I have to ask this: where has the Newt that showed up the other night at the South Carolina debate been? Was that Newt kidnapped or something, playing games with Death to secure his release? Because I was getting really sick and tired of evil and stupid Newt.
Right on cue, Democrats threw their predictable hissy fit over Newt Gingrich's sparring match with Fox News' Juan Williams. But do Democrats have at least an inkling of a point? Or is it that within Gingrich there exists true conservatism*?
Over at Tina Brown's failed The Daily Beast/Newsweek, Peter Beinart attempts to paint Gingrich as clueless and ignorant regarding Americans who are black. Here's how he opens:
If you want to understand why the GOP is so ill prepared to compete in an increasingly nonwhite America, just look at the exchange between Fox News questioner Juan Williams and Newt Gingrich halfway through last night’s Republican presidential debate.
Beinart then goes through the first part of the Gingrich-Williams exchange, admitting Gingrich didn't bite on Williams' initial racially-tinged question. Then, Beinart throws the race card [emphasis mine]:
Then Williams tried again, mentioning a black woman who had taken Gingrich to task for calling Barack Obama a “food stamp” president. By this point, the overwhelmingly white crowd had begun to boo the only African-American on stage.
Even with this, Beinart had to follow with the fact that Gingrich, again, didn't bite on Williams' attempt to make the exchange about race.
So after throwing the race card, Beinart then creates a soliloquy about why he believes Gingrich is not a racist. And yet, Beinart throws the race card again [emphasis mine]:
The fascinating thing about the exchange is that Gingrich is not a racist. I suspect he genuinely cares about the African-American poor. In fact, he’s convinced himself that his willingness to say things that many African-Americans consider insulting is an expression of that concern; that only he cares enough about African-Americans to speak the “politically incorrect” truths that black leaders won’t.
Note to Beinart: Gingrich was slamming all Democrat politicians. If anything, it would be more accurate if Beinart had tied the "black leaders" reference to statements made by Juan Williams, who has made it a point to be "politically incorrect" when discussing how "black leaders" have failed Americans who are black. It was Williams escaping the Democrat "plantation" of Democrat political correctness that got him chased out of the Democrats' NPR.
At this point, Beinart has thrown out the race card several times to attack Gingrich while trying to claim he doesn't believe Gingrich is a racist, saying Gingrich is merely ignorant. And yet, Beinart actually does try to imply Gingrich is a racist by deliberately misleading Gingrich's point:
Only someone profoundly ignorant of African-American politics would suggest that black Americans have spent the past few decades seeking food stamps, not jobs.
That is completely untrue. What is true, and what Gingrich said, is that Democrats of all persuasions have spent the last few decades getting Americans who are black tied to the government, saying they can't live, breathe, work, or anything else without the beneficent hand of government to lead them. Beinart himself proves my point [emphasis mine]:
If you look at the budgets proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus over the years, you’ll see that they often include huge, FDR-style government jobs programs. Gingrich may not think that’s the best way to go about providing jobs, but to suggest that African-Americans and their leaders don’t consider jobs important just reveals how shut off from Africa-American politics he actually is.
What a ridiculous statement by Beinart. First, huge, FDR-style jobs programs are a thing of the past thanks to the federal regulatory and judicial regime that has been installed over the last several decades. Democrats know this, even those in the CBC; these proposals are for show, nothing else. After all, Democrats had control of Congress for four years and the entire federal government for two of those years, and didn't pass one single huge, FDR-style jobs program for anyone, especially Americans who are black; Porkulus is proof of that. Second, the kind of jobs Beinart refers to would be jobs that pay Americans who are black to do the equivalent of digging holes and filling them in again. These are the kinds of jobs Democrats, including Democrat "black leaders", believe Americans who are black are only capable of doing? Menial, meaningless tasks? I leave it to you: who is practicing racism?
Here's the other thing. The federal government is extremely limited in assisting real job creation. It truly is up to local government to provide the environment where this can be done. But for the poor, the politicians who represent them seem to make it a point to avoid this work, directing their constituents to blame someone else. I can illustrate this with a part of Elizabeth Warren's recent diatribe on the rich since it actually applies to Democrats who represent poor areas:
You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory.
Do Democrats who represent the poor make sure roads are built and maintained? No. Do Democrats who represent the poor support good schools to educate poor children? No. Do Democrats who represent the poor support the work done by police and fire forces? No. Do Democrats who represent the poor make sure marauding bands don't overrun poor areas? No. No, no, no, and no. And you know what happens when all these noes are added up? No factory, no jobs, no taxes to pay for all these things since nobody is working, a rotting public education, a lot of crime, and a lot of blight. And it isn't just Democrats who represent the poor that are the problem. It's all Democrat politicians; the only "work" they do is expanding their list of who to blame for the various ills they bring up and making sure their constituents are given enough scraps to prove how "good" Democrat politicians are.
Going back to Beinart, he then goes and gets silly and stupid:
I’m sure Gingrich also sees nothing offensive in calling Obama the “food stamp” president. After all, under Obama the number of people using food stamps has gone up! So because Alan Greenspan presided over predatory lending policies by banks, perhaps we should have called him the “Shylock” chairman of the Federal Reserve. And if child molestations by priests rise on this administration’s watch, perhaps we should call Joseph Biden the “pedophilia” vice president.
The food stamp program is run by the federal government currently being led by President Barack Obama. And because food stamp usage has increased under Obama, the only people Gingrich supposedly "offended" for a statement even Beinart admits is true would be Obama, nobody else. But Beinart pulls out the race card yet again to be deliberately misleading. Attempting to use a Jewish slur on Greenspan has no merit since the former Fed chairman didn't run the banks Beinart accuses of having predatory lending policies. And Beinart's attack on the Catholic Church is utterly ridiculous, a complete non sequiter; the last I checked, Biden is the Vice President of the United States, not the Pope. (You know, it's amazing how Democrats like Beinart keep dredging up the priest molestation scandal to make the scandal representative of the entire Catholic Church and its adherents, yet say absolutely nothing about the pedophiles in the public school system, many who remain employed because union rules require it. But that is an item for another day.)
Now, contrast the repugnant Beinart piece with Rush Limbaugh's take on the Gingrich/Williams event (H/T: Hot Air). My words above pale by comparison to Rush, although he does have the advantage of speaking, using his voice to great effect. But do click on the link to hear it and find out what Right Scoop says about it. Then come back for a quickie point I want to make.
*I'm going to take Gingrich to task. At one point, Gingrich said this when answering Williams:
They'd [ed. note - poor kids] be getting money, which is a good thing if your poor. Only the elites despise earning money.
Up until that moment, for the last couple of weeks Gingrich had been acting like one of those elites who despise certain people earning money in order to attack Mitt Romney. These attacks were disgusting and will probably keep Gingrich from being the Republican nominee. And it is a shame because Gingrich is probably the one guy who could eat Obama for lunch in a debate without a whole lot of effort or even breaking a sweat, regardless of any baggage he may have, and presenting the best and most believable case of conservatism to the people.
If Romney is the nominee, he needs to bring in Gingrich to assist with the debates against Obama. Romney has his own baggage and some bad habits he has to expunge, and he needs to learn from Gingrich how to turn Obama's arguments against the President while also making a case for conservatism.
Cross-posted at Scipio the Metalcon.