leading the GOP, who needs an opposition party?!?
Unfortunately, as this next item from Guy Benson in Townhall.com details, our only other option is….well….only slightly less egotistical and distasteful:
Bret Baier: Romney Complained That My Questions Were “Uncalled For”
Polite but persistent questions about Romneycare and flip flops were deemed “overly aggressive” by our victimized (former?) front-runner? As Allahpundit asks, what on earth was Romney expecting to be asked? Vicious haymakers about his immaculate grooming and distinguished good looks? Come on. You’re running for President of the United States, sir. Tough questions — yes, even some that aren’t fun to answer, or may even be repeats — come with the territory. Re-watch the exchange and see if you can identify a single query that seems legitimately “uncalled for:”
I still can’t quite fathom what Romney had in mind going into this thing. Serious news anchors aren’t going to pose fawning questions or play patty-cake with a preferred campaign narrative (unless, of course, we’re talking about most MSM newsmen and Barack Obama). Bret Baier is a fair guy and a straight shooter — the sort of host Republicans and Democrats should respect. Substantively, Romney’s answers were fine, mind you. It was his irritated and aggrieved attitude that paved the way for 24 hours of unfriendly headlines and uncharitable analysis. The revelation that he whined about the questions to Baier during their “walk and talk” session fuels the fire. That he came back out later to reiterate his displeasure is just astonishing. Congratulations, Governor — you’ve just earned yourself at least another news cycle of bad press. And at just the wrong time, too. For a guy who is almost preternaturally self-possessed and unflappable, when Romney snaps, it’s really noticeable.
If Romney ends up as the nominee, don’t think Team Obama isn’t already dreaming up ways to needle him to provoke repressed anger flare-ups.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, as the WSJ, courtesy of Conn Carroll and the Morning Examiner reports, despite the hope, nothing’s changed:
Fannie, Freddie Spend $640,000 on Conference
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent more than $640,000 this fall to send 100 employees to a Chicago mortgage-industry conference and to host events there, a decision the companies defended amid criticism from a lawmaker.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees the government-controlled mortgage-finance companies, outlined the costs in a letter to Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R., Texas), a member of the House Financial Services committee. Mr. Neugebauer, who had sought details on the conference, called the spending “lavish.”
The federal housing regulator “has special responsibility to make sure that Fannie and Freddie are run responsibly and in a way that minimizes taxpayer losses,” Mr. Neugebauer said.
The spending included nearly $342,000 for travel, food, hotel and meeting-room space and $74,000 on four invitation-only dinners for mortgage-lending companies that do business with Fannie and Freddie. The companies spent about $140,000 to sponsor the conference and about $68,000 for registration fees, the regulator said.
The companies’ top regulator defended the spending as a whole, but said he would apply greater scrutiny to sponsorships and dinner events.(Yeah….right after senior execs collect those bloated year-end bonuses for….losing less?!?) “I believe we can and should provide more detailed direction regarding such expenditures in the future,” Edward DeMarco, acting director of the FHFA, wrote to Mr. Neugebauer in the Nov. 23 letter. The letter was released Wednesday by Mr. Neugebauer’s office.
Fannie and Freddie dominate the U.S. mortgage market, purchasing and guaranteeing about 70% of new loans from mortgage lenders. Though lenders have few other outlets to purchase their mortgages, Fannie and Freddie say they value face-to-face meetings with customers as a way to understand their needs.
Next up, it’s today’s Money Quote, courtesy of James Taranto and a guy who’s got his!
“I always tell Malia and Sasha, look, you guys, I don’t worry about you. . . . They’re on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful.“–Barack Obama to New York supporters, Nov. 30
Guess they finally got their piece of the pie!
On the Lighter Side….
Finally, we’ll….”wrap up” the week with the “Spirit of Christmas” segment, courtesy of the Grinches in McDowell County, NC:
School Apologizes for Operation Christmas Child Message
A North Carolina school has apologized after a teacher complained about a religious message found inside an Operation Christmas Child project. “Our intent was not to offend anyone,” said Ira Trollinger, superintendent of McDowell County Schools in Marion, NC.
Trollinger said students at Glenwood Elementary School were preparing shoe boxes for Operation Christmas Child, part of a community service project. Operation Christmas Child is sponsored by Samaritan’s Purse, an organization run by Franklin Graham. They expect to send more than 8 million shoe box gifts to underprivileged children in 100 countries. Around 60,000 churches and 60,000 community groups in the United States are participating.
As part of the project, the school children received a questionnaire that asked students to fill in the blank: “I love Jesus because ______.” A part time tutor at the school complained about the questionnaire arguing that it crossed the line and may have violated the First Amendment rights of students.
Trollinger told Fox News & Commentary that no children complained and no parents complained – just the part time tutor.
“We may have teachers and tutors that are agnostic,” he said. “And that is certainly up to them. And we don’t mean to offend anyone. We want to give kids the opportunity to share and to feel good about what they are doing for other people who may need it more than they do.”
Nevertheless, the single complaint launched a flurry of apologies and phone calls. Trollinger said they called teachers together to remind them of the rules governing religion and public schools. “We can’t support one religion over the other,” he said. “So many of us are Christian, but in our setting we will try to make sure we respect all religions.”
After all, it’s not like Christmas is a Christian holiday! Seriously though; when did “Remind again why I care what you think? Oh, that’s right….I don’t!” become an unacceptable response to people raising politically-correct bullsh*t?!?
In any event, congratulations Superintendent Trollinger; no matter the language, culture, race or religion….
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.