US Politics, unnumbered

[Galactus]

From what I've seen of Newt (I still can't read any article about him without saying "I got better!" reflexively) he's a slimy politician. I guess the best comparison would be Berlusconi? He's sleazy as fuck, but as a political insider he also knows how the thing works. If he has to he'll compromise, because he's not going to grandstand if he can instead shout "LOOK WHAT I DID!"

Because in the end It's All About Newt. Which paradoxically means he might actually do some good (or at least, less bad than many others) because he won't stick to his principles if they turn out to lead nowhere.

[awesome possum]

ETA: possum, we're talking kids with drug-addicted parents here, not kids whose parents let them play video games all day long.

Fair enough, but would we change the system to just reflect this? The question really isn't "would this lead to something worse?" but "how bad would it get?"

We're already well on track for the return of debtors prisons, would this new law then be adapted to take in the children of debtors?

If we're going to put any money at all into helping children like this, it should be into mentor programs and community centers. A single positive influence can change a pretty shitty life. I know.

[TrackerNeil]

I agree with Raidne that the op-ed, at least, is unfair. The criticism boils down to Newt being a competent, doctoral-level historian, but not a game-breaker likely to be elected President of the American Historical Society. But what's wrong with that? It still places him far above the vast majority of people to occupy the White House in terms of competency in history.

More importantly, the dissertation apparently shows a good level of objectivity on Newt's part. He didn't just side with the Belgian colonialists, as his detractors might expect. He was quite critical of the Belgian colonialists and basically concluded that the they screwed over the Congolese.

Wait...FLoW, weren't you saying in another thread that you conservatives are suspicious of intellectuals because they think they know better than everyone else? And yet here you're suggesting that Newt's intellectual superiority is a plus for him as a candidate. Not getting it.

[Shryke]

Wait...FLoW, weren't you saying in another thread that you conservatives are suspicious of intellectuals because they think they know better than everyone else? And yet here you're suggesting that Newt's intellectual superiority is a plus for him as a candidate. Not getting it.

Intelligence is only suspicious when it leads to conclusions you don't agree with.

[Shryke]

As for child labour:

Do kids have trouble finding jobs if they want them? Is fast-food not hiring? (Ok, not in this economy, but imagine a better one) At 15 I could get a job scrubbing toilets and serving customers at a Taco Bell.

So what's the point of this idea?

- firing unionized workers? The GOP hates unions and Gingrich, for some reason, specifically mentions it. Why are they working as janitors in their own schools?

- Child Labour? How young are these kids you are talking about if they can't already legally work some other job? Wiki says 12 and no more then 3 hours on school day. So what burning need is there to change this unless we are talking about some combination of 10 year olds work 4+ hour days? (I bet their tiny hands can unclog drains really well!)

- A dogwhistle about the poor and minorities and how they need to be put to work in menial jobs? They are, after all, lazy and lacking in work ethic.

Or maybe just all 3.

[lokisnow]

ahh I didn't realize his ex wife was still alive. Still is a shite situation to drop on someone in a hospital. And I absolutely do not believe the puff piece crap his daughter *coughaidescough* wrote for him.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I love how the good times of the 90s are either the result o the Republican Congress or the Democratic President. Never both.

;)

[Shryke]

I love how the good times of the 90s are either the result o the Republican Congress or the Democratic President. Never both.

;)

History is highly political.

[Ser-Arthur-Dayne]

I love how the good times of the 90s are either the result o the Republican Congress or the Democratic President.  Never both.

;)

Because they NEVER AGREED ON ANYTHING :P

[Shryke]

Speaking of that Scot:

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, in an interview with the Jewish Channel, called the Israeli-Palestinian peace process “delusional,” and said Palestinians are “an invented” people.

Asked if he identifies as a Zionist, Gingrich said: “I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state.”

Referring back to the early 20^th century, when the British government, in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, declared its support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” Gingrich suggested that at the time, the occupants of that territory – the Palestinians – did not have a legitimate claim to the land.

“I believe that the commitments that were made at the time – remember, there was no Palestine as a state,” Gingrich said. “It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-palestinians-20111209,0,357727.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I love how the good times of the 90s are either the result o the Republican Congress or the Democratic President. Never both.

;)

I said:

Gingrich will claim it as a cooperative effort, which I think will be hard to refute (given that the House GOP passed the initial bill) and is plenty enough "win" for him.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And I absolutely do not believe the puff piece crap his daughter *coughaidescough* wrote for him.

Well of course you don't believe it. Why believe statements from the only people who were actually present, as opposed to a myth created by Mother Jones without any actual evidence, when the latter serves your political interests? You believe it because, well, you just do. That's good, though, because it helps discredit everything else you say.

[Shryke]

A Republican will tout his cooperation with Democrats? Pfft. Not these days.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Fair enough, but I've been watching him in politics for more than 20 years. I've seen all his tricks, even if they seem new and catchy to the republican base.

It must be wonderful to be so much more observant and perceptive than everyone else. You must be very proud!

But the idea of poor kids scrubbing toilets for a few bucks day does appeal to a certain element of the GOP. Of course, later Newt amended that to include assisting the school librarian so it wouldn't sound so menial. Typical Gingrich tactic. Lob an asinine grenade to grab the headlines, and then walk it back with "well, I really meant this and that. See, it's not so bad as you thought." *sigh* Again, those comments were not in any way intended to address the plight of at-risk kids. They were a very clear dog-whistle to the GOP base signalling that Newt thinks "just like them...."

Well this is kind of fun, so let's start here.

First, if there is one thing Newt is guilty of, it is too often tossing out half-baked ideas. That's not really disputed. But the same guy you claim tossed out this idea purely to appeal to the base is the same guy who has made plenty of other statements in the debates that do the opposite. His immigration stance, for example, is unpopular with a lot of conservatives. And that statement was not made lightly -- he commented as he made the statement that he was going to take heat for it but didn't care. It seems odd that a guy who is supposedly so calculating in tossing out subtle hints to the base would so openly make other bold statements that he knows are going to offend. Panderers tend to me cagey and consistent.

Second, your assumption that his statement really had some sort of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" great appeal to his base is simply wrong. It is based upon your misinformed, prejudiced, and smugly superior attitude towards Republicans/conservatives in general. You assume we're all just a bunch of bigoted redneck hicks, or seaty fat rich white guys, who just want to keep those dirty black people down.

I don't know of any conservatives - and I know a lot of them -- who heard this and said "yeah, Newt's really one of us." To the extent anyone had a reaction, it was a groaning "there he goes again, saying something half-cocked that is going to get him into trouble." So to the extent it had any effect on his support, it was a negative because it reinforced the suspicion many have that he's going to self-destruct at some point and leave the party with an unelectable candidate guaranteed to lose against Obama. Which you, in fact, acknowledge by saying that this is going to bite him in the ass. The gain from him making that statement is non-existent, either in the primaries or the general election.

With all due respect, FLoW, yes you have. And so has Rush Limbaugh,

Wow. Not only are your biased, prejudiced, and closed-minded, but you're a mind-reader too! So I really do know that this is just an appeal to racism, but just don't care. Got it.

And yes, Newt is saying whatever he thinks will propel him higher in the polls. But not to conservatives, per se, because many "true" conservatives are holding back their support. He's appealing to the mob mentality, the same ire that fueled the tea party. His statements don't need to make sense; they just need to be incendiary and aimed at Obama/liberals. And I'm sure his book sales reflect that strategy.

Seems to me that Obama had some books on the market when he was running that sold pretty well. So did Gore. In fact, a great many Presidential candidates have written books that are part of their campaign as a way of showing what they stand for. The difference seems to be that Gingrich has so many more of them because he's been writing them since leaving office more than a decade ago. Given that he's not a current officeholder, and doesn't have income from that job, it seems to make sense that he can keep making money from writing books given that he's a professional author.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Wait...FLoW, weren't you saying in another thread that you conservatives are suspicious of intellectuals because they think they know better than everyone else? And yet here you're suggesting that Newt's intellectual superiority is a plus for him as a candidate. Not getting it.

What I said was that Republicans do not value intelligence in and of itself in the same way that Democrats seems to. We're not going to prefer a really smart guy with whom we disagree over a less smart guy whose opinions are more palatable. That's because we view the direction in which a candidate wants to take the country as more important than how easily he can take us there. I'd rather hold my ground than go in the wrong direction. We are particularly mistrustful of "really smart guys" on the left who believe in more activist governments, because their hubris can lead them to believe that they really are smart enough to micromanage the rest of us.

Now, if we view a guy as having the right principles of limited government, then all else being equal, we're going to prefer the guy who is better at expressing those ideas intelligently over the guy who can't, or who isn't as convincing.

[Jon Sprunk]

FLoW,

Not really. You can be obtuse for the sake of this discussion if you want, but I don't know what advantage you think it gives you.

I also said that Newt will say whatever it takes to grab the headlines. After a slow summer, he was getting no traction in the polls. So he swims against the GOP stream on the immigration issue. Is that because he really believes it? Impossible to say with Newt, but immediately afterward he started getting more attention. Coincidence?

Second, do you really live in such an ivory tower? I live in a conservative region and I know many, many people who applaud at those dog-whistle lines. My comment isn't based on superiority or bias, but on observation. But I appreciate you trying to read MY mind.

So studying a political figure, listening to them speak (not once, but many times spanning two decades), hearing what others close to them have to say, and thereby making an independent anaylisys makes me "biased, prejudiced, and close-minded?" Wow. That's quite the mental gynastics routine you have. Now, if I just said, "Newt is evil because he's a republican," that might fit your bill, but I've offered a bit more than that. But you keep slinging the mud, buddy. How's your superiority streak feeling?

P.S.: Racism is alive and well in the republican party. Guess what? it also exists in the democrat party, but one main difference is that democrat candidates and office holders don't play to the racist element of their party. But the gop will do this all day with impunity. I assume you aren't a racist, but if that's the case, YOU should be the one screaming about this from the rafters, not playing the deaf-ear card.

P.P.S.: I should add that I don't think Newt is a racist. I think he might be a megalomaniac who considers everyone, regardless of skin color, beneath him. There seem to be a few republican members of the house that served under Gingrich that agree with me, but they're probably close-minded and biased, too.

Per Newt's book tour, I don't remember Obama holding any book signings while he was running for president. Can you present some links? Because Gingrich is doing it left and right. Maybe you don't care if the front-runner of your party is making a mockery of the primary process, but I think the GOP deserves better.

[awesome possum]

FLoW provides an excellent gauge for how the standard GOP is running. Right now, it's running on the Gingrich train just as a month ago FLoW was busily heartily defending Herman Cain.

If Gingrich gets the nom, this election year is going to be a blast.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

Not really. You can be obtuse for the sake of this discussion if you want, but I don't know what advantage you think it gives you.

I truly don't understand your point. Are you saying that I'm being disingenuous, and don't really believe what I'm saying about Gingrich?

I also said that Newt will say whatever it takes to grab the headlines. After a slow summer, he was getting no traction in the polls. So he swims against the GOP stream on the immigration issue. Is that because he really believes it? Impossible to say with Newt, but immediately afterward he started getting more attention. Coincidence?

You're kind of a fascinating guy. You come to conclusions based on prejudice, then invent facts to support those conclusions. I'd say "well done", but it's not even that. I suppose the other possibility is that you're so blinded by your own closed-mindedness that you really believe the facts are as you say.

Newt was surging in the polls long before he made that immigration comment. Here's the Huffington Post's take:

WASHINGTON -- Newt Gingrich took a stance on immigration unpopular with many in the Republican party in a primary debate Tuesday night, and will now have to wait to see if he is punished for it by conservatives. Gingrich, who has come from the back of the pack in the Republican presidential primary to lead in many national polls, refused to play along with the idea -- expressed implicitly by some other candidates -- that the only solution to the problem of undocumented immigration is to deport the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/23/newt-gingrich-immigration_n_1109210.html

In other words, your entire premise is false. Newt was surging long before that comment, and the idea that he'd make what was interpreted as a pro-illegal, pro-amnesty position to appeal to what you call the "mob mentality", the "same ire that fueld the tea party", etc. is simply ludicrous.

I live in a conservative region and I know many, many people who applaud at those dog-whistle lines. My comment isn't based on superiority or bias, but on observation.

Sure you do. I imagine you hang out with a lot of conservatives and discuss politics, are on those email lists, etc. Try looking at a place like Free Republic, and see how that hard right element of the GOP loved Newt's comments about illegals. And frankly, if you are saying that you've spoken to a lot of tea party people who were thrilled with his immigration position, or that you've talked to a bunch of other conservatives who were thrilled that he made the comment about kids working in schools, I'll call you a liar.

Whatever you think about the Republican party and its members, and even if you are generally correct on that, these specific incidents you are citing simply do not constitute dog-whistle lines. At all. Gingrich's immigration comment pissed off a lot of conservatives who took is as support of amnesty. The only whistles he'd get would be whistles of derision. And the schools comment was a one-off line that he dropped and tried to bury as quickly as possible. You don't do that with "dog-whistle" lines. You keep using them as applause lines to send your neanderthal supporters into a frenzy. It is quite likely that a great many people aren't even aware of what he said, or the context, because it was dropped so quickly.

All you're doing is trying to squeeze square facts into fitting your round-holed prejudices.

So studying a political figure, listening to them speak (not once, but many times spanning two decades),

Is this suppose to be impressive? Am I supposed to consider your opinion as particularly valid because you've followed two decades of politics? Big fucking deal. So have I, and so have lots of people. And except among some on the deluded left who consider all Republicans spawn of Satan, the rap on Gingrich has never been that he panders to the base more than other politicians. It's that he shoots his mouth off without thinking and tends to offend both opponents and supporters.

P.S.: Racism is alive and well in the republican party. Guess what? it also exists in the democrat party, but one main difference is that democrat candidates and office holders don't play to the racist element of their party. But the gop will do this all day with impunity. I assume you aren't a racist, but if that's the case, YOU should be the one screaming about this from the rafters, not playing the deaf-ear card.

Well, I'll just say that Raidne, who is hardly a fan of the GOP either, doesn't read it the way you do either. You see racism because anytime you have to inpute a motive, that's your default.

P.P.S.: I should add that I don't think Newt is a racist. I think he might be a megalomaniac who considers everyone, regardless of skin color, beneath him. There seem to be a few republican members of the house that served under Gingrich that agree with me, but they're probably close-minded and biased, too.

Find me a quote from anyone, including MSN or Keith Olbermann, accusing Gingrich of pandering to his base with the immigration comment. That is simply ludicrous, and the fact that you claim he wasn't going anywhere in the polls until he did that just shows you'll invent false facts as needed to support your arguments. And find me a halfway reputable source saying that his comment about child labor was code language for racism. People certainly attacked it as being cruel, and a throwback to old child labor issues, but the racist view of his comment only comes from your typical race-baiters.

Per Newt's book tour, I don't remember Obama holding any book signings while he was running for president.

That's because he wasn't a professional author. If I recall correctly, Obama was supposedly employed as a U.S. Senator while running for President, and continued collecting his paychecks while running for office. I'm not sure why an author doing the same is wrong.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Fez

I've read parts of his dissertation (found here) and I must agree. He's definitely fairly smart but he's not the brilliant mind that he thinks he is. And that overestimation of himself combined with his absolutely massive ego I think has lead in the past, and will continue into future, him making decisions that he should not and ignoring the advice anyone who tells him otherwise. In the past this hasn't been a huge problem for the rest of us, as president it could be a disaster.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Stacked against Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum, then yes, Gingrich is definitely winning in the intelligence race.

Re: DanteGabriel

"Oh noes! The racist law we passed makes us look like racists!"

:lol:

Karma is not just the name of the forruner you hate.

Eat it, assholes.

Re: Raidne

For example. Here's an article on that for anyone who is interested:

http://politicaltick...r-law-comments/

Gingrich basically said that a lot of low-income kids never get a chance to learn basic things about the way the world works, i.e. that we work for pay. And he also suggests that maybe this would be the worst lesson for many kids, even before the legal age. Hell, I thought child labor laws were freaking stupid when I was 14, didn't you? I mean, he suggested that maybe 12 year olds could earn pay assisting the school librarian. Come on.

I am far from convinced that this child labor law proposal's key objective is to empower children from lower-income families. Rather, it looks to me like it's just a convenient co-opting of the liberal talking point of helping the poor as he designs a plan to bust unions and cut costs to funding public education. I'm as convinced about his alleged enlightened view on the economically-disadvantaged as I am about McDonald's commercial about how their salads support a healthy lifestyle.

But that aside, how totally predictable is it that the frame of discussion is to teach children of poor families the importance of work ethics? Is it just a coincidence that it aligns with the GOP concept of what constitutes the poor? Because, as we all know, privileged trust-fund babies totally get what work ethics is as they drop another $3.75 on a Starbucks coffee while getting their nails done. That is the GOP class warfare propaganda, and I am not going to be fooled just because it might, incidentally, also benefit some low-income family kids. If, and when, Gingrich comes up with policies that truly put the plight of the economically disadvantaged families at the heart, then I promise, I will give him credit. This child labor law reform is NOT it.

Re: FLoW

That's the kind of thing that gets Gingrich in trouble. There is absolutely nothing wring with recognizing that a lot of kids have almost no chance because of their home environment. The "single mother on crack who doesn't take care of her kids" is not a myth, and recognizing that reality isn't racist because a great many of those crack moms are white anyway. It's an issue about which we perhaps should have more discussions.

Yes, but possibly not with a party where a lot, if not most, of your members still harbor the welfare queens driving Cadillacs caricature of people on welfare. Are there drug-addicted single parents who are failing their children? For sure. If he wanted to address that, then good for him, but don't make a general policy about empowering the poor to do better by basing it off of that one type of welfare recipient. See the difference?

But as you have pointed out, it is easy to take what amounts to public brainstorming ideas and pillory the guy.

You keep saying this, but I have seen no evidence to support this interpretation other than your argument that he really isn't as outrageously tone-deaf as he appears to be, because, well, he just can't be because he's, like, smart and stuff.

"Public brainstorming?" Really? That's not even how brainstorming works, and nothing I've seen suggest to me that he might or might not believe in these claims. In fact, he pretty much holds these views and supports these claims. That's NOT brainstorming.

[TrackerNeil]

What I said was that Republicans do not value intelligence in and of itself in the same way that Democrats seems to. We're not going to prefer a really smart guy with whom we disagree over a less smart guy whose opinions are more palatable. That's because we view the direction in which a candidate wants to take the country as more important than how easily he can take us there. I'd rather hold my ground than go in the wrong direction. We are particularly mistrustful of "really smart guys" on the left who believe in more activist governments, because their hubris can lead them to believe that they really are smart enough to micromanage the rest of us.

I don't think Democrats are any more inclined than Republicans to value an intelligent candidate with whom they disagree. We do value intelligence very highly, but it seems to me that Republicans are almost suspicious of that quality.