Newt Doesn't Let Facts Get In The Way Of His Racism

[Donald Isler]

The New York Times
Editorial
Preaching Division in South CarolinaPublished: January 17, 2012

By mixing falsehoods with racial condescension, Newt Gingrich brought a raucous presidential debate crowd to its feet on Monday night in South Carolina, further cheapening his reputation and that of the state Republican Party.

For months, Mr. Gingrich has made racial resentment an integral part of his platform as a conservative challenger to Mitt Romney. He has traversed the country calling President Obama “the greatest food-stamp president in American history” and presenting African-Americans with the great revelation that they should prefer paychecks to federal handouts. When he was called on it at the debate by Juan Williams of Fox News, he took the measure of the crowd and doubled down.

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history,” he announced, to wild cheers. “I know among the politically correct, you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.” What you’re not supposed to do, actually, is mislead the public.

The fact is that Mr. Obama has “put” no one on food stamps. People apply for food assistance, known officially as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, because they’re poor or out of work and their families are hungry. The number of people using the program, which is now at a peak, began rising with the recession, in 2007, and continued through four of the toughest years ever faced by the poor and near-poor in modern history. Mr. Obama eased the eligibility requirements as part of his stimulus program, a desperately needed measure that helped struggling families and the economy.

Non-Hispanic whites also far outnumber blacks receiving SNAP benefits. As for the notion that these are people who somehow like their dependency, 30 percent of SNAP households have income from work — a reminder of the brutal impact of the recession on wages.

But these are inconvenient details to Mr. Gingrich, who implied that the rise in federal aid was a sad indication of the insufficient work ethic of black Americans.

If only they were more willing to be janitors! Asked by Mr. Williams why he has frequently suggested that poor children be employed as school janitors, Mr. Gingrich said his daughter worked as a church janitor at age 13 and liked earning the money and that it would be a good way for poor students to learn the value of work. But, he suggested, Mr. Obama doesn’t want them to work at all because liberal elites prefer to “maximize dependency.”

Don’t try to follow any kind of logical thread of why the president wouldn’t want the jobless rate to decrease; there isn’t one. This trumpet was sounded to feed the prejudice of people who already believe that blacks and other poor people don’t really like to work and to deflect the growing public awareness that the Republican Party’s highest priority is protecting the rich from higher taxes.

For these divisive thoughts, Mr. Gingrich earned his ovation and Mr. Williams won a round of boos. Rick Santorum also got in on the game, responding to a question about high rates of black poverty with a lecture on the importance of work, high school graduation and marriage. Unfortunately, he said, the Obama administration refuses to encourage those kinds of good choices.

In South Carolina, where a Confederate flag still waves on the front lawn of the State Capitol largely because of the efforts of the state Republican Party, it remains good primary politics to stir up racial animosity and then link it to President Obama. Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Santorum and the crowd that cheered them are following in a long and tawdry tradition, singling out a minority group for lectures while refusing to support policies that help all Americans.

[John F]

It may be good Republican Party primary politics, but 28% of South Carolinians are African-Americans, so it's not going to play in the national election. Which Gingrich won't be in, anyway.

[lennygoran]

Which Gingrich won't be in, anyway.

Well wait a second--he temporarily has Palin on his side! Regards, Len [on the run]

[Donald Isler]

Can't help but be amused that Sarah Palin is saying that 2008 proved how bad it is when a candidate who has not been sufficiently vetted (meaning Obama) gets elected. This is the woman who would now be President if McCain had been elected, had he died in office, though she could not competently articulate such complicated things as what periodicals she read, or explain the point of the Paul Revere story!

[John F]

Can't help but be amused that Sarah Palin is saying that 2008 proved how bad it is when a candidate who has not been sufficiently vetted (meaning Obama) gets elected. This is the woman who would now be President if McCain had been elected, had he died in office, though she could not competently articulate such complicated things as what periodicals she read, or explain the point of the Paul Revere story!

Yes, I wonder what La Palin means by "vetted" - nobody vets Presidential candidates nowadays except the voters in the primaries - and how she would describe the process by which she herself was chosen to be potentially a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Probably she just doesn't know the meanings of the words she uses - again.

[IcedNote]

Can't help but be amused that Sarah Palin is saying that 2008 proved how bad it is when a candidate who has not been sufficiently vetted (meaning Obama) gets elected. This is the woman who would now be President if McCain had been elected, had he died in office, though she could not competently articulate such complicated things as what periodicals she read, or explain the point of the Paul Revere story!

Yes, I wonder what La Palin means by "vetted" - nobody vets Presidential candidates nowadays except the voters in the primaries - and how she would describe the process by which she herself was chosen to be potentially a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Probably she just doesn't know the meanings of the words she uses - again.

...but at least she seems like she'd host a good dinner party!

-G

[John F]

With locally sourced moose on the table.

[lennygoran]

...but at least she seems like she'd host a good dinner party!

-G

I'm not sure of that--all I can visualize is that lousy pizza joint she ate it with Trump a few months ago--that's not a dinner party to me! Regards, Len

[RebLem]

Actually, the most telling part of Gingrich's reply to Juan Williams's question on food stamps was a part that the OP did not mention. Gingrich started off with, "First of all, Juan..." emphasizing the use of the familiar "Juan" as in olden days when Mr. Williams had addressed Gingrich formally as "Mr. Speaker," the highest office he has ever attained. It was immediately obvious that Gingrich knew exactly what he was doing when he paused, waiting for the cheap, little snickers from the unreconstructed, old-timey folk in the audience.

[Werner]

Talking about half-vetted candidates, how can they be vetoed before they do damage?

[Donald Isler]

And more about the one who wants to set moral standards for others to live up to, though he fails to follow some of them himself:


The New York Times
Editorial
Moralizing’s High Cost
Published: January 19, 2012

Multiple marriages and even adultery are not automatic disqualifications for the presidency. If they were, the country would have a very different roster of former presidents and candidates. But when a political party decides that moralizing about personal conduct is as important as public policy, it inevitably makes some of its leaders vulnerable to the worst charges of hypocrisy.

In this political cycle, it is Newt Gingrich who has been unable to escape the toxic combination of infidelity and sermonizing. The stories about his three marriages have been known for years, but every time he seems to have escaped the wrath of Republican voters, they rise again.

On Thursday, they were resurrected by his second wife, Marianne, who told ABC News that he had sought an “open marriage” arrangement in 1999 so that he could have her blessing to conduct an affair while remaining married to her. She refused, the couple divorced, and the woman he had been seeing is now his third wife, Callista Gingrich, who accompanies him everywhere on the campaign trail. Mr. Gingrich later denied the claim.

Marianne Gingrich’s most devastating memory is that the day after his request, Mr. Gingrich gave a speech entitled, “The Demise of American Culture.” Among other things, he said in the speech that the elimination of prayer in schools had left American teenagers morally adrift.

Thirteen years later, campaigning for president, Mr. Gingrich is still trying to tell Americans how to run their lives. He supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He accuses Mitt Romney of being insufficiently anti-abortion, even pointing out that Mr. Romney expanded access to abortion pills. He lectures black people about valuing jobs and children in the purgatory of housing projects for lacking a work ethic. He signed a personal pledge to, at long last, “uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse.”

The abundant contradictions here are troubling even to some of his most fervent supporters. At a town-hall-style session in Beaufort, S.C., on Thursday, a former Marine drill instructor took the microphone to call Mr. Gingrich as inspiring as Winston Churchill — but also to tell him he remained troubled by his “lapses in personal judgment.” The Marine wondered how Mr. Gingrich could face President Obama in the fall with his past.

Mr. Gingrich responded that he knew the issue would dog him through the campaign, but that he and his wife decided “the country was worth the pain.” He told the Marine — and all voters struggling with the same question — that the decision was one that “you have to make.”

It’s magnanimous of him to be willing to allow voters to decide for themselves on the importance of his moral choices, since he and his party have been so unwilling to allow the public to make its own moral choices.

For too many Republicans, it’s not enough that Americans are free to pray in the house of worship of their choice; they want all children to be required to pray in school. They want to impose their own ideas about sexuality and abortion on everyone. And they love to accuse Democrats of being insufficiently pious. (Rick Perry’s exit from the race on Thursday may mean no more ads accusing President Obama of a “war on religion” and liberals of believing faith is a sign of weakness. Or, it may not, depending on how desperate the other candidates get.)

When Republican officials then get caught violating one of the Ten Commandments, they make an enormous show of contrition and repentance and ask for the public’s forgiveness. But as the hypocrisy level continues to rise, that forgiveness may become much harder to provide.

[jbuck919]

Mr. Gingrich responded that he knew the issue would dog him through the campaign, but that he and his wife decided “the country was worth the pain.”

Doesn't mean quite the same as "Paris is well worth a Mass," does it?

[Werner]

Does it seem, just from the quotes cited on this thread, that we've seen more than enough or Mr. Gingrich? Does his character show up quite plainly from his record?

There must be more than a few people better qualified for the Oval Office than the range offered by the Republican Parrty this time around.

But a president Newt G would be able to boast an unprecedented cast: First Lady, Second Lady. Third Lady....... Read for the next nauseating chapter!

[John F]

At this stage, of course, it's up to the Republicans - and presently they can't seem to get enough of him. The way things have been going, however, next week it may be someone completely different.

[Mark Harwood]

South Carolina gave him 40%, a big win.

[John F]

Go, Newt! In every sense of the word "go." Now it's Ron Paul's turn. Florida, here they come!

[lennygoran]

Go, Newt! In every sense of the word "go." Now it's Ron Paul's turn. Florida, here they come!

Well you've all heard of "The economy, stupid"--now it's time for this snowclone:

MITT, THE TAX RETURNS, STUPID! REGARDS, LEN