DO WE WANT A BRILLIANT BOMB-THROWER TO BE POTUS?

WHEN NEWT SAID THAT THE PALESTINIANS ARE AN INVENTED PEOPLE, HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.

IT'S SOMETHING I HAVE POSTED MANY TIMES.

BUT IS SAYING IT IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN "PRESIDENTIAL"?




THE ABC MODERATORS ASKED SANOTRUM WHO GOT THE BETTER OF THIS ARGUMENT.

AT FIRST SANTORUM SAID GINGRICH AND ROMNEY BOTH MADE GREAT POINTS.

THEN SANTORUM - WHO HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THAT HE ADMIRES GINGRICH AND COUNTS HIM AS ONE OF HIS KEY MENTORS, WENT ON TO SAY THAT ROMNEY GOT THE BETTER OF NEWT ON THIS ONE, THOUGH.

I THINK THAT ROMNEY IS A LITTLE MORE PRESIDENTIAL AND IS ALSO MORE ELECTABLE BECAUSE OF THIS STYLE/TEMPERAMENT ISSUE.

I THINK THAT INDEPENDENTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO VOTE FOR MITT - WHO BASICALLY AGREED WITH NEWT BUT, WHO SAID HE WOULD BE MORE SKILLFULLY DIPLOMATIC ABOUT IT.

VIA THE GREAT FREEDOM'S LIGHTHOUSE - WHO POSTED THIS TAKING GINGRICH'S SIDE:

Romney tries to cast Newt Gingrich as a “bomb thrower” for his recent comments that the “Palestinian” people are “invented.” Romney said in contrast to Gingrich, he would be a President of “sobriety,” and “stability,” not a “bomb thrower” either “rhetorically or literally.”Some are casting this as a Romney victory, but I think Gingrich won the exchange with his final remarks, in which he reminded people how Ronald Reagan caused mouths to drop open when he called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire.” He went around all his advisers in doing so, but his statement of the truth helped reshape the world. Gingrich said he would be a President who is not afraid to speak the truth.

BOTTOM-LINE:

I'D RATHER HAVE PRESIDENT ROMNEY BEING ADVISED BY CHIEF POLICY ADVISER GINGRICH, THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND; GINGRICH IS A GREAT THINKER, BUT MITT IS THE BETTER EXECUTIVE.

[FIVE REALLY IMPORTANT NOTES:

(1) ROMNEY DID NOT DISAGREE WITH THE TRUTH THAT GINGRICH SPOKE.

AND (2) APPROPRIATELY REAGAN CHALLENGED GORBACHEV TO "TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" AT THE WALL, NOT DURING A CAMPAIGN APPEARANCE - AND REAGAN DID SO THOUGHTFULLY AFTER MUCH INTERNAL DEBATE.

(3) REAGAN SAID WHAT HE SAID IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COLD WAR; GINGRICH SAID WHAT HE SAID DURING A HOT ONE - AND AT A TIME OF GREAT FLUIDITY IF NOT VOLATILITY.

(4) SOME THINGS ARE OKAY IF THEY ARE SAID BY BLOGGERS OR BY ADVISERS IN PRIVATE, BUT NOT OKAY IF THEY ARE BLURTED OUT DURING A TV APPEARANCE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

(5) THE "PALESTINIAN PEOPLE" IS A PIECE OF MENDACIOUS PROPAGANDA, AN INVENTION INTENDED TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE THE LONG-HELD ANTI-ZIONIST DESIRES OF THE ARABS WAS SOMEHOW A "NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT".

THE ENEMY OF ISRAEL IS NOT A "NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT" IT IS PAN-ARABISM AND JIHADISM.

AND THAT'S WHY ISRAEL WON'T HAVE PEACE WITH ITS NEIGHBORS IF IT ALLOWS A PALESTINIAN STATE.

THAT'S WHY THE SO-CALLED TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS A FARCE.

ARAFAT HAD A CHANCE FOR A STATE AND HE TURNED IT DOWN - SO DID ABBAS.

THE ARABS ARE THE ONES WHO DON'T WANT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION.

THE ARABS ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE REFUSED TO SIT DOWN WITH ISRAEL TO NEGOTIATE.

ISRAEL DESERVES OUR UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT UNTIL THE ARABS CHANGE.]