II A former Israeli/American Mayor discusses Newt vs. Mitt
News Breaking from Newsmax.com, January 30, 2012
Speaking on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently praised Newt Gingrich and criticized Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper.
“I’ve never seen a guy change his positions on so many things, so fast, on a dime, on everything,” Giuliani said about the former Massachusetts governor. “Pro-choice, pro-life. And pro-choice because somebody, a close friend, died, and he became pro-choice because this woman died of an abortion. Then he figures out there are embryos and he changes.
“Then he was pro-gun control,” Giuliani opined. “Fine. Then he becomes a lifetime member of the NRA. Then he was pro cap and trade. Now he’s against cap and trade. He was pro-mandate for the whole country, then he becomes anti-mandate and he takes that page out of his book and republishes the book. I could go on and on.”
Giuliani concluded that Romney is a “man that will say anything to become president of the United States.”
Meanwhile, the 9/11 icon likened Gingrich to Ronald Reagan.
“I kind of go back to 1980 and I remember the Carter White House just dying [to run against] Ronald Reagan,” Giuliani said. “Ronald Reagan was the dumb actor, Ronald Reagan said incendiary things, Ronald Reagan was like Newt — gosh, you never knew what he was going to say and the whole world would go crazy — The New York Times would write editorials. There was Bush, greatest resume of anyone who ever ran for president, solid citizen. They got Reagan and they got trounced.”
Giuliani continued: “I think Newt has a much more consistent position as a conservative, with some real exceptions like Ronald Reagan had. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that made abortion legal in the state of California. Ronald Reagan did in fact raise taxes several times, not just as president, but also as governor of California.”
Giuliani also talked about electibility.
“It may be that Newt is appealing to some that maybe Mitt isn’t appealing to,” Giuliani explained. “There’s something wrong when you’ve been running as long as Mitt has and you’re at 25 percent, and you don’t go much below, and you don’t go much above. Seventy-five percent of the other Republicans are telling you something.”
|Breaking News from Newsmax.com
|InsiderAdvantage Poll: Gingrich Surging, Race ‘Tighter Than Expected’A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted Sunday night of likely Republican voters in the state of Florida shows a significant surge for Newt Gingrich.
The poll has Romney leading with 36 percent of voters, followed by Gingrich at 31 percent.
The Sunday results of 646 likely GOP voters are as follows:
“The race will be tighter than expected,” Matt Towery, chief pollster of InsiderAdvantage told Newsmax.
Towery noted that his poll showed a surge for Romney on Wednesday, with him leading Gingrich by 8 points. The InsiderAdvantage poll was among the first to show Romney’s resurgence after his dismal showing in the S. Carolina primary.
The InsiderAdvantage poll was also the first to show Gingrich’s rise in S. Carolina and accurately forecast his win there.
“The trend is favoring Gingrich,” Towery said, noting that while Romney’s lead was still outside the margin of error of 3.8 percent, “It’s not by much.”
Towery said Gingrich is doing “substantially better” with men than Romney, 38 to 28, but the former House Speaker still faces a “gender gap,” as women are still favoring Romney.
“Men are moving in droves to Gingrich and away from Romney,” Towery said.
As for Florida’s important Latino vote, InsiderAdvantage has Gingrich beating Romney by a large margin, leading 42 percent to 29 percent.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Op-Ed: Florida Primaries: Gingrich vs. Romney on Israel
Published: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:37 PM
The writer delineates the difference between the two pro-Israel candidates on Judea and Samaria and the “Palestinian people”.
by David Rubin, former Shiloh Mayor
For those pro-Israel Americans who are still on the fence about which candidate to support in the Republican primaries, this particular American-Israeli would like to briefly scan some of the nuances on the campaign trail.
With the notable exception of Congressman Ron Paul, who has harshly criticized Israel’s treatment of our Hamas-supporting neighbors in Gaza as being “like a concentration camp”, the contenders for the nomination have been considered to be staunchly pro-Israel. All support a strong stand against Iran, including the potential use of military force to end Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons, but are the candidates really all on the same page on the main issues that concern Israel?
Let’s examine the record. The differences become clear when they discuss “the Palestinians” and the so-called peace process.
Former Pennsylvania Governor Rick Santorum, whose campaign has been struggling recently, was questioned by a young voter about the Palestinians right to an independent state in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Santorum responded sharply, saying, “There is no Palestinian people” and defending Israel’s right to call as its own land won in a defensive war (The 1967 Six Day War).
Similarly, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has referred to the Palestinians as “an invented people” that was never a nation, and, elaborating on this at an ABC News debate added, “Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in theirschools. They have textbooks that say ‘if there are 13 Jews and 9 Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?’ We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It’s time for somebody to say: enough lying about the Middle East.”
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is on record defending Israel’s right to decide how to negotiate and has said that all disagreements between Israel and the United States should be discussed in private. He also has criticized President Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus” (a nice clich?) and said, “I will stand by our friend Israel” (another nice clich?). In the most recent debate in Florida, Romney criticized Obama for failures in the peace negotiations, but didn’t criticize the so-called Palestinians. In that same debate,
Gingrich blasted the Palestinian leadership for enabling and/or allowing continued rocket attacks and pledged that on his first day in office, he would issue an executive order moving the Israeli Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The differences between the two leading candidates are actually fairly substantial. Romney has made quite a few positive statements about the importance of the USA-Israel relationship, but has been carefully avoiding taking positions that might change the “land for peace” process (actually – land for a meaningless piece of paper) and the status quo of the “two-state solution” or that might offend the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, Romney was quite critical of Gingrich for making his “invented people” statement, saying that we shouldn’t “get ahead of our ally Israel.”
After years of American pressure, much of Israel’s leadership is endorsing suicidal positions that would hand over its strategic heartland, in which most of the biblical sites are located, to the Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihadists for an independent state. Is Romney suggesting that a true friend should let its ally commit suicide?
On the other hand, Gingrich has, on several recent occasions, taken bold, right-of-center positions on the Middle East that often defy the status quo, sending the clear message that his actions as president would be based on a historically-correct vision of peace through strength and Israel’s right to its biblical heartland.
The irrational need to adhere to the ridiculous land for “peace” mantra that has never worked should be carefully reexamined by all the presidential candidates. Newt Gingrich has taken a giant step in that direction and he is to be highly commended for it.