NEWT GINGRICH: POURS GAS ON THE PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI FIRE

 As the carnival horse race for the GOP nomination is approaching the final straight, many of the younger horses in the field have fallen at fences of gaffes, gropes, and the famous "anyone but Willard" water ditch.  In the wake of this thinning field the veteran runner, Former Speaker Newt Gringrich that attracted no bets until the 'at the post,' aside from the long shot gamblers, has pulled ahead of the ailing pack.  Being head of the pack, however, means all cameras are on you, and all commentators are screaming you name. And with close coverage, comes close scrutiny.

Though a lot of political rhetoric can be taken with a pinch of salt and viewed as merely a grisly means to a political end, sometimes a truth about a candidate comes out that transcends the now commonplace (although it doesn't justify it) inflammatory statements of political campaigns.  Most recently, Newt's comments to The Jewish Channel TV station in regards to the Palestinian people is one of these inflammatory statements.

Mr. Gingrich Said, "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state, It was part of the Ottoman Empire."

He continued in saying, "I think we have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and who are historically part of the Arab community, and they had a chance to go to many places, and for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s. It's tragic."

Now I'm not going to delve into the pages of history and make a case for either the Israelis or the Palestinians, as history is written by the perception of man, which is undoubtedly biased.  And no 'peace deal' will ever be reached as long as history remains the deciding factor.  

Newt's comment is quite purely and simply, extreme bias.  It's counterproductive, it's racist, and it is profoundly hypocritical.

First and foremost, his claim that "It was part of the Ottoman Empire" is correct, in fact the Ottoman Empire stretched as far north as around Budapest.  It encompassed, what is now modern day, Greece, Ukraine, Albania, Bosina, Croatia, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and parts of Saudi Arabia.  If Newt's reasoning of the Palestinian history is correct, does that mean that EVERY one of those other countries that were once part of the Ottoman Empire should return to rule under a Turkish banner? Simply because at one point in history they were all territories of a former, now fallen, empire?

A second part of his comment also has profound ramifications if the vile bias is sucked out it and it's viewed as the voice of 'reason.'  He claims that the Palestinians are an "Invented people."  This next statement should not be taken out of context as without the context, it is just as inflammatory as Newt's statement.

If Newt's assertion that the Palestinian people are an "Invented People" is assumed as true...then that also means that Americans are invented people.

The American people were 'invented' by ex-pats from European nations, most notably Great Britain. If Newt's logic is sound, then all Americans are actually nothing more than citizens of the British Empire. If you go back far enough in the pages of history, in most cases it was someone else that 'owned' the land you currently live on.  In America's case, it was the NATIVE American tribes.  It is their land that is currently occupied by the "Invented Americans."  So if Newt's basis for who should reside on what piece of the earths crust is simply based on previous ownership, then every American must leave and return to their European homelands, every Australian must return to the United Kingdom, French Canadians must return to France etc.

Actually, let's take Newt's reasoning a step farther.  Every citizen of every country on the face of the planet has to go back to Pangaea.  On second though, let's take it one step farther than that and say that every human has to walk back into the ocean that our genetic ancestors crawled out of so many years ago.

I specifically used that last sentence to make another point, incorporating religious tensions with those of a historical nature.  Historical and religious fascination are the reasons that peace cannot be reached in the Middle East.  In order to move forward we, as a united human race, must put aside historical discrepancies, and religious conflictions to live in the present and look to future.  The 'promised' land for all of us is earth...the entire planet.  To try and carve it up into sections based on ancient texts is extremely counterproductive to the needs of today's globalized world.

I wish to make clear that I am not an advocate for either Palestinian interests, or Israeli interests.  I'm and advocate for all peace between everyone that inhabits the earth.  Just as I condemn Newt's Palestinian statements, I condemn Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements toward Israel...as I view them as entirely similar in nature, they both imply that a group of people don't exist.  


I firmly believe that anybody with aspirations to become the president the United States, needs to be utterly impartial when it comes to the Palestinian/Israeli divide, they need to look to the future, not reiterate that past, especially when the past of the US is as murky as any other nation.  Again, it was history that Newt was eluding to, and history always has two sides.  The Americans in the revolution could be viewed historically as patriots in the US, but traitors in the UK.  What America called 'Westward Settlement' the Native Americans could label genocide.  History is littered with injustice, but at some point we must pave over history, as counter intuitive as that sounds, to build the foundation for a united future.  We must make concessions with our past, concessions with ourselves, and concessions with each other in order to live together on this planet.

Newt's vile bias has no place in the world of today's politics.  After spending so many years as House Speaker, he should know that in any peace deal, there are concessions on BOTH sides. And that clinging onto such a narrow minded view is detrimental to the overall outcome.

THE GOP DEBATE: A SHOW OF CIVILITY

GOP Debate, November 9th

From the perspective of a neutral viewer, today's GOP debate in Michigan showed much calmer and more collective field of presidential hopefuls.

In primaries of the past, the candidates for the GOP nomination, more often than not, resorted to a verbal slug-fest with their counterparts what amounted to nothing more than tirades of defamation, slander and the proverbial mud slinging.

Today we saw a different face to the GOP nominees, a face of civility.  They were all well mannered and avoided spiraling into rhetoric and accusations, they kept to the spirit of the debate and kept their answers concise.  Even in the face of some tough questions, most notably when Governor Mitt Romney was asked to comment, indirectly of course, on the accusations of sexual harassment regarding Herman Cain, he refused to answer as it wasn't relevant.  In debates of past, this opportunity to stick to a fellow candidate would have been jumped upon with no qualms.

Another memorable note of the night included Governor Rick Perry's failure to recall three areas of government he would abolish if he ascended to the White House in next years coming election.  Although I understand that everyone has their moments of forgetfulness, it ultimately will make him look extremely inept.

Arguably though, the most prominent and, in my opinion, wisest moment of the debate was when Speaker Of The House Newt Gingrich alluded to the moderator that it was almost impossible to voice his solution on the issue of healthcare in 30 seconds.  He did so in a very civil manner and I applaud him for that.

The truth is that if any politician offers a 'simple' plan to something, chances are that it will be, at best, a grave misrepresentation of their actual intent, and at worst, showing a complete lack of understanding of the world we live in.

Whether it be a new tax code, healthcare, education, social security, or economic proposal, there is no way that it will ever be simple, or can ever be explained in full in 30 seconds.  We live in such a diverse world that these issues need to be resolved in the interest of everyone.  They require a tremendous understanding of whichever area they intent to change and must take into account a plethora of variables.

All in all, the debate was coherent.  Though I don't agree with many conservative policies, I admired the way they put fourth their arguments at tonight's debate.  The cornerstone of any democracy is the principle that at some point we all must compromise for the over all benefit of all, I just hope that the future of politics becomes less of the bi-party rhetoric and condemnation, and more of coming together as people and solving the problems all of us face.

Article By: Phil McCarron

POLITICS & SEX: HERMAN'S CANE

I hate to think where Herman's finger has been.

Phil McCarron on why Herman's 'Cane' could have made his nomination campaign flaccid.

Today the political sex scandal that has been hampering Herman Cain’s campaign for the last few weeks has begun to gain some actual substance.  This scandal has become the first major road block in Herman Cain’s ambition to capture the Republican nomination for next year’s presidential election.

If you haven’t heard the news, two weeks ago the online political blog Politico dropped the story that in Cain’s past as the head of the lobbying group NRA (National Restaurant Association,) two women were paid a settlement on allegations of sexual harassment stemming from Cain’s behavior at certain conventions.

Cain will give you a job if you give Cain’s cane a job

A third women has come out today with fresh accusations of sexual harassment from Herman Cain in regards to his time as head of the NRA.  Sharon Bialek has been the first women to go public with allegations of sexual harassment.  Her story, in short, revolves around Cain pressuring her for oral sex in return for getting her find employment after losing her job at a subsidiary of the NRA.

Cain’s statements on the allegations of sexual harassment have been illogical at best, and extremely bizarre and erratic at worst.  It doesn’t take a professional psychologist to realize that Herman Cain is not telling the entire story.

Since nothing has been proven in a court of law, these all remain allegations.  However, the court of public opinion is a completely different process altogether. 

Sexual skeletons in the closet

All it takes is for one person to come forward that will inspire more women that may have suffered the same proposition to regain their vocal chords.  The bravery of Sharon Bialek has opened the door for more skeletons in Cain’s sex stained closet to come tumbling out. 

Double ended…standards?

When Democrat Anthony Weiner was embroiled in a sex scandal earlier in the year, the Republican politicians were vying for his head.  They were adamant that he stand down from his campaign to run for political office.

If Herman Cain remains in the race, it reinforces the view point that Republicans firmly believe that they are above the court of public opinion, and that they are immune to the same bile they cast upon anyone that isn’t Republican.

It would be wise to note that these are all alleged cases of sexual harassment.  However, I know people that have lived their entire life without ever being accused of sexual harassment, so for Herman Cain to have two cases settled and a third accuser just coming out, makes the average follower of this story believe that there might just be some weight behind the allegation that Cain is a habitual sexual harasser…and belief is what a politician is elected on.

Article By: Phil McCarron