Newt Gingrich has only been in the presidential race for a few days, but as far as I’m concerned his candidacy is already over. Gingrich decided to appear on Meet the Press this Sunday and take aim at Paul Ryan’s budget, The Path to Prosperity. Gingrich called Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering” and “too big a jump” for the American people. The statements are odd because right after the House voted on the budget Gingrich said he would have voted for it. Gingrich even wrote an article titled “From Paul Revere to Paul Ryan” praising the Ryan plan.
What is Gignrich hoping to accomplish by tacking left? It seems like someone as smart as Gingrich would know better that the left will always hate him, regardless of any bones he may send their way. What’s the point?
On Sunday, while Gingrich was trying to win over the left, Joan Walsh at Salon accused the former Speaker of “coded racism” for calling President Obama the “food stamp president.”
But when host David Gregory suggested the term had racial overtones, Gingrich replied “That’s bizarre,” and added, “I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist.” That’s not quite as extreme or silly as Donald Trump declaring “I am the least racist person there is,” but it’s up there. He also told Georgia Republicans Friday that 2012 will be the most momentous election “since 1860,” which happens to be the year we elected the anti-slavery Abraham Lincoln president, and he suggested the U.S. bring back a “voting standard” that requires voters to prove they know American history — which sounds a lot like the “poll tests” outlawed by the Voting Rights Act.
Joan Walsh’s pen, or keyboard, produced nothing when Jesse Jackson compared the current budget debate to the Civil War. That’s because her shallow white guilt doesn’t allow her to call anyone but white people racist. Using Newt Gingrich’s “history test” standard for voting it’s unlikely Walsh would be able to vote if her article is any indication. Gingrich’s idea will never be seriously considered, but it probably should. Ignorant voting is dangerous for the Republic.
Let’s face it: Raising taxes and calling people racist are the only major ideas the left has anymore. A serious candidate for president should realize this and quit trying to appease the unappeasable. The fact that Gingrich thinks he can win over the left by trashing Paul Ryan means that he’s not a serious candidate.
David Weigel is all out of apologies. Wow, he must have crossed the wrong liberal because more damaging personal information leaked out today and he’s resigning his post with the Washington Post. Today’s damning leaks came from The Daily Caller. It’s fairly obvious the Weigel is a rather disgusting journalist. I don’t really care that’s he’s liberal. That’s nothing new. I don’t care that he calls Republicans names like ratf**ker. That’s not new either. The issue I have is this:
After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.
“I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats,” Weigel wrote.
Weigel isn’t covering the news, he’s trying to shape it in the least damaging way imaginable to advance his agenda. This is “hiding the decline.” This is “fake but accurate.” Liberals like to mock conservatives for our mainstream press paranoia but there are countless examples of this type of sinister behavior.
Let the progressive martyrdom commence for Weigel. Alex Pareene at Salon is already trying to spin this story.
Weigel isn’t a “conservative blogger” — he’s a journalist covering the conservative movement. Weigel is a libertarian. He voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. Many conservatives, for some reason, took umbrage at mere existence of a reporter dedicated to explaining their movement to outsiders, as if it either wasn’t fair or legitimate to have a reporter who wasn’t part of the movement cover it.
What can I say about Alex Pareene? He’s so blinded by political bias he’s unable to be honest. Weigel isn’t a libertarian. It doesn’t matter if he voted for Ron Paul. A libertarian wouldn’t be shaping news to pass ObamaCare. Why can’t people just be honest? Weigel is a liberal, plain and simple. The only thing Pareene is upset about is the fact that another liberal journalist has been outed while masquerading as an objective reporter.
I shouldn’t even comment about this, but there’s another dismally partisan article about Iran by the perpetually depressed Glen Greenwald. What is Greenwald upset about? Well, I guess it’s now a crime to be pulling for the everyday Iranian if you have in the past supported bombing Iran to keep them from getting nuclear weapons.
Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country — actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People.
Does this mean that Americans were not allowed to pull for civilian uprisings in Japan and Germany during World War II? Someone should have told Tom Cruise about the Greenwald rule before he starred in the movie Valkyrie. According the Greenwald Rule, Americans (and other Allied nations) were not allowed to pull for the German civilians because we firebombed Dresden.
There’s no grey area with Greenwald… sorry Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg
Greenwald’s column comes off as a bitter piece of partisan drivel. He has even updated his own piece twice to revel in his self-importance. People like Greenwald are unable to see events from a non-partisan point of view. If he was writing satire I could respect that, but he’s not.
Recent Comments