It may be almost two years until the next presidential election in the US, but that's exactly why it'd be a good idea for now to point out just why one certain Republican does not make a good candidate, even if he has made some impressive arguments of recent. 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:
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.
Despite the potential for a cool encounter, the 90-minute meeting went well, Palestinian officials told CNN. 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.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:
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.
1 comment:
It is too early to write Gingrich off on that incident. Anyone who has been in politics and WHO HAS ANY CHANCE OF WINNING will have a couple of detriments in their history. Gingrich was effective at getting the House together and instrumenting the policies which made that House of Representatives the most popular in my memory. He was a strong and principled leader in sticking with conservative ideas.
I would choose someone other than any of them who will be chosen. Unfortunately, we, the people, will not have too much say in who will be qualified to run and WHO IS ELECTABLE.
The Republican names floated are too liberal or too boring. Newt could be our only effective choice. Don't think that Hillary is going to be easy, just because she is anti-American and a hard leftist. Don't think that with the support of all the leftist front groups, democrats and the slavering media and possibly a Republican candidate chosen to make it easy for her that a strong vocal and intelligent Republican won't be necessary to win. Newt is possibly the only one who can win against the vast democratic and leftist network.
Post a Comment