Readers of this blog know that I do not favor Newt Gingrich for President. He actuallyl featured in part of this blog article headline: ;"Two pompous Asses vs. Nine Pompous Asses". The "Tw pompous asses" were meant to be Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Reilly. But thesee SMEARS of every candidate perceived to be slupported by conservatives have gone beyond ridiculous--including, as usual, the unfair and unbalanced network, or "CNN Light" (as it is correctly known here).
What am I specifically talking abut? Isnt' there enough stuff about Gingrich--NOT including Romney taknig a shot at calling Gingrich "rich", and bringing up the Fiffany's charge account, which I fouknd MUCH more of a reason to INDICT Romney than his famous $10,000 bet--that you don't really have to engage in SMEARS? Yes, there is, but SMEARS is what the establishment GOP, and the mainstream media, know how to do against conservatives. That is why I have so much CONTEMPT for themm, and why my opinion of Mitt Romney has gone down almost every day since the 22008 eletion (when I supported Romney against McCain). The latest lSMEAR is this story that Gingrich said he would ARREST Federal judges who disagreed with him. That is an absolute LIE. Yes, Sheppard Smith is a LIAR (on the unfair and unbalanced network), along with the entire mainstream media.
Gingrich did NTO say that he would have Federal judges arrested who disagreed with him. You will note that this blog told Gingrich, and everyo other GOP candidate, WHAT to say aobut Federal judges: support 12 year terrm limits, without discrimination, for ALL Federal offices, including Congress and Federal judges. What Gingrich SAID is NOT very good, but it is NOT what the media has said he said (teh SMEAR). What Gingrich actualy said was that he would try to have a SUBPOENA issued for Federal judges to eXPLAIN rulings that Gingrich considered to be overfreaching their power under the Constitution. Okay,. This is STUPID, and a reason to vote against Gingrich (although Gingrich is entirely right thatBOLD action is needed to save our system, which is what MY proposal at least has a chance of doing without being idologically biased). However, again, Gingirch did NOT say that Federal judges should be ARRESTED because they disagreed with him.
Gingrich was on "Meet the Press" (a istake in itself). He trotted out this (correct) criticism of Federal judges, and his proposdsed (stupid) "soluuton". He was then asked: "What will you do if the Federal judges fail to comply with the subpoena?" What Gingrich should have said is: "I expet that they will comply with the law, and obey the subpoena or move to quash it. I am not going to engage in the absurd hypothetical that they will simply flout a subpoena." What Gingrich actually said is this, when asked whether he would "arrest" Federal judges who do not comply with a subpoena (very different from saing he would arrest judges who DISAGREE with him): " =Well, if they don't comply with the subpoena, someone will be sent out to bring them to where the subpoena directs them to go." The media, includng the unfair and unbalanced media, promptly turned this into a SMEAR that Gingrich said he would arrest judges who disagreed with him. What Gingrich acutally said ws that he might "arrest" judges who DISOBEY A SUBPOENA. As I said, there ws no reason for Gingirch to have said that, but it is techinically the final resort when someone refuses to comply with a subpoena. say you are jsut and ordianry person, having borken no laws, but you are SUBPOENAED to appear as a WITNESS in either a criminal or civil trial? What happens if you fail to appear? The judge issues an order that you be "arrested" (brought to the court by coercion), becuase that is what you were ORDERED to do in the subpoena. Unless they can quash the subpoena, there is no ereason to treat Federal judges any differently. However, you know and I know that this is a LAST RESORT, and that every effort is made to try to get people (especially prominent people) t appear voluntarily, and to give them an opportunity to challenge the validity of the subpoena.
Should not Gingrich have known better than to give the media the OPPORTUNITY to SMEAR him? Yes, I think he should. There has always been a peculiar arrogance about Gingrich, and a refusal to suffer fools gladly. Yep. I AM saying that the people who would ask that question about "arresting " Federal judges are FOOLS, and the ones who would SMEAR Gingrich by misrepresenting his answer are even bigger FOOLS. That is, they are FOOLS unless you corectly realize that they are POLITICAL PARTISANS doing this for PROPAGANDA purposes.
Why talk about the absuridity of using a subpoena to aks Federal judges to "explain" their rulings (when they ALL issue a WRITTEN OPINIOIN on any major rulilng, when you can SMEAR Gingrich by using the "buzz" word "arrested"? Am I sayig "jounalists" are DISHONEST Ah, you are finally getting it right . What bothers me is that a FEW are so DUMB than they actually believe their own propaganda.
This blog, since 2008, has said that Newt Gingrich will never be President of the United Staetes. And thi sblog has consistently said that I refuse to support Gingrich, even against Barack Obama (if it comes to that). However, unlike the establishment GOP, and 'journalists"--including the "journalists" of the unfair and unbalanced network--this blog is unwilling to engage is a SMEAR. Their are more than enough reasons to vote against Gingrich--NOT including either Tiffanty's or his sexual/marital history--without resorting to unfair SMEARS. As stated, Ginrich's strange method of hold of "limiting" the power of Federal judges is one of the VALIID reasons to vote against him (in combination with numberous other things). But it is simply not ture that Gingrich advocatgted the arrest of Fedreal judges who DISAGREE with him. Now did Gingirch need to invite this SMEAR? I don't think so. However, that is hardly a reason to say the should not be President: that he did not anticipate the SMEAR when he really said the same thing he has been saying about issueing subpoenas for Federal judges. Nothing new. Iassure you--as a lwayer, in muy foormer life for more than 35 years, that Gingrich's explanation of the remedy for VIOLATING A SUBPOENA is lpretty much correct. "Arrest" is pretty much the WRONG term to use., since the person is not taken to jail. But, still, it is esesntially an arrest, and Gingrich tried to explain that someone wouuld be sent out to enforce the subpoena (which is what HAS to happen) . Nothing worng with that. The problem is Gingrich wanting to go throught that CiRCUS of issueing a subpoena, and NOT that Gingrich is advocating "arresting" Federal judsges.
Did I jsut say that Gingrich is bad, but that "journalists' are much WORTSE? I think that is a fair statement. I would go further, ad say that the gOP ESTABLISHMENT is WORSE, and doing its best to RIN the GOP as an institution for all time (having already lost me, as readiers of this blog know). No, as I have laready stated, I will NOt support Mitt Romney against Barack Obama, and am more convinced of the correctness of that decision every single day. What it that means Obama (who I can't support either) will be elected agian? Here I hae a Gingrich answer: So be it. I don't think th ecountry will be much worse off., as it would not be if John McCain were President.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).