Newt Gingrich’s response in last night’s debate to his ex-wife’s allegations that he asked for an “open” marriage showed his amazing ability to simultaneously bully others and portray himself as a victim.
Gingrich told moderator John King he was “appalled” by the choice of subject, saying“I think the destructive vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office.”
He also accused the "elite media" of protecting President Obama by attacking Republicans.
His comments fired up the audience. But other than going after votes for the South Carolina primary, what was he really saying?
He was appalled by the choice of subject? Gingrich is not a private citizen, who under similar circumstances would likely have grounds to complain of an invasion of privacy. Gingrich has been a public figure for thirty years and has attacked other politicians, including former President Clinton, for private conduct.
If questions like King’s make it harder to attract people to run for office, that might be just as well. How would a President Gingrich respond to the leader of another nation (like China) whom he thought had insulted him?
And blaming the media? This same media brings Newt Gingrich to our television sets, radios and Internet sites on a regular basis and quotes him frequently. Does Gingrich believe the media helps Obama in this regard?
On second thought, Newt, keep talking. Your inane comments may be exactly what Obama needs to get re-elected!
We are better off being happy than right. This is especially true in how we conduct ourselves in the political season that has just started.
Discussion of political matters often brings out the negative side of some people. We are bound to hear comments like the following:
“Obama is to blame for the bad economy.”
This comment leaves a lot out. What is the economy, for example, and what makes it good or bad? What actions have President Obama taken that have affected the economy since he took office three years ago?
We have a choice: we could debate comments like this and either blame or withhold blame on Obama.
Or we could choose to be happy.
We could find happiness in refusing to criticize an idea without proposing a better one. We could find happiness by championing solutions no matter who suggests them. We could find happiness by not pursuing comments that can neither be proven nor disproven.
By refusing the temptation of righteousness, each of us could build a society where solutions matter more than complaints. It is simply a matter of how badly we want that.
Read author Dean T. Hartwell's latest thoughts on 9/11, including whether Navy SEALs really killed bin Laden and why the public could not find its way out of the "box" that the official theory placed it in!
Hartwell puts into regular-sized font all of his work on the subject of 9/11. You will receive the following:
Part One - "Indictment of Conspiracy," a chapter from his book "Dead Men Talking: Consequences of Government Lies." Hartwell identifies many of the perpetrators of the crimes of 9/11 and states what they did and with whom they did it.
Part Two - the entire best-selling book "Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11." Hartwell gives a compelling hypothesis, backed by fact and circumstantial evidence, that the plotters used planes and passengers as props to simulate hijackings and to misdirect the investigation.
Part Three - a series of essays on the topic of 9/11 going back to Hartwell's writings from 2005 to the present. Among them is "If a Good Man Would Have Talked: the Grand Jury Testimony of Colin Powell," a fictional hearing in which the reader learns the group of people behind the whole crimes.
Another essay, "Osama bin Laden Had Nothing to Do with 9/11" is a timely and well-reasoned argument that the United States used bin Laden, first as a partner in fighting the old Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and then as a scapegoat for the events of 9/11.
Readers can also get a sense not only of what really happened on September 11, 2001 but how the event was planned and intended to be carried out. A good essay for this concept is "How the Plotters Scripted 9/11."
The brand-new Afterword tells how we, the public, become so easily misled by what our leaders and by what the media explain to us about events like 9/11. Hartwell demonstrates that this tragedy was planned well in advance and had as its foreshadowing events that took place in Iran and other parts of the Middle East over thirty years ago!
I am compiling a list of how things really work in this world. Some are observations about people in general and some are simple rules that people should follow.
People help those whom they like.
If you count the hits, you must count the misses.
You should not change the rules in the middle of the game.
No one cares who finishes second place.
If you have to explain the rules, no one will follow them.
There are no rewards without risks.