January 26, 2012, - 4:08 pm

Gingrich Critic Elliot Abrams Was Bush Pro-Palestinian Point Man; Anti-Semitic Attacks on Newt Donor

By Debbie Schlussel

I haven’t yet decided for whom I  will vote in the Michigan Primary because I hate all of the choices, including Newt Gingrich.  That said, I will probably plug my nose extra-tight and vote for him (even though his illegal alien positions and tight friendship with Al Sharpton make me sick).  One of the things pushing me in that direction is my rebellion against the barrage of BS attacks by Ann Coulter’s gay best friend, Matt Drudge, and Elliot Abrams in National Review, the bastion of Jihad Grover Norquist. I’m also disgusted by the repeat derisive articles about billionaire Sheldon Adelson, Newt Gingrich’s biggest financial backer and a man who happens to be Jewish and pro-Israel.  Some of them have a very thin veneer covering a “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”-esque screed.  (Full disclosure:  I know Mr. Adelson and he maxed out in donating to my campaign for the Michigan House.  But I cannot be bought for $500, which was the max in Michigan when I ran.  My little brother, a Wall Street analyst, years later, had discussions with Adelson about casinos because he was analyzing the future of gaming, among other industries.)


Elliot Abrams @ Anti-Israel, Pro-HAMAS American Task Force for Palestine Confab


Sheldon Adelson and Newt Gingrich

It’s well known that Coulter is selling everyone snake oil that Mitt Romney is somehow a conservative, despite a record in elected office of being a lib, and Drudge does her bidding whenever he can–making his site an official Romney 527.  Thus, the rows and rows of Drudge’s anti-Gingrich headlines, some of them from articles and columns dating decades ago.  And, then, there is Elliot Abrams.  What most people don’t realize is that he was the man in the Bush Administration behind Bush’s push for a Palestinian State.

Toward the beginning of the Bush Administration, but after 9/11, President George W. Bush rewarded the 19 Muslim hijackers and their cheering fellow co-religionists around the world by being the very first American President to call for a Palestinian State.  Yes, Bush, NOT Clinton.  And Bush appointed Elliot Abrams to be the point man to support it and secure a ton of funding for the Palestinians and the Abbas government, including a $500 million mortgage bailout fund just for Palestinians, while Americans were hurting on their mortgages.  It’s a fund they set up in 2008, just before they were on their way out of the White House and could get away with it.  Abrams could have turned Bush down.  But he took the job and pursued it with zeal.  He had the gall and indecency to call for a Palestinian State in a speech to a major pro-Israel rally on the Capitol Mall just after many of the homicide bombing attacks on Israel.  Abrams was roundly and deservedly booed.  In fact, his speech sounded more appropriate for the Muslim rally that had just taken place and which was organized by Grover Norquist.  Moreover, Abrams attended dinners for the American Task Force on Palestine, an openly pro-HAMAS/Hezbollah organization (see the photo above).  Not exactly the kinda guy I’d trust on anything, let alone Newt Gingrich expertise.


Abrams took his job supporting a Palestinian State in the midst of the Passover Massacre, the Sbarro Bombing, the Mike’s Bar Bombing, etc., very seriously.   He was involved in the U.S. funding of the Palestinian elections and the Abbas Fatah party, which resulted in a sweeping HAMAS victory, something that he and Condi Clueless were shocked–shocked!–by, despite the fact that anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of Palestinian politics knew this would be the outcome.   He pushed the IMF and the international community to send gazillions to Abbas and the Palestinians.  And when Newt Gingrich called the Palestinians, “an invented people,” the first one to rush to condemn Gingrich’s comments was Elliot Abrams.  I was not surprised, given that his job under eight years of Bush was to break pita and consume hummus with Muslim Jew-haters and opponents of Israel.  You should take any criticism he now makes against Gingrich with that in mind.

Elliot Abrams and I were briefly acquainted because he was a man I once admired, when he worked extra-hard to secure aid to the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters, the Contras, during the Reagan Administration.  And he faced federal criminal charges because of it.  He was a man of principle.  Was.  When I was a student at the University of Michigan, I interviewed him for a thesis paper I wrote on “The Jews and the Conservative Movement in American Politics.”  It was something I submitted to his father-in-law, then-Commentary Magazine editor Norman Podhoretz for publication.  Podhoretz rejected it, and then stole everything I wrote for his recent book on the exact same topic.  Yes, this ain’t a family that plays honestly or by the rules.  Not even close.  So, it’s funny to now read Elliot Abrams’ faux-outrage about Newt Gingrich and his claims that Gingrich was “anti-Reagan.”  I call BS.

Then, there are the seemingly-orchestrated, simultaneous attacks on Sheldon Adelson.  Yes, he is Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel.  But  he is a hard-working, decent American patriot who has created more American jobs than all of his critics combined.  He’s a mensch and cares about the future of America, and the attacks on him seem to me to be subrosa anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.  I’ve seen no campaign of attacks against any of the gentile multi-millionaires and billionaires backing Mitt Romney and exposes of their alleged motivations.

I’ve seen no campaign of attacks against Haim Saban, the far-left billionaire former Israeli who bankrolled Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.  An ABC News headline about Adelson and Gingrich calls them “pals” and not in a positive way.  It’s meant to make us see a Jewish businessman who pays off politicians–with pals, meaning cronies–in some sort of evil conspiracy.  I’ve never seen a major news outlet talk about Barack Obama’s “pal” George Soros, that way.  And maybe that’s because in the eyes of the liberal-left media and anti-Gingrich crowd, Soros and Saban are the “kosher” Jewish billionaires because they are devout supporters of a Palestinian State and the leftist foreign policy that will destroy Israel.

The campaign to vilify Adelson and his relationship against Gingrich is not just unseemly.   It’s a rehearsal of the worst anti-Semitic canard:  that “Zionists”–you know, evil Joooos–control the world and, in particular, American politics.

So, the next time you see a headline about Newt Gingrich from Elliot Abrams or a story about Gingrich’s relationship with Sheldon Adelson, it’s as if it’s coming from the heart of HAMAS Gaza.

And don’t be surprised if it actually is.  The mindset is the same.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

42 Responses

Elliot Abrams’ transformation from a principled Commentary magazine supporter of Israel to a Hamas booster is nothing short of remarkable. How exactly does one explain this? “Opportunism” only can go so far. Newt Gingrich is as much a political opportunist as Abrams ever will be, yet wouldn’t dream of going this route — and, unlike Abrams, he’s not even Jewish.

All of this is beyond bizarre. Is it blackmail? I can’t even fathom a guess at this point. Maybe father-in-law Norman Podhoretz might have some insights.

Seek on January 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Spreading “moderate” Islam is smpliy a foolish idea dreamt up by well-wishers detached from reality. Any socio-political movement that even hints of being backed by the “Great Satan” is going to go nowhere in the middle east. Propping up moderate clerics against fundamentalist clerics is like asking sheep to fight wolves. There is a reason that radicals are strong; it is because they are driven, passionate, and hold moderates in contempt.I believe all religious revivalist movements eventually reach an apogee and then peter out. The reason that fundamentalist Islam survives for so long is that they have seized the organs of the state and continue to propogate themselves through state power. If there is anything that can be learned from history ever since Jacobin France is that Revolutions eventually eat their own. People eventually get tired of the myriad restrictions on everyday freedom. If you want to speed along the decline of Islamic fundamentalism, I would argue that the best way is to actually speed it along. People want Sharia? Allow them to have a taste of the harshest Sharia practices. Eventually they will reject such religiosity, but only as long as the democratic institutions remain in place where a Sharia government can be removed.

    Paula on February 4, 2012 at 5:48 am

    5dz5KE uqmgcibyqnsx

    rqmmaoq on February 5, 2012 at 9:15 am

…….wasn’t Norman a ‘former’ marxist?

starkexpo on January 26, 2012 at 4:40 pm

I am still digesting the boatload of information contained on this post,I ll have to go back and re read it to assimilate,these are names of highly respected intelectuals and supporters of the conservative movement…. I ve never read Matt Drudge’s site but I know he is a big name on the right and I didn t know he was gay,as far as Ann Coulter,she sold out her principals.

Juan on January 26, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Why have you ruled out Santorum?

Poncho on January 26, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Santorum is a good man but he has no chance of getting the nomination.

    I’m noy comfortable with many of Gingrich’s association. But his friendship with Sheldon Adelson isn’t something that shouldn’t be subjected to attacks. Its hitting below the belt.

    Debbie regretted having to expose Elliot Abrams but it was necessary. Good people lose their way and stop living by their principles. When they do its necessary to call them on it.

    Exposing his relationship with the Hezbollah/Hamas crowd is putting everything into context. Do you really want an adviser to a future President who will continue to push Israel down the suicidal Oslo path?

    Gingrich understands who the Palestinians really are. With all his baggage, its no wonder Debbie is reluctant to vote for him. But between him and Romney and him and Obama its really not even close.

    And the attacks on Adelson are helping her to make up her mind.

    NormanF on January 26, 2012 at 7:06 pm

Thanks for this info….Newt is not my first choice,but he is impressive with his knowledge&debate skills. I feel better about voting for him if he becomes the nominee. However, like Poncho above, I wonder why you don’t support Santorum, who is pro-Israel,pro-life,pro-family,and the most social conservative candidate with hard views on Iran and willing to use our military if necessary. The only thing I’ve seen really negative on him is he’s not as aggressive as Gingrich in debates and he voted for a lib, Arlen Specter, against a conservative, but the reasoning was to keep strong conservative appointments in the SCOTUS. Though I’m not sure why Tomey[sp] would not have voted for a conservative on the SCOTUS?

Please share anything you know about Santorum and your reasoning for why you can’t back him before Newt, besides what the polls indicate. Thanks!

@freedom4usa on January 26, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    @freedom4usa,

    I agree with you about Santorum. But I also hear Debbie on Newt.

    I want to comment and answer your question on the following:

    “The only thing I’ve seen really negative on [Santorum] is … he voted for a lib, Arlen Specter, against a conservative, but the reasoning was to keep strong conservative appointments in the SCOTUS. Though I’m not sure why Tomey[sp] would not have voted for a conservative on the SCOTUS?”

    I’m not defending Santorum on this, but his calculation was that Pat Toomey was not going to win in 2004 and that if he endorsed Toomey and Spector won, then Spector would work against having a conservative be confirmed to the SCOTUS.

    What I left out in my above quote of your post as marked by my ellipses is a technical negative that I hope that Santorum will correct in future debates. The only other real negative on Santorum that I’m aware of is that in a debate broadcast by ABC News, he sided with Romney in criticizing Newt for having pointed out that “the Palestinians” are the invented people that they are. As Debbie has pointed out elsewhere, Santorum is indeed pro-Israel, but is a wimp on the “‘Palestinians’ are an invented people” issue. That said, I still like Santorum better. But with Debbie here pointing out about Newt’s friendship with Sheldon Adelson, Newt is re-gaining some of my respect that he previously lost.

    JeffE on January 26, 2012 at 11:46 pm

Norman was never a Marxist, although in the late 50s and early 60s he was quite liberal. He was caught up for a few years in the burgeoning liberal movement that resulted in the Kennedy victory in 1960, although his leftward movement stopped by the mid-60s, and by 1970 he had moved to the right somewhat. His article in the early 60s “The White Negro” arrested his leftward development.

All this stuff about Adelson shows Romney’s opportunism, and the course his administration would be likely to take. He and his sycophants (can you imagine someone being a sycophant for a person like Romney?) evidently believe that Muslim votes in Michigan are more important than any Jewish votes lost in Florida. Hence the smears. Muslims of Michigan!! Romney is reliable.

And it’s only a short jump from attacking Adelson to charges of dual-citizenship against Jewish supporters of Israel. The use of anti-semitism in Romney’s campaign illustrates how he would treat Israel, and Abrams and the rest of them probably figure Romney is their best source of jobs, and that’s what it’s all about for them.

And the articles about Adelson in publications such as the WSJ, with partial Arab ownership, really illustrate something Ruth Wisse said some years ago: that Jews can assert maximum political influence by not being in the hip pocket of either political party. Their servile attitude towards Obama negatively impacts both the Republican and Democratic positions.

Little Al on January 26, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    LA: Agreed on target. Pretty much everything that was written in by Debbe in her post. A Romney Administration’s policy towards Israel will differ from Obama’s only in tone and the extent to which Israel is pushed to make suicidal concessions. I’m not sure which is worse for the Jewish State, execution by the cuts of a thousands deaths or by hanging. This year, pro-Israel supporters have very few good choices. And if Adelson is donating to the Gingrich campaign, its for a good reason. He clearly sees Gingrich as the most pro-Israel candidate in the GOP field. And you can bet whom pro-Israel Christians in the Republican Party will back in the primaries.

    NormanF on January 26, 2012 at 7:14 pm

I, too am disgusted by our choice. And I never buy it when the talk-show hosts I listen to declare that we have a good field to choose from. If the times were not so dire, I’d throw away my vote next year.

They may never shut up but those who used to say (or still say it) “there is no difference between the dems and reps” have been totally proven wrong. To a degree they are correct but I hope Cap’n Zero’s reign has proven just how destructive crypto-Marxists can be.

I am very interested in the Coulter-Drudge angle. I have never heard the goods on those two but HERE. Although Coulter’s jones for Chris Christie still has me confused. I have heard of her reservations about Newt and they seem feasible BUT I have no idea what is going on in the seamy underbelly of their friendship (thank goodness DS tells us the stuff not well known!!!). I need to know that too, to be able to put the whole puzzle together. Romney was my governor for 4 years so I know his track record and I agree with Gregg Jackson’s reservations. And any Grover Norquist angle is just a deal-killer for me!!

I didn’t even know Drudge was gay (!!) and I used to listen to his radio show when he hosted it. There is so much to learn and I need more knowledge of the inside baseball kind. The more I learn though, the more interesting it is. That’s why I come here!

Skunky on January 26, 2012 at 7:16 pm

I do not know who I will vote for in the Illinois primary.

I am really hoping for a convention where no one goes in with enough delegates to claim the nomination. That is because my number one choice is Allan West. Unfortunately he decided not to run but hopefully an open convention will nominate him.

What can one say about Ann Coulter? Months ago when she was calling for Chris Christie to run she claimed many times that nominating Mitt Romney was the surest way to Guarantee Obama’s re-election. Now it seems like Ann would gladly have knee pads custom made to “service” the guy (If you know what I mean …).

As for Sheldon Adelson, is he the one who owns the “alternative” Newspaper in Israel?

I_AM_ME on January 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm

Newt Gingrich, Elliot Abrams, & Grover Norquist are all CFR members. Mitt Romney has CFR supporters and connections. Coulter has been described thus: “Ann Coulter is a CFR conservative. Another member of the elite pretending to be conservative. Her goal is to keep Republicans hating liberals.” re: http://obamanationofdesolation.wordpress.com/tag/ann-coulter/

Dr Dale on January 26, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Dr. Dale what is CFR?

    I must admit, the first time I did a big “HUH?” on Ann Coulter was concerning her lack of interest on Obama and his birth certificate. I know it is kinda hard to connect ALL the dots but anyone with even a modicum of interest must admit that his past is very questionable. I don’t need everyone to believe it BUT if one is truly a Conservative there is NO WAY, with all the lying and tamping down of the past of Hussein Obama, any Conservative can readily dismiss the questions about his birth certificate. It means THEY are hiding something. But what?

    She has always been uninterested in it. WHY? And so has that milquetoast Michael Medved. How someone so smart can so readily dismiss 90% of the red-flags on the Zero has always confounded me. I don’t listen to him anymore. I have always hated Neal Bortz, so I never listen to that blowhard.

    I would hope republicans would hate Liberals thou’. They are stupid and are ruining our country.

    Skunky on January 26, 2012 at 8:39 pm

      CFR is the Council of Foreign Relations, I believe. I have always heard it is a Liberal-Left organization.

      Joel Harrell on January 27, 2012 at 12:55 pm

All of the republican candidates for president have flaws. Some worse than others. Usually the case. What I don’t like is the front-loading of the primary process. Why give the Obama camp the opportunity to define the republican candidate prior to the convention?

P. Aaron on January 26, 2012 at 9:00 pm

Let’s face it, we’re letting the Arabs with the oil money pick our next president again. With Romney or Obama at the helm they can’t lose either way.

theShadow on January 26, 2012 at 10:14 pm

I appreciate your full disclosure.

worry01 on January 26, 2012 at 10:32 pm

After Ann Coulter’s wet and sloppy political embrace of Chris Christie, I lost what little respect I still had for her. Her attacks on Newt Gingrich have bordered on the derranged lately. Ann Coulter is a third rate stand-up comedian posing as a conservative pundit. Her act has become very old and tiresome, and thus she needs a new way to shock her jaded audience.

As for Elliot Abrams, I put him in the same category that I would Grover Norquist, namely a panderer to Islam. They have turned themselves into vermin, but this has in no way deterred most conservatives from associating with them. Elliot and Grover should be consigned to a political garbage can and shunned.

worry01 on January 26, 2012 at 10:49 pm

Thanks for this post, including my seconding worry01 in thanking you for your full disclosure, Debbie.

Re: Ann Coulter.

On a previous thread here, I linked a tweet that Ann Coulter wrote during the ABC Republican debate back in December when Coulter had errounously said that Mitt–who criticized Newt for pointing out that “‘The Palestinians’ are an invented people” even though he admitted that Newt was factually correct–had somehow owned Newt on the issue. I pointed out that this was not so. Until tonight, I thought that the reason why Ann did this was because Ann so dislked Newt and, with Christie not running, that she so supported Romney that she will automatically support Mitt over Newt no matter what and didn’t want to publicly admit that even one time Newt was right on something and Romney wrong.

But then came tonight’s Republican debate on CNN, which I watched some of it, and during which a “Palestinian” man asked the candidates as to why Israel and “Palestine” (my quotes) don’t recognze each other and have peace. First, Mitt answered, and then Newt. Newt responded by correctly repeating what had previously said in that “the Palestinians” are an invented people.

In response, Ann tweeted the following:

“Palestinians in US are always such sweet people.”

http://tinyurl.com/7l7xlsx

Worse yet, she retweeted two moronic post by Kristen Powers.

1. “Will Newt tell this man that he is ‘invented’”

2. “America was ‘invented’ Newt.”

What Kristen doesn’t realize is that the difference is that America is a nation that wants to exist. “Palestine” is an anti-nation whose purpose is not to have a state of its own, but to destroy an already exisiting state of Israel.

As for Ann, I don’t know whether or not she really believes what she tweeted and retweeted, but if she does, then she is ignorant–or worse–on the issue.

JeffE on January 27, 2012 at 12:28 am

    Great post JeffE!

    Coulter is slowly proving DS’ previous point that she may agree with the ideology of Pat Buchanan when it comes to the Israel conflict. EXTREMELY disappointing.

    And she looses major, MAJOR points that she would mimic ANYTHING Kristen Powers says. I call that dolt “The Luckiest Girl In The World”. She is not intelligent yet gets a front-row seat at PAWNN and TDB. She never adds anything to the debate and is a very dumb apologist for the Left. I can’t stand her.

    In a few more years put a fright-wig on her dumb head and she can be the new Baghdad Bob of the DNC and take the place of the disgusting Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz!

    Skunky on January 27, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Thank you JeffE. As for Ann, she is in it for Ann. Whatever sincerity she once had in the past dissolved away long ago. Ann no longer seeks to make real points, but to gain noteriety. Her tantrum the other day on the O’Reilly over Newt Gingrich is a case in point. One would have to assume that either Ann Coulter is mentally imbalanced or putting on an act. I would guess that she is putting on an act. Ann Coulter is a woman psst middle age who like to dress like a twenty-something. Her “Hot Chick” persona worked for her in the 1990′s,but not now. Ann Coulter reached her journalistic high point during the Clinton Administration, and it has been all downhill since. William F. Buckely had the sense to dump the woman from National Review in 2001, and she has never truly recovered from that. Ann Coulter is now just a third rate comedian struggling to hang on to the low rung that is within her grasp.

    Worry01 on January 27, 2012 at 11:12 am

Why is Adelson supportive of Newt, despite the latter’s ties to Grover Norquist? Both Newt & Romney are equally troubling as far as the Islam issue goes. Newt may strike the right chords on the Palis & Israel, but he’s been one of the main causes of Norquist being as influential in the GOP as he is.

Honestly, while I don’t like Romney’s Liberal records, I’d take them any day if he was clear on the question of Islam, which he ain’t, if he thinks that mainstream Islam is benign, and the problem is only w/ the ‘Radical-Jihad’. But I don’t know which is worse – Romney saying such things either out of ignorance or political expediency, or Newt talking the right lines against Shariah but enabling Norquest throughout his career? I’d pick either of them over Obama, but not over each other.

I don’t think that you should restrict your vote to the top 2. You should consider pulling the lever, or punching the card, or whatever is done in MI – for Santorum. Yeah, I don’t like his having supported Specter in the past against Toomey, but he is someone who’s pretty actively against Shariah in the US, and deserves the support of the anti-Jihad/anti-Islam crowd.

Incidentally, who is Elliot Abrams supporting? Romney?

Infidel on January 27, 2012 at 1:22 am

Ann Coulter is apparently dating a top Romney adviser:

https://twitter.com/#!/KLSouth/status/162746981905727488

Dutch Renitent on January 27, 2012 at 2:00 am

It’s well known that Coulter is selling everyone snake oil that Mitt Romney is somehow a conservative, despite a record in elected office of being a lib, and Drudge does her bidding whenever he can–making his site an official Romney 527.

Dear Debbie: Thanks for reminding me. I get dizzy trying to remember which conservative woman blogger supports which candidate. Shabbat Shalom, Hodesh Tov, All the Best.

Miranda Rose Smith on January 27, 2012 at 2:41 am

Good call on Newt Debbie. If Bob Dole and Meghan McCain are on the same page against Newt I would rather be on the same page as Michael Reagan and Sarah Palin. Present presidential candidates have all been infected with liberalism, Romney has demonstrated that he has the worst infection by exhibiting the worst symptoms over the years.

splined on January 27, 2012 at 8:21 am

Someone has to say this and I am sure I will be roundly attacked here, but here it is.

I understand your thoughts on conservative ideals, but although Newt is likely the smartest and truest conservative, he is not electable. Newt has deep imperfections in his personal and political history including ethics charges that democratic operatives are saving for the right moment. There is nothing better for the Obama than to be running against Newt because the swing independents are not going to vote for Newt. Nominate Newt and see Obama get four more years.

Now commence bashing me for pointing out the obvious.

fred on January 27, 2012 at 9:16 am

    Fred, I happen to think you have a valid point. I do think of it often because I, myself, am no fan of Newt and I do believe that sometimes he is telling us what we wanna hear (funny, no one ever does this…that is why he surges…we want someone who BELIEVES and will act on what he says).

    I hope you don’t get bashed. Your point is valid and I am interested any debate that will inform me of something I haven’t thought of.

    Besides, I do not think Newt fans are of the Ron Paul (Branch Paulinians!) ilk! LOL.

    Skunky on January 27, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Oh I don’t think people would bash you. Newt may not be able to win the general, but I believe personally he has a better chance than Mitt. Mitt better hope that enough democrats will vote for him because the conservative base has an uncanny habit of sitting home if they are not represented. Newt has a better way of speaking and the ability to at least get the message across. I guess we will see the hard way.

    sharon on January 27, 2012 at 10:40 am

    I have no desire to bash you. Newt Gingrich is problematic as a candidate, and would likely have even less chance of beating Barack Obama than Mitt Romney. However, the methods used to push him back go beyond insane. Would you burn down your house to in order get rid of some dry rot? Or, would you disembowel yourself to get rid of an acid reflux problem? No, I doubt that many sane people would. These methods of attack undertaken by Mitt Romney and his partisans are not only harming Newt Gingrich, but creating hostility towards Mitt Romney among the folks he will need to support him in November. Also, this grotesque spectacle of personal attacks just lowers the Republican Party’s worth in the eyes of independents who will decide the election. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the DNC and Obama’s other supporters do not even have to go to very much trouble with their opposition research, since Gingrich and Romney have done all the work for them. The accusations and counter-accusations hurled by Newt and MItt will be recycled and replayed again and again by the Democrats in their campaign commercials during the regular campaign. I really would like to see a real debate about various public policy proposals put forward by the candidates. Also, I would like to see the Republican candidates sharpen and clarify their differences with President Obama and his party. I do not want to hear about Bain Capital, Gingrich’s Speakership and love life, or whether or not Mitt Romney’s hair suffers from an overdose of Vitalis. None of these subjects are new, and thus need no further disclosure. When Ron Paul looks like the rational “Happy Warrior” during a debate, there is something quite bad happening. I would say that the Republican Party needs to pause this process and discuss these problems with the two top candidates. I think Newt Gingrich wants some vindication for his career, and that is what motivates him to run. Instead of kicking Mr. Gingrich in the teeth and hoping that he dies in some secluded septic tank, Mitt Romney would be wise to offer Mr. Gingrich a dignified exit. Mr. Gingrich actually likes working on public policy problems more than being a manager. So, why not approach him on that basis? I think his long-term ideas regarding a Lunar Colony are not insane at all. If the United States does not develop the Moon, the Chinese or Indians will. Also, is the Republican Party fixated on regulatory and tax policy to the exclusion of all else? Is there nothing beyond economics and national defense? The Democrats trounced the Republicans during the 1960′s by having an optimistic vision of the future, which NASA and the Apollo Program embodied. Surprisingly, Richard Nixon was so blinkered that he curtailed one of the few public policy endeavors that the Democratic Party was on the right track with, while keeping most of Johnson’s “Great Society” schemes. Barack Obama is no visionary, but rather a reactionary leftist who would have appalled Kennedy and Johnson if they were still around. Mr. Obama learned his political skills from the left, as well as from the patronage machine that is Illinois. He pursues policies that received a decent burial with John Kenneth Galbraith, the “Last New Dealer” who later became a socialist. The Republicans have a chance if they can move beyond the Rotarian/Chamber of Commerce image that they are saddled with. This image sticks in the publc mind, even though Democrats are more than happy to reward businesses that do their bidding, such as General Motors or Solyndra

    Worry01 on January 28, 2012 at 8:48 am

Once again, Debbie Schlussel gives us information we see nowhere else. I was unaware of Eliot Abrams’ involvement in financing terrorists, no doubt with support of the Israeli government and, obviously, the Bush Administration.

I think the fact that Debbie Schlussel is not part of the faux elitists in the northeast ACELA corridor gives a perspective that is missed. Ann Coulter is a big disappointment on this issue; she seems more Old Guard Republican than Constitutional conservative.

Sheldon Adelson is not only a business genius but an instinctive Zionist as a matter of obvious common sense to any American or Jew.

I am supporting Newt Gingrich because he is destabilizing the Republican Wall Street Washington Establishment Insider Network. It is apparent that Newt Gingrich is a Lobbyist Insider and a two faced, opportunistic but America has voted for two faced opportunistic, self-serving sleazes before ( Bill and Hillary Clinton come to mind). Newt Gingrich appeals to the Clinton Democrat voter.

Debbie disapproves of my support for Rick Perry and, of course, I have to consider her opinion but we will disagree about this. As part of this discussion Fethullah Gulen’s network of charter schools around the country got some attention. Fethullah Gulen, heading up a billion dollar network, and owner of Islamist newspaper in Turkey.

Fethullah is a neighbor of mine in Saylorsburg, Pa. the Poconos about a two hour drive and has made friends with Sen. Bob Casey. Penna. is having a contest Republican primary and all are unsympathetic to Radical Islam.

Debbie Schlussel remains an indispensable source.

Shabbat Shalom

bobguzzardi on January 27, 2012 at 9:40 am

Here is my two cents. I loathe Romney, politically speaking. I have relatives in both PA and MA. The people of MA hate the health care system in large numbers of both parties. My sister says that while Rick is speaking well, he generally never spoke that way in PA and she is not sure if he can win there. I loved Reagan tremendously, before I even knew I was conservative. Newt is not my favorite. I will pull the lever for Newt here in MI.

When Reagan was in office, I relished every word he spoke. I paid very close attention and back then I was still very naive about what really went on, the pull of the machine, the games that are played. My vivid memories about Newt are his strong defense of Reagan, all day everyday. Between Mitt and Newt alone, there is no comparison of the two. Coulter and her ilk are quite disappointing actually. Personally as much as I want Obama out of there pulling the lever for Mitt in a general election would be very hard. At this point, I am not sure I can do it.

sharon on January 27, 2012 at 10:34 am

One of the distrurbing developments in the Republican playoffs is the emergence of Ron Paul as a serious candidate. Whereas previously Paul was viewed as a whacko fringe politician, the media’s generally hands-off treatment has enabled him to gain even further momentum, particularly among the simple-minded components of the public, without being subject to much attack. (In contrast, witness the media’s relentless attack-job on Herman Cain.)

Still another related disturbing development was Mitt Romney’s statement that he would vote for and support Ron Paul as the Republican candidate if Paul emerged as the primary victor. Although this could be considered merely posturing on Romney’s part to held attract Paul supporters down the road, Romney nonetheless gave further inapporpriate credibility to Paul’s campaign. In turn Paul made similar comments regarding Romney

Interestingly, it was shortly after this sick political love-fest between Paul and Romney was played out in the news that Sheldon Aldelson’s strong financial backing of Newt Ginrich became public. One interpetation of Adelson’s support for Gingrich is that it acts to counter Ron Paul’s subversive, Leftist, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel political movement. (Keep in mind that Ron Paul was saddened and virtually heart-broken after several Islamic terrorists were eliminated–something that even Obama wouldn’t agree with, at least publicly.)

For this alone, in spite of Gingrich’s flaws–and there are many (as there are with ALL of the candidates)–I applaud Sheldon Adelson’s political activism. In my book, Adelson is not only a briliant businessman, but he’s clearly earned the appellation of “mensch.”

Ralph Adamo on January 27, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    One other point on the subject of Ron Paul that I’d like to add is that recently filmmaker Oliver Stone has come out in support of Paul, saying he would vote for Paul if he were running against Obama. Some naive media people were scratching their heads over this announcement because they “think” of Oliver Stone as a Leftist and Ron Paul as a “Libertarian.” But Ron Paul is really not a Libertarian. In fact, Paul IS an extreme Leftist–and the nature of his supporters proves it. His voting record also proves it. And he is best buddies with Dennis Kucinich, another Leftist. So when Oliver Stone says he supports Paul over Obama, its because he favors an even more extreme Leftist position than even Obama takes. Keep in mind that Stone adores, or has adored, such noted Leftists as Yasir Arafat, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez (and probably, secretly, Ahmadinijad as well).

    Ralph Adamo on January 27, 2012 at 4:36 pm

      The previous two comments, filled with typically dishonest ‘logic’ and assumption, are NOT BY THE RALPH ADAMO WHO LIVES IN NEW ORLEANS, and who, for the record, believes that President Obama is the only candidate for president who does not represent a threat to democracy and the continued success and honor of the United States.

      Ralph Adamo NewOrleans on February 12, 2012 at 11:46 am

Division always reigns when it comes to the tar baby of an independent Palestine, as if this would be a solution when there is not the slightest indication that the terror and rocket attacks will stop there.
To those who lost me, the first indication this fictional entity of Palestine would be sufficient would be Hamas being willing to sit down to unconditional talks. The key word “unconditional”
I compare the flying of the “Palestinian” colors (I refuse to use the word flag as this would recognize a state) to the flying of the Nazi flag. Again if you are lost at this point let me say that both flags represent “Judenrein” the only difference being the total destruction of Israel as a nation being included in the Islamic goal of worldwide Jewish extermination.
At least Gingrich is clearly on record, unlike the flagrant opportunist Bush who was touted over Kerry as an ally of Israel.
Please start referring to the self named Palestinians as the defeated Arabs who attack and refuse to recognize the State of Israel and who fled, just as the “Tories” fled, albeit under duress both New York and New England for Canada after King George’s surrender followed by our declaration of Independence.
To my knowledge there are no British, nor Canadians still referring to the United States of America as “the colonies”.

Ron Wolf on January 27, 2012 at 8:02 pm

President Bush always defended his position on Arab statehood in Palestine by saying that this was always the “vision”. Fine! I can accept that because most Israelis knew what they were getting into when their leaders signed an agreement that required Yasser Arafat to defend the lives of Jews.

Where I really fault President Bush is that his administration introduced the requirement that a Palestinian State be “contiguous”. I hope I don’t have to explain what that means!

It was one thing for President Bush to suggest that an Arab state in Palestine was a long term “vision” of peace negotiations. It was another thing for President Bush to push the “contiguous” requirement. This placed an unacceptable condition on Israel that is oft cited by American politicians who pretend to support Israel by citing “the Bush Plan”.

There is also one more thing which I have always been bitter toward the Bush Administration: The “Tenet cease-fire”. The Bush Administration’s State Dept. continually insisted that CIA director George Tenet had effectively negotiated a “cease fire” between the Arab Palestinians and Israel. This was a bold-faced lie. No matter what the Arab Palestinians said, their actions never matched their publicity. The news media cited “the Tenet Cease Fire” daily as if it actually existed. The behavior of the Arab Palestinians routinely undermined the credibility of the Bush Administration and Sec. of State Rice and Powell never seemed willing to take the Arabs to task for their behavior. After years of suicide bombings and daily rocket attacks, the Bush Administration in its twilight hours succumbed to “allowing” Israel to launch a military mission to stop the missile attacks from Gaza. The military action was too little; too late. Moreover, it was evident that as the O’Bama Administration took office, the “permission” to use military force to suppress missile attacks from Gaza came to a grinding halt.

I also have to say that nobody is going to tell me that Ariel Sharon voluntarily vacated Gaza. That was the public line. I suspect that the Bush Administration put a lot of pressure on Sharon to pull out of Gaza.

Unlike President O’Bama, George Bush always spoke highly of Israel and Jews. I always appreciated that. Our current President does not do that. Not only does our current President pursue a harsher version of the Bush Administration policy, but he does so while constantly berating Israel for all it’s perceived shortcomings; all while bowing to King Saud and openly demonstrating that he won’t do anything to remotely offend the Saudis; not even light a Chanukah menorah on the right day in a highly visible manner.

The Bush Administration’s policy toward Israel was bad, but the current Administration’s policy is worse. The sad thing about the Republican opposition is that there is every indication that this trend will continue and U.S. support for Israel will continue to erode.

Not a pretty picture, but in my view; somehow the Israelis and Gd combine to see Israel continually advance. Somehow, I shake my head and wonder how the Israelis do it. When that happens, my faith in the Creator is strengthened.

At the end of the day, there are two basic things on this Earth that are different today than they were in 1939:

1. The Jewish People have friends
2. The Jewish People have means to defend ourselves.

I gave up my faith in American politicians long ago. They simply don’t have the courage to stand up against big corporations that have a strong economic stake in the Persian Gulf nations. Here and there, we see a rare exception, but amongst the GOP candidates for President, I expect a continued erosion of real political support for Israel.

There is NO Santa Claus on January 27, 2012 at 10:24 pm

Thank you, Skunky and Worry01.

To all,

I think that I should add a postscript–for whatever it’s worth.

In response to when Ann tweeted “‘Palestinians in US are always such sweet people.’”, someone–I’m not mentioning his name–tweeted to Ann asking “U doing PSA’s for Palestine now?” Ann retweeted that and responded by saying “They R! Even when they heckle me”.

I hope that Ann’s backtracking, but I both feel and fear that both Skunky and worry01 are correct in their respective statements that they made in each of their responses to me.

(Skunky: “Coulter is slowly proving DS’ previous point that she may agree with the ideology of Pat Buchanan when it comes to the Israel conflict. EXTREMELY disappointing.”

Worry01: everything he wrote on January 27, 2012 at 11:12 am.)

In any case I will continue to keep an eye on her and will report anything else that she either writes on her website and/or tweets that needs reporting on–unless of course, Debbie reports it here first.

JeffE on January 28, 2012 at 7:18 pm

Sadly, none of these assholes will beat Obama come November.

#1 Vato on January 28, 2012 at 8:50 pm

Re: Ann Coulter (Cont’d)

I said here on January 28, 2012 at 7:18 pm that if I found anything new on Ann worth reporting, I would do it. I was hoping that it would be on a future thread, but alas, I have to do it here.

From Ann Coulter’s Website:

“Quotations from Chairman Ann”

“January 29, 2012, 12:05 PM
This is the king of corruption Romney cleaned up at the Olympics – ABC: Bribes, Chinese Mob Ties Alleged at Casino of Gingrich Money Man, Sheldon Adelson”

It leads to this link:

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=15455918&sid=3029941&p=2

Verdict: B.S.

Refutation:

Debbie’s article post above.

JeffE on January 29, 2012 at 11:50 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field