Newt’s Free Speech controversy

The left side of the blogosphere has taken recent comments by Newt Gingrich and ran with them for red meat criticism. The comment at the center of the controversy, in context, were as follows:

“This is a serious, long-term war,” the former speaker said, according an audio excerpt of his remarks made available yesterday by his office. “Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people.”

Liberal news outlets online have reported this as Newts desire to take away free speech, though, besides Ed from Captains Quarters Blog we had a hard time finding mainstream conservative bloggers (usually ready to eat their own) who were equally outraged. Right wing blog, The Jawa Report cheered Newts remarks with the following:

Gingrich is not talking about establishing the thought police, a censorship board, and a speech Gestapo. Nor is he even proposing enacting draconian hate speech laws, the kind of speech prohibitions that liberals often support. In the same article, Gingrich also talks about doing away with McCain-Feingold—that is, to increase the capacity for political debate.

Gingrich is only proposing to curtail the speech of our enemies. Not imagined enemies. Real people who, literally, encourage young Muslims to go to Iraq to fight your neighbors. Real people who want you dead.

You live in a bizarro world if you think it is okay to kill our enemies, but not take away their tools of propaganda. It seems like an odd moral system to suggest that speech is a higher priority than life. Especially when the life and speech in question is the life and speech of the enemy.

To paraphrase Lincoln, the First Amendment is not a suicide pact.

It should also be noted that the First Amendment does not apply to the battlefield. The cyber jihadis themselves consider the internet a weapon of war and themselves combatants in this fight. This is why they formed the “Global Islamic Media Front”, “The Jihad Media Brigade”, “The Alfajr Media Center”, and “as Sahab”. To recruit. To train. To coordinate. To fight us. To kill us.

So they claim they are combatants. They claim the media, especially the internet, is a weapon. Yet you wish to protect this propaganda because you have some odd attachment to the First Amendment which trumps all other concerns?

WWGD? (What would Goebbels do?)

I believe the WWGD is a legitimate question, but one that most have avoided in this war. In past wars, we have had no problem censoring people. Especially our enemies. And the domestic forces that support them. I doubt any of us would have a problem targetting Joseph Goebells Ministry of Propaganda for a bombing raid during the height of WWII. Had Goebells not committed suicide, I doubt any would raise objections for trying him as a war criminal. Even though he did nothing more than speak.

Nor did any of us have a problem when the leaders of the German Bund were rounded up and their papers and presses shut down.

Sure, censorship has been abused in the past. But the potential to abuse a power is not a sufficient reason to withhold it. Otherwise, governments would have no power.

Carlson & Maddow discuss candidate Clinton (VIDEO)

In this clip from around or before May 2006, Air America host Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson discuss Sen. Clinton as a presidential hopeful. Tucker, is a conservative who was against the war from the begining; where as Hillary, a liberal, was FOR it from the begining. Will that hurt her? Rachel says Clinton will NOT be the nominee and will not win – but then again, this was just under a year ago…

Prager Interviews Giuliani Prior to Release of ISG Report

Thank you to Marc Rotterman from The Conservative Voice for the following transcript:

Dennis Prager: So Rudy Giuliani, we spoke a little about you and some aspects of you. But let’s get to so me of your political views and so on. You are very strong on the need of America to fight what is called in quotes by opponents the War On Terror. But you believe there really is one?

Rudy Giuliani: Yes, I believe that…not only do I believe there is one, they believe there is one, meaning the terrorists do. I think sometimes, our debate over the War On Terror is almost a little strange, or almost irrelevant. I mean, the reality is, whether we think there’s a war or not, there is. They are at war with us, they’ve been at war with us for a very long time. I see September 11 as the event that woke us up to the fact that they were at war with us. And now, since roughly September 11, President Bush has put us on offense against them. The war was going on before that, but we were on defense. And there are certain forces in this country that want to bring us back to defense, and I think that would be a terrible mistake.

DP: So you don’t think we should leave Iraq?

RG: I think…I don’t think we should leave Iraq, certainly not under the present situation that Iraq is in, and with the consequences that would flow
from leaving Iraq. I think this is a question of if…if we were to walk out of Iraq, it would satisfy a certain degree of public opinion right now, and I think within six months or a year, the people who made that decision would be very much…would regret it, and I think the American people would, because the terrorists understand how important Iraq is. They are putting tremendous resources into defeating us in Iraq. If they defeat us in Iraq, Iran all of a sudden has a very established strong neighbor that’s an ally. You have a place that can be a breeding ground of terrorism. And the reality is, it will make the terrorist movement that much stronger. And I think that we have to figure out, as the President is doing now, I think in a very deliberate way, what’s a better strategy, how do we succeed in Iraq, what can we learn from the mistakes we may have made, and then as we go forward, do a better job of creating a stable situation in Iraq. But the idea of leaving Iraq, I think, is a terrible mistake.

DP: Former President Jimmy Carter has written a book about Israel, calling it an apartheid state, and holding, essentially, that Israel is the source of most of these problems. What is your take on that?

RG: Probably just the opposite. I think obviously, there’s an Israel issue, Palestine and all, but I think that if it didn’t exist, we’d have all the same set of problems. I mean, somehow you can perform the intellectual exercise, let us just say, Israel and Palestine didn’t exist. Or it magically was solved in some way. Every single other issue would be exactly the same. The terrorists would still hate us. September 11 would still have happened. The basic reasons for it are much more fundamental than Israel and Palestine. Israel and Palestine is an important issue. Sometimes, it’s used as an excuse to deal with underlying issues. But the reality here is that the Islamo-fundamentalist terrorists are at war with our way of life, with our modern world, with rights for women, religious freedom, societies that have religious freedom. And all of that would still exist, no matter what happens in Israel and Palestine. It doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be wonderful if you could find a resolution to it, and it wouldn’t defuse things a bit. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that it would solve the problem. It wouldn’t.

DP: Let’s go to U.S. domestic issues. Your take on such issues at tax
cuts?

RG: I’m a very big supporter of tax cuts. Not only am I a supporter, I did it. I mean, I’m sort of somebody who learned by…I worked for Ronald Reagan. I
thought that both Ronald Reagan, and before him, President Kennedy, and now President Bush, have kind of proven that tax cuts stimulate an economy. When I became Mayor of New York City, I started to fight very hard for tax cuts in New York City. New York City had really never done tax cuts before. We were sort of a very typical liberal Democratic model of tax in order to solve your budget deficit. And then, you’d very quickly make your budget deficit worse, because businesses would leave. So I began a program of tax reduction. Eventually, I reduced 23 taxes, eliminated some, reduced taxes by $3-4 billion, and I was collecting a lot more money from the lower taxes than I was from the higher ones. I tried to calculate as best I could, reducing the taxes that I thought would have the biggest effect. In other words, those that would stimulate business, the hotel occupancy tax, sales taxes, income taxes, the things that would create more jobs. And it worked. I mean, I can cite chapter and verse on reducing a tax, two years later, collecting more money from the lower taxes than we collected from the higher tax. So I am a very, very big believer that in a complex, private economy, mixed private/government economy like we have, the more money you can put back sensibly into the private economy, the more it’s ultimately going to grow.

DP: On social issues, you’re…they say, whoever they are, that you are more centrist than conservative. So let’s take one of the key ones, same sex marriage.

RG: I’m opposed to same sex marriage. I think marriage has to be between a man and a woman. I think it will be, and it will continue to be. I think what they mean is, that as the Mayor of New York, I was in favor of, and signed into legislation, for civil unions. In New York, they called them domestic partnerships, so that gays and lesbians could have a way in which to protect their rights. And I think that’s an appropriate…that’s the appropriate way in which to do it. I think we should be a society in which government, when it can, sort of extricates itself from people’s personal lives. That’s why I’m in favor of putting more money back in their pockets, so they can spend more money. That’s why I think if you’re gay or lesbian, that’s your life. But you shouldn’t change marriage as a result of it.

DP: These are some of the issues that have prevailed in the American conscience right now. Where do you…let’s get to specifics. Where do you differ most, if you can identify it right now, from John McCain?

RG: I don’t know how I differ from John. I mean, John and I have pretty much the same view on the war, as best I can tell. I mean, I think he is…it may be that I’m more firmly committed to tax cutting than he is, although he has vote for some tax cuts. He hasn’t voted for others. I’m not sure. But John and I are good friends, and if we do end up running against each other, it’ll be interesting to see where and how we differ.

DP: Well, here’s one possibility. My listeners know this, that this is actually rendered him, unfortunately, unvotable for me. And if I have him on, I will tell him that, and that is campaign finance reform, which has ensured that essentially, only multi-millionaires run for office in the United States of America, especially to the Senate, because I cannot…if I, Dennis Prager, who doesn’t have any money, wanted to run, no millionaire could give me a million dollars. They could only give me $4,000 dollars. So you have any views on campaign finance reform?

RG: I think there’s no question that the present McCain-Feingold law has had tremendous loopholes in it, that people have taken advantage of. And it needs to be corrected. It needs to be cured.

DP: So you would like to see it in place as well? You’re also for…

RG: I would like to…but I think, in fairness to Senator McCain, that he has recognized some of the problems that maybe weren’t foreseen in McCain-Feingold, and has promised to try to fix it. I don’t know that that’s happened.

DP: Well, let me then be specific. Why shouldn’t people just be allowed to give any amount of money they want to any candidate, and just have it publicly known? Why should there be a law limiting that freedom?

RG: Well, I mean, there…I think there are very good arguments on either side
of that. I’ve always lived under a campaign finance law that had limitations on
it, so I’m sort of pretty comfortable with it. But the reality is that the
Supreme Court has so far ruled on that, and I guess found McCain-Feingold…

DP: Unfortunately.

RG: …found it Constitutional, although that was a pretty close vote.

DP: All right. We need to spend some time alone together.

RG: But I mean, I grew up in a system in New York where we had campaign finance, and we had matching funds, so I got pretty used to it. But it’s the law, unfortunately, the campaign finance law has become so complex and so difficult.

DP: Like the tax code.

RG: It is easily as complex as the tax code, and it’s become sort of a gotcha game.

DP: All right. Well, I certainly hope that this is the first of many times together on the show. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, thanks for your time.

RG: Thank you very much, Dennis.

DP: You’re very welcome.

RG: Always a pleasure.

DP: Thank you.

Is John McCain Now The Republican “Establishment” 2008 Candidate?

Robert Novak, in his weekly email newsletter, has this item about Arizona Senator John McCain:

Much of Republican Washington turned out at the huge Christmas party Monday night hosted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the Corcoran Art Gallery. Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the newly elected Senate minority whip, has emerged as a major McCain backer. McCain is not only the front-runner for the presidential nomination but is emerging as the establishment candidate.

The Moderate Voice commented as follows: This could help McCain considerably, in terms of money and establishment clout. Particularly if during the next two years Karl Rove manages to get the party’s conservative base back and in line.

The hitch may be: it is an increasingly different political world. McCain’s media appeal, and the excitement over him, came from his role as a different kind of politician who was tough to fit into a specific category and who had to endure foes (both inside the party and out) trying to shove him into one. And, as a result, there was a big “Stop McCain” movement by some Congressional Republicans in 2000. He couldn’t be relied upon to go along.

If he continues along the path of being the favored establishment candidate, he’ll likely lose some of the support that set him apart in 2000 — particularly if the next two years are tempestous ones and the administration’s popularity further plummets.

Romney Slams Liberal Massachusetts Legislature (VIDEO)

Gov Mitt Romney slammed the Mass. state legislature for neglecting their constitutional duty to vote on pro-traditional marriage amendment. The initiative, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, has the backing of 170,000 Massachusetts residents.

The liberal state legislature DECLINED TO EVEN VOTE to allow the proposed amendment to be placed on the 2008 election ballot. The Massachusetts legislature continues to thwart democracy and refuses to give its constituents the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage in their state.

Mitt Romney Plays Hardball On Gay Marriages And Civil Unions (VIDEO)

Mitt Romney was on Hardball with Chris Matthews back in August of 2006. They discussed his opinions on gay marriages and gay unions. Mitt Romney made it clear that he is strongly against both, yet IS in favor of providing gay couples with easier access to rights they have somewhat of a hassle getting now (for instance, the paperwork involved in hospital visitation).

He also talks about running for President in 2008 and gives us some more insight into who Mitt Romney is and would be, if he were to be elected President of the United States of America.

Newt indicates to Medved that he will NOT run in 08, praises Romney (AUDIO)

Newt Gingrich dropped a broad hint over the weekend that he wouldn’t mount a serious race for the presidency in 2008. By saying that he won’t decide whether to run until September, 2007 – a mere four months before the Iowa Caucuses –he indicates that he won’t be able to put together a credible campaign. He wants to keep the door open just a little bit for a potential run – in part, because it’s always possible (though most unlikely) that a vast groundswell of public support would force his hand and, more importantly, because he can participate more prominently in the national political conversation as long he hasn’t ruled out a Presidential race. That appears to be Gingrich’s real aim in this upcoming battle for the nomination – to play a strong role in the conflict of ideas and principles as various factions contend for control of the GOP. We need Newt Gingrich to take part in this essential conversation with his customary zest and brilliance. We don’t necessarily need a highly personal focus on his past and present as a potential presidential candidate.

Newt’s kind words about Mitt Romney also suggested that the former Speaker is taking a step back from the campaign. His mention of Romney as the conservative alternative to McCain and Giuliani demonstrates a canny analysis of the state of the struggle at the moment. With the two “moderate” or “maverick” candidates as the two front runners, and dividing the votes of those who may want to move away from the party’s conservative core principles, there’s an obvious opening for a strong campaign on the right to rally the GOP base. With Allen, Santorum and Frist out of the picture, and Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback both too obscure and too quixotic to take seriously at the moment, Romney is the obvious guy. Of course, his Mormon faith raises questions in some quarters, but the more openly he speaks about it in the months ahead the more likely that even doubters will get used to the idea of backing him anyway.

McCain, Giuliani and Romney all have the ability to raise huge sums of money and to conduct serious campaigns in every corner of the country. Unless either McCain or Rudy gets out of the race, leaving the other guy a clear field among moderates and independent-minded Republicans, the most credible conservative candidate will enjoy a clear edge. And that edge, it’s becoming increasingly obvious, will go to Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. -From the Michael Medved Blog