Specifically, I'm referring to Newt Gingrich, who in 1998 met with the PLO's now deceased dictator, Yasir Arafat, and, as I recall, shook hands with him. Here's the 1998 report from CNN:
Despite the potential for a cool encounter, the 90-minute meeting went well, Palestinian officials told CNN.Did you see that? Not only did Gingrich shake hands with a cold-blooded terrorist, he also turned to moral equations. Then, at the end of this item:
Both Gingrich and Arafat shook hands as they emerged from the Palestinian leader's headquarters in the West Bank town of Ramallah. Gingrich said he believed Mideast peace was in the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.
He stressed that he was "trying to be helpful" which was why he was meeting with Arafat.I'm very sorry to say, but, by meeting with a terrorist and willingly shaking his hand, Gingrich did nothing more than get his blood on his own. And that act he did there back then, almost a decade ago, could not only be used as a weapon against him by the Democrats, but could also damage his potential as a presidential candidate overall.
Let's not forget that he also botched the 1998 elections for Congress when he made it seem as though he was more obsessed with attacking Clinton for his own misdeeds with Monica you-know-who than with a good menu of other issues that the public at the time was also interested in.
So there you have my reasons for opposing his candidacy, if he decides to run, as he may have said he would several months ago. The American public, I'm sure, would appreciate it if the Republicans could take a more convincing position by shunning terrorist leaders that previous administrations failed to do, and outlawing current ones.
In fairness to Gingrich, what he could do now is to admit that Arafat was a cannibal, and to acknowledge what the State Dept. has finally been willing to admit after all these years, that Arafat murdered American officials back in the early 1970s. But that still doesn't meant that he's qualified to run for president.
9 comments:
I beg to differ, even respect your thoughts. If he runs he will have my vote, unless someone comes up with a better alternative. Have doubts about Romney, Giuliani, etc.
Ok, so you don't think Gingrich is your candidate. Here's a link that may help narrow down your choices for 2008
http://www.selectsmart.com/plus/select.php?url=08frontrunners
I thought this test accurately reflected my taste. Try it.
Presidential Candidate Selector -- 2008 Front Runners
This selector features the names of politicians considered by pundits to be possible White House contenders. There is about a 95% percent chance that the name of the next president is included in this selector. You may select a position for every issue, or just select those issues important to you. The candidates' positions are based on their voting records, special interest group ratings and the candidates' statements in the public record. The results are scored on a curve. 100% means that we are 100% certain that the top candidate on your list shares more of the views you indicated than any other candidate.
# This selector was created in February of 2006 and updated on January 4, 2007.
# This SelectSmart.com/plus selector is a creation of the author named above. The implicit and explicit views expressed here are the author's. SelectSmart.com does not necessarily agree with these opinions.
[ , , ]
=\o/= AnonYmouse
I don't really agree with you either, Avi. Back in 98, the world had a different perception of Arafat and the whole Middle East Conflict. George Bush was the first major politician in the world to decide to absolutely isolate Arafat. I have a hard time with the idea of condemning a guy for not having more vision than anyone else in International politics.
That being said, I also think Gingrich is unelectable. I think Rudy Giuliani is unelectable too, and for the same reason. What is that reason? Well, both men have been divorced and both mens' divorces were rather sordid.
This will destroy them when the campaign starts. Neither guy has a chance unless events change things dramatically.
Avi is right to point out Newt's limitation. I agree they are considerable. However, recently he's shown signs of understanding that the problem is not just a few extremists who have "hijacked" Islam. He talks about the problem with some sense of depth ... for about 20 minutes then he usually says something stupid that makes you wonder if he really understood the 1st 20 minutes.
Still, Newt could raise the level of the debate and he still has time to learn. What's bothersome about the Arafat example is that it is less about knowledge (who didn't know Arafat was the "father of modern terrorism") than about virtue. Newt is still more of a politician than a statesman.
Rudy, on the other hand, refused to dignify Arafat at any New York City event. I believe there was an event held for a UN anniversary where Rudy refused to allow Arafat into the event even thought the UN had given Arafat “special status.” But so far Rudy has not shown that he’s understood the nature of the Islamic threat. He’s been too quiet. We need an intellectual leader.
Even if we have to settle, let's not fool ourselves.
Well, how many politicians of national stature opposed installation of the Palestinian Authority? HOw many opposed the two-state solution? How many opposed the Road Map to Peace?
All of those were, as far as I can tell, tacit recognitions of Yasser Arafat, were they not?
Additionally, I would say it is a lot harder for a politician of Newt's stature to oppose such policy, than it is for a local politician like Giuliani to do so.
I will admit that Newt has made some perceptive arguments recently about the problem of illegal immigration, so maybe he does have some gained value, but then, he's got to clearly acknowledge that he understand the Islamic threat and admit his mistakes past if he's to prove himself a worthy candidate in politics.
By the way Jason, you're right that Giuliani may not be a suitable candidate for president, not just because he doesn't understand the exact nature of the Islamic threat but also due to his tolerance of illegal immigrants when he was mayor of NYC. When the Right Wing News blog first came up with the facts, I was really surprised.
Avi,
You didn't answer my points. Is that because you don't think they are worthy?
Newt does have "gained" value. Humans beings are certainly capable of changing, and certainly that would include admitting mistakes, but the man hasn't even been asked to do so.
Sorry Avi, I disagree as well.
Begin shook the hand of the murderer as well.
Newt gets it on the war. He's called it WW3 many times in camera already. It's his personality and social conservatism which holds him back among the majority, I think.
Newt. McCain and Giuliani are all allright on the war, but McCain falls down TOTALLY on the border. Giuliani demands a secure border, but wants real immigration reform (which comes close to me) and his ideas domestically come a lot close to the center in the USA.
I'd vote for ANY of those three well before any choice on the other side of the aisle right now.
Newt is acceptable in my book, and is completely correct on the main issue
I also agree with Pastorius ... I believe in redemption. Let's see who can "get it" and keep it. But let's push them to go further.
I know we may ... make that "will" ... have to compromise but let's move the right flank so that the center shifts in our direction.
Post a Comment