Newt Gingrich and the Work Ethic
[Posted by Karl]
Newt Gingrich is currently having a good run, getting kind words from sources as far apart as New Hampshire’s Union Leader and fmr. Pres. Bill Clinton. Accordingly, he probably won’t notice if I offer a few words of criticism on the way to discussing an issue he clearly finds important.
Given that Clinton wanted to run for reelection in 1996 against the Dole-Gingrich ticket — and spent a fair amount of money linking Dole to Gingrich — the former Speaker and his supporters might consider that Clinton’s latest praise may have a tinge of mischief. Clitnon may well hope that Obama gets the chance to actually run against Newt, while Clinton had to make do with the illusion.
And why not? TIME and Newsweek made sure to introduce the last generation of voters to Newt as The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas and Uncle Scrooge for his positive comments about orphanages. After all these years out of power, Newt still has a habit of making comments easily caricatured as Dickensian.
Indeed, Newt’s characterization of child-labor laws as “truly stupid” caused NRO’s Kevin D. Williamson to neologize: “newt, [noot; nyoot] v., to put one’s foot in it while putting one’s finger on it.” I would suggest Newt made two errors here. Even if our child labor laws are stupid, they are not the most problematic barrier in our current economic stagnation, which extends well beyong the young. Even minimum wage laws are probably a bigger problem in the current context, though suggesting they be reformed or repealed would be just as easy a target for Dickensian caricature.
Of course, Newt was thinking more about the big picture, as he often does, but Newt is a problematic as a candidate at that level as well. As Williamson implies, the work ethic is as much an issue of values as policy:
Gingrich was right to say that the real value of a first job isn’t the money one earns but the lessons one learns: how to show up on time, how to be honest, how to be dependable, how to take direction, how to separate one’s personal life from one’s professional obligations, etc. Having fewer 16-year-olds working as part-time janitors does not mean that you will have proportionally more of them fine-tuning their Harvard admission essays. Having more 16-year-olds working as part-time janitors does not mean that we will have proportionally fewer rocket scientists and Ezra Pound scholars down the road. Most of our young people aren’t headed down that route.
One of the most dangerous and destructive tendencies in American public life is the upper class’s habit of generalizing its own desires, tastes, approaches, and interests onto the body politic at large. Thus did (for example) Governor Reagan help transmit the Hollywood elite’s culture of at-will divorce to the middle and lower classes. Unlike the rich and famous, the women and children of the middle and lower classes are not protected by vast amounts of money and social capital, and therefore were poorly positioned to endure the havoc that no-fault divorce wrought upon American family life, a development from which the nation probably never will recover. (Oops.) Our elites seem to be imagination-challenged, and they can never quite realize that other people are making their life choices while consulting a very different menu of options. This class blindness is the source of Karl Rove’s sputtering horror at the idea of his children “picking tomatoes.” It is also the source of Barack Obama’s managerial liberalism, which implicitly holds that if the poor ignorant wretches in the non-elite classes would only make the same life decisions as Barack and Michelle Obama, then they would get (roughly) the same outcomes. But that is not the case.
It is fairly easy to conclude that Gingrich would have some difficulty running on a family values platform, but let’s stay focused on the work ethic. Newt might be a more credible messenger on this issue than, say, Mitt Romney, who would likely be Obama’s preferred opponent for a campaign based on class warfare. However, I do not think it off-base to suggest that if you asked a random sample to describe Newt in a word, adjectives like “warm” and “cuddly” would not come up much. Fairly or not, people do not mistake him for Father Flanagan. The US still believes more in self-determination than people in Germany, Spain, Britain or France., but Newt is far from the ideal messenger on this issue.
Indeed, to come full circle, consider Gingrich’s signature achievement is making Bill Clinton sign welfare reform into law. That was largely possible because Clinton himself had campaigned on the issue. The position did not hurt Clinton much politically because, for all of his own character baggage, no one could really challenge his work ethic (albeit a Blue one) and his rise from modest circumstances. Without Clinton, Newt might be easily caricatured as the candidate of orphanages and (now) workhouses.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (4b361c) — 11/27/2011 @ 10:34 amNewt Gingrich is absolutely right, although not exactly for the reasons he says. He’s going too far in deconstructing it. He doesn’t need to deconstruct it and I think he deconsticts it wrong.
It’s not because of learning how to show up on time, being honest, taking direction, being dependable, etc. It’s because it inculcates the idea of having a job. It gets someone started in the right direction. That’s the value of having a job at age 12.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 10:45 amwhen will bill clinton
ColonelHaiku (1dad58) — 11/27/2011 @ 10:46 amhave the grace to leave Teh Stage
like Real Man would?
let’s see if pundits
ColonelHaiku (1dad58) — 11/27/2011 @ 10:47 amwork gingrich over for his
flipping and flopping
Newt Gingrich proposed that unemployment insurance (maybe past a certain point) be replaced by job training. That’s mistake. Most job training is worthless.
Herman Cain has proposed, endorsed, the idea that unemployment insurance should not come to an abrupt end, like running off a cliff, but rather, taper off.
Barack Obama has proposed
1) Tax credits for hiring the unemployed
[Problem: It is probably too difficult to actually benefit from this law – the idea will be robbed of all practical value by the triple concerns of A) preventing fraud and B) trying to prevent preventing anyone who would be hired anyway from causing a business to qualify for this credit – he wants extremely high efficiency from this tax credit, but if passed, he’ll actually get near zero because the only companies using it will be ones gaming the system) and C) trying to limit the cost of the tax credit to the budget.
2) making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of being unemployed just like it is illegal todiscriminate on the basis of age.
[Problem: There are very few as yet outright policies or ads against hiring the unemployed, but if statistical cases are allowed, every corporration is guilty. better to go with tax a credit – one that is designed to work. That is A) automatic and B) High
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 10:55 amGingrich and his floozy wife are not of good character … that doesn’t mean he can’t be president and she can’t be first lady – the presidency is the province of whores and cowards anymore and sheesh look who’s in there now, but still it is what it is
I’d vote for him if he got the nomination
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:02 amfeets,
I’d take Newt over Obama also. But he would have to get elected, which may require him to douse himself in gas and light himself on fire less often.
Karl (4b361c) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:15 amBarry Obama
ColonelHaiku (1dad58) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:24 amis the Twelfth Narcisimam
hidden in mirror
this whole process is definitely becoming painful to watch Mr. Karl
I’m at the point where I’m like whatever you kids decide is fine
but chop chop
why are Santorum and Bachmann still in the race? And Perry is damaging himself immensely has his quest for the presidency become a quest for redemption? It’s starting to feel that way.
I’m still not sold on the third nine, Mr. Herman.
Why does Wall Street Romney keep acting like a nervous little yippy dog can’t they adjust his meds?
Huntsman deserves an award for being the most repellent Team R candidate since forever.
And Ron Paul forgets that even if he got the nomination he still has that uncomfortable racism problem.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:27 amand one more thing enough about immigration … enough already it’s all you ones want to yammer about and it’s not even core concern given America’s parlous finances … and should we ever get our economy back on a growth stance we’re gonna be needing some immigrants… especially when the greedy boomers retire and want they gubmint check
except for Mr. Governor Rick why all youse R candidates gotta be h8n?
It’s a character flaw is what it is.
Gingrich and Romney need to explain their obscene global warming fetishes far more than they need to explain how much and to what degree they be h8n our amigos del sur.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:33 am*a* core concern I mean
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:34 amMr. Feets – I doan unnerstan why you keep bringing the h8 on the floozies.
If it weren’t for floozies I wouldn’t have had much fun when I was younger.
Stop being a h8r.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:44 amMisogyfeets is baaaaaacccck!!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:46 amMaybe I’m the only one but there are things I like about all the Republican candidates and I think this is a good field. I guess it helps that I’ve reached a point in my life where I realize there will never be a perfect candidate and, in fact, the ones who run will rarely be the best America has to offer. It also helps that I realize no matter how great someone might be as a candidate, it doesn’t matter if he or she won’t run.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:49 amGingrich deserves credit for at least having the stones to give something other than the standard response to the What would you do with the 11 million illegals already here? question. While the other candidates (aside from Ron Paul) gingerly tiptoe around answering it specifically with anything other than the rote We need to secure the border first spiel while simultaneously avoiding answering directly, Gingrich at least show some boldness with his response. This is not an approval/disapproval of said response but rather a taking note of his boldness.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:50 amMr. daley the home-wrecking tiffany-lurving 23-years-younger sex kitten will be a considerable anchor around Newt’s neck … M’chelle and Laura were always popular among their respective bases…
That’s an asset Gingrich won’t have.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:52 amSorry sweetiefeets they can come back in the legal way.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:52 amI agree Dana I liked Newt’s answer on immigration … but not so much his attempts to walk it back
immigration simply shouldn’t be as central to the overall debate as it is whilst our pathetic little country is plummeting into a terrifying abyss of debt and fail from which there will be no hope of return
some kind of trickery is afoot
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:55 amComment by happyfeet — 11/27/2011 @ 11:33 am
except for Mr. Governor Rick why all youse R candidates gotta be h8n?
It’s a character flaw is what it is.
It shows you the power of an idea. In this case it’s the idea of enforcing the law, even if, or maybe even especially because, it’s a harsh law.
Talk radio hosts have been propagandizing the American people about this since 1974, without anybody really trying to rebut them, in principle
This idea has to be struck dead and killed.
In the meantime, it’s like the idea of socialism.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 11:56 amThis won’t end until amnesty is passed, and not just amnesty for those people who have already come to the United States, but for those who are yet to come, specifying under what conditions this will happen. One suggestion: After being here seven years. This was the policy in medievel England with regard to serfs who left the manor.
Another way out is make amnesty irrelevant, by making it possible for anyone with real ties to the United States to immigrate legally. Then people who never were in the United Stttes and those already here can be treated equally.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:00 pmwell said… the immigrants what come here even illegally to work are of better character and of much more value to America than the scads of whiny occupy monkeys what we’ve produced in no small number I think Mr. Finkelman, and a damn sight more productive
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:02 pmNext person to praise Gingrich is Debbie-Whataman-Schultz.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:04 pmby making it possible for anyone with real ties to the United States to immigrate legally.
Therein lies the rub: A definition of terms is not going to be easy – precisely what constitutes “real ties to the United States”? Who determines the standard? What are the limitations? What is the time constraint? Etc., etc., etc…
I believe those who are quick to say Deport them all! are naive and lack a sense of the bigger picture. Do we simply drive buses across the border with 11 million people (80 people to a bus, 11 million people… 137,500 buses…) and dump them out at some designated town? What are the practicalities or rather and more importantly, what are the impracticalities and how can they be overcome?
Because if a conservative takes the win (other than Gingrich) and they are held to their claim that they will send them back or held to the vague claim of Securing the border first and then we can discuss what to do with 11 million already here, a decision will be expected from that candidate.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:09 pmcolonel be goddamed
ColonelHaiku (1dad58) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:09 pmif colon powell doesn’t
have head up own ass
If we become a 3rd world country the illegals will self-deport or not.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:14 pmI agree Dana I liked Newt’s answer on immigration … but not so much his attempts to walk it back
hf, I like that he *answered* the question – I have mixed feelings about said answer, however….
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:15 pmoh. Got it.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:17 pm“I guess it helps that I’ve reached a point in my life where I realize there will never be a perfect candidate and, in fact, the ones who run will rarely be the best America has to offer.”
DRJ – Not me. Ima stay home next year unless the perfect conservative candidate runs or my guy wins the nomination, because that is just way more important than beating Obama.
So there!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:22 pmIt would seem another issue with Gingrich’s response to the immigration issue is the demeaning tone he takes toward the more hardline conservative view toward border enforcement.
Clearly, this issue had a negative impact on Rick Perry’s campaign and he has yet to regain lost ground.
But interestingly, Newt’s numbers keep going up…
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:24 pm“Mr. daley the home-wrecking tiffany-lurving 23-years-younger sex kitten will be a considerable anchor around Newt’s neck”
Misogyfeets – Why you gotta be hating on the wimmins? Did Callista force Newt to have sechs with her? Who puts these ideas in your head?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:28 pmshe’s not very America Mr. daley, simple as that
you might be be surprised at the statistics of how few women are inclined to throw their legs wide open for a married man 23 years their senior
they’re really not as common as you’d guess from watching the CW
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:32 pmMisogyfeets – An doan be dissing sex kittens ’til you’ve tried one. You can order them cheep from Russia these days. Tiffany’s loving optional.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:33 pmwe will see Mr. daley but for now you can file Newt’s Callista problem under Bold Predictions
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:34 pmYeah Dana.
Yeah you upset that a woman didn’t throw their wide legs open for you crappyfeet?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:34 pmyou might be be surprised at the statistics of how few women are inclined to throw their legs wide open for a married man 23 years their senior
purely anecdotal or personal experience, happy?
ColonelHaiku (1dad58) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:35 pmHe’s just jealous that Rick Perry didn’t throw open his legs.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:38 pm“you might be be surprised at the statistics of how few women are inclined to throw their legs wide open for a married man 23 years their senior”
Misogyfeets – Please surprise me with those statistics. I hope you have a peer reviewed study from a reputable scientific journal to cite.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:38 pmshe’d without question be the sluttiest first lady in any of our lifetimes I think Mr. Colonel
maybe in all of history
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:39 pmMr. daley I’m more interested in the statistics of the Rs who approve of Newt’s slutty wife but think letting gay people marry would be detrimental to the institution of marriage
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:42 pm“you might be be surprised at the statistics of how few women are inclined to throw their legs wide open for a married man 23 years their senior”
Misogyfeets – It did not seem to present any kind of obstacle for Bill Clinton, not that I am comparing Bill Clinton to Newt, but there you have it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:43 pmBill Clinton had the media on his side though. Mr. Newt won’t.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:44 pmI think Sweetiefeets is real slutty.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:45 pmABC actually brought Bill Maher’s show over from Comedy Central just to have a platform to defend poor herpetic crooked-dick Bill
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:46 pm“Mr. daley I’m more interested in the statistics of the Rs who approve of Newt’s slutty wife but think letting gay people marry would be detrimental to the institution of marriage”
Misogyfeets – I don’t see the connection. Are you saying all gay people are as big man whores as Callista is a slut or something and thus must be condemned?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:48 pm“It is fairly easy to conclude that Gingrich would have some difficulty running on a family values platform, but let’s stay focused on the work ethic.”
Newt supposedly told his wife on her death bed that he was divorcing her:
1) That dying wife is still alive;
AZ Bob (6f1e2b) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:52 pm2) That dying wife had earlier told him she wanted a divorce;
3) I forgot the third thing. Ooops!
We need to reform Social Secuirty Medicare or Medicaid.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:52 pmto be clear Mr. Bob, the hoochie he cheated with on his not-dying cancer wife was the one he cheated on with slutty slutty Callista
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:55 pmMisogyfeets – Wanna go to a Monster Truck Prayer Rally?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 12:58 pmcan’t we just get the t-shirt?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 1:01 pmAnyone who hates Ron Paul has no right to vote or something.
/Sarcasm off
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 1:02 pmAwwwwww poor Happyfeet you just mad because Rick Perry didn’t spread hos legs for you.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 1:10 pmI don’t understand why the rich are villified for making money while Michael Moore is lionized?
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 1:12 pmdaley: DING!
PatAZ (c65c00) — 11/27/2011 @ 1:17 pmPatAZ: DONG!
Callista: where?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 1:34 pmPatAZ-Rick Perry’s dong.
Crapfeet-Where?
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 1:54 pmHowever, I do not think it off-base to suggest that if you asked a random sample to describe Newt in a word, adjectives like “warm” and “cuddly” would not come up much. Fairly or not, people do not mistake him for Father Flanagan.
It sounds like you see it as a negative that Newt is not considered warm and cuddly by conservatives. The conservatives I know don’t want warm and cuddly, and would likely see a candidate that does bring that first to mind as a weakness. They want smart, disciplined and someone non-wavering in their representation of conservative values. Warm and cuddly doesn’t even enter the picture. Whether or not Newt fits this bill, however, is another debate in itself. Am I missing something here?
The US still believes more in self-determination than people in Germany, Spain, Britain or France., but Newt is far from the ideal messenger on this issue.
Would you explain why you believe Newt to be “far” from the ideal messenger in this?
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/27/2011 @ 1:56 pmHello.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 1:57 pmAmity Shlaes offers another look at Newt as well,
Gingrich doesn’t project electability or character in the sense we usually mean. “Character” is what you want your daughter to marry. You don’t want your daughter to marry Newt. Nor does he have the purity of inexperience — Gingrich isn’t like Palin or Herman Cain. He’s an insider’s insider, with all the dirt and baggage that connotes.
But Gingrich does project a terrifying authority of policy knowledge. Voters have been warming to Gingrich because he’s right — about the budget, about Social Security reform, about plenty of other substantive themes he’s elaborated on since the debates began.
Gingrich’s responses are filled with fresh ideas and concrete examples.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/27/2011 @ 2:01 pmMy comments aren’t showing up.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 2:05 pmOh wait.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 2:06 pmYet Newt’s instincts have led to to poor choices, flacking for Freddie MAc, AGW, school reform with
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 2:20 pmAl Sharpton, walking away from Iraq during difficult
times.
“Warm and cuddly doesn’t even enter the picture.”
Dana – Agree 100%.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 2:30 pmhe just needs to make sure he doesn’t make his crabby face too often
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 2:36 pmThe reason Clinton kept tying Dole to Gingrich in 1996 was the government shutdown in 1995. It was highly unpopular, and common sentiment blamed Gingrich for it. Clinton wanted the public to associate Dole with the then unpopular Gingrich.
It’s a different ballgame today. Gingrich doesn’t have that negative hanging around him anymore.
Chuck Bartowski (69b74e) — 11/27/2011 @ 2:38 pmThere seem to be some people commenting here today who seek to deny Newton pleasure in his late middle aged personal life– and to thwart job advancement in the twilight of his professional life. That seems kind of narrow minded and mean if you ask me. Life is not a dress rehearsal, you know.
elissa (fe1702) — 11/27/2011 @ 2:54 pmSF: by making it possible for anyone with real ties to the United States to immigrate legally.
Comment by Dana — 11/27/2011 @ 12:09 pm
Therein lies the rub: A definition of terms is not going to be easy – precisely what constitutes “real ties to the United States”? Who determines the standard? What are the limitations? What is the time constraint? Etc.,
etc., etc…
You wouldn’t write that into the law, but you would write a law that had that practical effect.
If you wanted you could use a few tests: Length of time in the United States, legally or not and temporary or not, (if unrecorded methods to prove it) number of visits, close friends or family who will attest to knowledge of person, school attendance, knowledge of English, old pictures including person and U.S. citizens, old mail, membership in U.S. based organizations, and assign each of those things points, and score it using a point system, but it is better to do it indirectly. One idea is paying in X number of Dollars into the Social Security system past or present (and don’t get too difficult about the problem of whose work record is that) You could add a job offer (usually would indicate ties to the United States. Purchase of a house.
The big problem is this: The quota. Absolute limitation on number of legal immigrants.
Everything nowadays is on a quota system, except I think marriages, and the quota is far too low.
The 2007 immigration bill was doomed from the start, because the first thing the proponents of comprehensive immigration reform agreed to was that they would agree on a quota. That destroyed the bill. The bill was not salvagable once a quota was agreed to. People like John Kyl argued a quota that without a quota and eligibility for relatives, some unimaginable number of people would be eligible in 20 years. They were actually counting the same multiply eligible people and assuming everybody that had a possibility would be interested in going to the United States. But it doesn’t matter. A quota destroyed the bill. People from immigrant heavy states would not agree to anything that reduced the possibilities for family migration that existed now in the law, and keeping the numbers as they were or raising it only a little, meant that economically valuable taxpaying immigrant could not be admitted.
Any immigration bill must have no numbers in it.
It may allow say the Secretary of Labor or Secretary of agriculture or Secretary of State or whatever to periodically change the criteria for immigration, and use numbers as part of the reason for adjusting them, but there must not be any numbers in the executable portion of the law.
If you have quotas you have one of three things:
1) The number is so high it might as well not exist. That was the case for immigration from Ireland 1921-1965. The quota was higher than the number of people who wanted to use it, at least counting only those who met all the other conditions.
2) the number is way below the demand and you get waiting lists, sometimes years long waiting lists. The law does not meet its purpose. By the way, that’s true also for anything else – a quota for Head Start or school vouchers for instance. Or any kind of government benefit.
3) The quota is at least 50% of the demand. Then it mainly has the effect of putting in some delay and discouraging people but because it doesn’t cut it too much, it’s still workable, and discourages the least interested people.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 2:57 pm“That seems kind of narrow minded and mean if you ask me.”
elissa – Almost like they had an agenda or sumpin.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:00 pmNow the biggest lobby is Numbers USA, which cares only about numbers.
Now if really evil sinister motive for this existence of this group could be proven, that could help a lot. Someone has got find out the secret behind it.
You notice it’s also against the 14th Amendment as currently understood.
And it will use any kind of specious argument too.
I suppose what they are really for is corruption, exploitation and blackmail – they want the law to be to be variance with reality.
Nothing matter except keeping the population of the United States lower. I’m not sure they really say why.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:05 pmIf there is any organization in the United States, that could be described as satanic, that’s it.
Isn’t Newt the same idiot who said to make nice with the NAACP?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:09 pmComment by Dana — 11/27/2011 @ 11:50 am
Gingrich deserves credit for at least having the stones to give something other than the standard response to the What would you do with the 11 million illegals already here? question.
According to Bill Kristol he raised the issue deliberately in the last debate.
I think it’s actually this: Gingrich actually wants to pass a law. He can’t get a law passed, he thinks, unless he advocates that position in the campaign, and as early as possible. He’s willing to lose a few primaries if he has to. He’s actually serious about being president.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:09 pmI didn’t stop the italics again at the end of the quote!
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:10 pmNewt benefits a lot by all the other people in the debates coming across as stupid or annoying or weird… but when we get to the general election debates matter hardly at all … what matters is which narrative prevails, and Newt and Miss Sugarbritches are gonna have a real struggle on their hands if he’s the nominee I think.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:16 pmComment by happyfeet — 11/27/2011 @ 11:55 am
some kind of trickery is afoot
Some kind of trickery has been afoot for 37 years.
Or possibly about 126 years, since 1885, when this idea that a country was better off with fewer people stated taking hold. I just wish I knew the name of the defunct economist who started all this. This argument doesn’t even care about demographics, just numbers.
I don’t know who stated this lobbying about “illegal aliens” Only a bureaucrat could think that way. It is illegal for the CIA to propagandize the American people. But not I guess for other government agencies.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:16 pmComment by Dana — 11/27/2011 @ 12:09 pm
I believe those who are quick to say Deport them all! are naive and lack a sense of the bigger picture. Do we simply drive buses across the border with 11 million people (80 people to a bus, 11 million people… 137,500 buses…) and dump them out at some designated town? What are the practicalities or rather and more importantly, what are the impracticalities and how can they be overcome?
They are not saying deport them. For a few years they’ve been saying: attrition.
In other words, keep the situation exactly the way it is. There is no possibility forany kindof a change except to make the situation more intolerable so long as anybody goes along with these arguments.
There are people who benefit from the status quo.
I am sure there are opportunities for bribery, to process applications, to look the other way, to act quickly when the right person complains….
And then if people are protecting some illegals, they can be blackmailed, they can be threatened.
This really helps organized crimea nd other corruption.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:23 pmComment by Dana — 11/27/2011 @ 12:09 pm
Because if a conservative takes the win (other than Gingrich) and they are held to their claim that they will send them back or held to the vague claim of Securing the border first and then we can discuss what to do with 11 million already here, a decision will be expected from that candidate.
No, the current slogan of the restrictions is attrition. All they want to do for the 11 million is make things more difficult for them and drive more of the economy underground. What we have really is arguments for inaction. Even if we agree that in certain respects the law should be liberalized that is all supposed to wait for a day that will never come.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:27 pmagain, I didn’t get rid of italics.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:28 pmWBC hates anyone on the right or left.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:28 pmHuh? What exactly was he supposed to do about it?
Milhouse (2dac9b) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:30 pmNope. This time he’s talking about an actual floozie, a woman who played the harlot with a man she knew very well to be married. That’s pretty much the definition of a floozie, so feets is not being misogynist by calling her one.
Milhouse (2dac9b) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:35 pmthank you Mr. Milhouse I’m rather of the same mind as you in this matter
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:36 pmI benefited greatly by having jobs as a minor, particularly a paper route I ran for 4 years during high school. To say that poor children (many of whom are in danger of getting into ILLEGAL jobs to support themselves) should be prevented from working legally is, indeed, stupid.
I think the public is hungering for a politician who will speak to them as if they had a brain, rather than the incredible condescension that characterizes modern politics (and particularly the negative ad).
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:36 pmEh.
🙄 Is Happyfeet just jealous about Rick Perry not opening his legs for him?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:37 pm😯 Don’t worry Happy.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:37 pmRomney reminder:
My plan is this, which is for those that have come here illegally and are here illegally today, no amnesty. Now, how do people return home? Under the ideal setting, at least in my view, you say to those who have just come in recently, we’re going to send you back home immediately, we’re not going to let you stay here. You just go back home. For those that have been here, let’s say, five years, and have kids in school, you allow kids to complete the school year, you allow people to make their arrangements, and allow them to return back home. Those that have been here a long time, with kids that have responsibilities here and so forth, you let stay enough time to organize their affairs and go home. Source: 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley Jan 30, 2008
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:37 pmWall Street Romney is a compulsively pandering squack, Dana
you have to take what he says with a grain of salt
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:39 pmMr. Feets – I doan unnerstan why you keep bringing the h8 on the floozies.
Besides, Newt obviously likes floozies. NTTAWWT.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:40 pmComment by happyfeet — 11/27/2011 @ 11:55 am
I agree Dana I liked Newt’s answer on immigration … but not so much his attempts to walk it back
immigration simply shouldn’t be as central to the overall debate as it is whilst our pathetic little country is plummeting into a terrifying abyss of debt and fail from which there will be no hope of return
It doesn’t matter. The issue of immigration is now where slavery was in 1842. It’s threatening to take over every other issue.
It wouldn’t maybe if we could continue the policy of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” [now President Barack Obama’s very official policy goal] but the whole goal of the lobbying is to make that impossible.
Obama tried enforcement. It didn’t help.
Now, worried about the election, he’s trying non-enforcement, with specified carved out exceptions not passed by Congress.
By the way, in 2007, he was a somewhat unexpected vote for a poison pill amendment (that placed a term limit of the guest worker program,)
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:41 pmAnd yet Hispanics voted against the candidate, who moved ‘heaven and earth’ in favor of their interests, it’s almost as if the truth doesn’t matter.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:44 pmIt’s threatening to take over every other issue.
what could counter this is leadership – but don’t look to Wall Street Romney or Herman Cain or that Bachmann chick – they’re all quite resolute in their pretense that the errant mexican menace is THE most important issue of the moment
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:46 pmIsn’t Newt the same idiot who said to make nice with the NAACP?
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:48 pmWithin my lifetime, most NAACP members were registered Republicans. Somewhere between Goldwater’s loud opposition to the Public Accommodations Act (masking the ACTUAL opposition from Democrats) and Nixon’s Southern Strategy, this changed. Who were the idiots?
The beautiful idea of the US as a nation of immigrants is encapsulated in the soup melting pot. A little bit of this, a little bit of that–always adding something and somebody new to spice things up, or smooth things out, and to keep the soup bubbling and vital and flavorful with new combinations. But extra big doses of a single new ingredient in the melting pot over a short period of time can cause both an untasty and unhealthy soup and mask the subtle old and beloved flavors. Cooks know this. Most Americans do too. Now, we just need to figure out how to save the pot of soup and make it more palatable now that too much of one thing was added in far too quickly, even though everyone agrees that a smaller amount of that same ingredient is wonderful.
elissa (fe1702) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:50 pmAmerica has way bigger problems than soup … this is a pathetic little country whose finances would utterly implode should it ever see a 4% prime rate again
this is not Pablo’s fault this is not Marisol’s fault this is not Julio’s fault this is the fault of the cowardly whores in our congress and in our white house
ay caramba
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:54 pm“Nope. This time he’s talking about an actual floozie, a woman who played the harlot with a man she knew very well to be married. That’s pretty much the definition of a floozie, so feets is not being misogynist by calling her one.”
A hopeless group of romantics is what we have on this blog.
Misogynist is the right word for Mr. Feet for his pattern of references to women, sorry, Mr. Milhouse.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:54 pmMr Feets–I thought you of all people could relate to the tasty soup situation.
elissa (fe1702) — 11/27/2011 @ 3:59 pmNo he said we have to make nice with the Democrap backed NAACP.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:00 pmthat’s not true Mr. daley women and men – the whorish ones – they get pretty much the same welcome from me whether it’s Meghan’s cowardly whore of a father or a white trash attention-craving quitter from Alaska they can all suck it EQUALLY I think
elissa I love the soup thing and as far as it goes I think you’re right – just that I think it’s safe to put the soup on the back burner, just for the nonce
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:01 pmoh. if it ever *sees* a 4% prime rate again I mean
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:03 pmThat attitude is why you deserve Jerry Brown, pikachu, savor the epic fail, and Mittens campaign will be just a larger version of the Whitman campaign,
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:07 pmalso I think, with respect to the soup-makings, that the mexican folk are too often treated as if they were homogenous – nothing could be less true – mexicans are just like skittles, really
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:08 pmwhaaaa?
I do not deserve Jerry Brown he’s striving mightily to upend my future as a California person
and sooner than I ever expected
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:09 pmMittens campaign will be just a larger version of the Whitman campaign
I fear there is truth in what you say, dear narcisso. But Romney is much more attacky than Meg ever was and he’s about a hundred times less clueless.
Plus he would be running against a complete and utter farce. This in particular would be a key difference between the campaigns of Wall Street Romney and the hapless Meg.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:13 pmI agree, which is why I said “this time” he was not being misogynist.
Milhouse (2dac9b) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:14 pmet tu, Milhouse?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:15 pmIf Marisol Julio or Oswaldo came here legally I would not mind you scumbag.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:18 pmthen together we can say bienvenidos, Oswaldo!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:19 pmFrom William Jacobsen;
Frum has announced that unless Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman is the nominee, he may leave the Republican Party:
Any other nominee would gravely test my commitment to the political party I’ve supported since I entered the United States as a college student in the fall of 1978.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:23 pmFrum is a Republican? Who knew?
PatAZ (c65c00) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:30 pmExactly. There are essentially two reasons why we don’t just have an open border. One is legitimate: to keep out dangerous people, such as criminals, terrorists, and carriers of nasty infectious diseases, as well as people who just want to take advantage of our generosity and have no intention of helping our economy grow with their work. The other reason, however, is very illegitimate: protectionism. (That’s not even counting the third reason which nobody will admit: racism.)
Free trade is the very foundation of what is now called the conservative movement. And all the arguments for free trade in goods and services apply equally to labor. Anyone who doesn’t believe in free trade should in my opinion get the hell out of the GOP. We don’t need any more Pat Buchanans. Anyone who wants to come to the USA in order to work and make money and support his family ought to be welcomed with open arms. It is a fundamental human right to further oneself and change ones circumstances by leaving ones country and moving to a better one.
Which leaves only the other reason for restrictions: There are some very nasty people in the world, and while we have a lot of them here, there are a lot more elsewhere, and we don’t need any more, thank you very much. Until 10-Sep-2001 I was an open-borders guy. But now I think we need to close the border to stop people from coming in at random, and instead control who comes in by making them enter at fixed points where they can be screened for nastiness. And if they do come in and demonstrate that they were not the sort of person we want here, then they should be tossed back over the fence. But by the same token if someone gets here, by whatever means, and demonstrates that they are the sort of person we want here, the sort of person we really ought to have given a visa to in the first place, then we should recognise and correct our mistake.
Thus I’m against e-verify, I’m against all laws placing a burden on employers to determine who their workers are and where they’re from. A job applicant’s immigration status shouldn’t be the boss’s business, and so long as he is working hard and not committing any crimes nobody should be asking him for papers. The question just shouldn’t come up. The only time immigration status should be checked, once someone is in the country, is when someone is arrested for a violent crime, or otherwise turns out to be someone we would like to get rid of if we can.
Will such a policy create a magnet for more immigrants? You betcha. I hope it will; because the sort of people who would be drawn by such a magnet are precisely the kind of people we should want to attract. The undesirables will be repelled by such a magnet, like other magnets with the same polarity.
Milhouse (2dac9b) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:33 pmBuh bye. Please make sure the door clicks shut behind you, and if you see the paper on the step please toss it in.
Milhouse (2dac9b) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:35 pmbeautifully and succinctly said and I agree with your thinkings on e-verify exactly
Anyone who wants to come to the USA in order to work and make money and support his family ought to be welcomed with open arms.
it really is just that simple
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:38 pm58. Yeah.
14. “Maybe I’m the only one but there are things I like about all the Republican candidates”
Romney is tall, Newt can talk ‘Conservative’, Bachmann is conservative.
‘Spose so.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:39 pm_______________________________________________
They are not saying deport them. For a few years they’ve been saying: attrition.
All I know is that we’ve done a piss poor job of securing the borders for decades and instead substituted it with years of political correctness run amok. That alone makes both insiders (in this society legally or illegally) and outsiders (particularly people who want to cut in line in front of those going through proper, legal channels in immigrating) know that the US is one big pushover society.
Until we stop putting the proverbial cart before the horse — and finally get serious about securing the border — Gingrich or anyone else doesn’t need to shed tears about the current ambiguous nature of illegal immigrants.
well said… the immigrants what come here even illegally to work are of better character and of much more value to America
Not necessarily, happyfeet. It may be beautiful and sophisticated to sound so accommodating in general about immigration — particularly the huge amount that is in the “undocumented” category — but when people are in the middle of tough reality, they all become limousine liberals:
“I think all this talk about immigrants from south America is xenophobic and heartless!!! It’s RACIST!!! Thank God I’m a liberal and registered Democrat!!! By the way, I’m looking for a school to send my kids to. Do you have any recommendations? Psst, the public school my kids otherwise will be assigned to has a student body that is…mostly Latino.”
^ Beyond that, we’d be fools to not look at the never-ending socio-political mess that is south of the border (ie, Mexico), and wonder what the US will be like in the future if more of there becomes more of here.
Mark (411533) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:44 pmBritain is now sending money to Africa to fight Gorebull warming which doesn’t exist.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:45 pmGood then Frumturd now you can go do Charles Johnson.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:46 pmIt seems like the overwhelming majority of Republicans say we must support the GOP nominee because the most important thing is to beat Obama. However, for some Republican pundits and voters, that principle is forgotten when their chosen candidate starts to lag.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:46 pmI think Frum is in a separate category, he was miffed that Obama didn’t use his State of the Union from Esquire I believe.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:51 pmDRJ
I have an extremely hard time reconciling Romney with being a Republican regardless of his speeches – his actions show a believe in “smarter” govenment – not less government
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:53 pmshow a belief – sorry not show a believe
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/27/2011 @ 4:54 pmDude Frum should go join Al Gore and whine about the threats of gorebull warming 50 years from now.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:06 pmHappy and Milhouse–
IMO, we can have open borders, low taxes, and few/no entitlements–a true capitalist/libertarian society. (sink or swim)
OR,
We can have a liberal social democracy with lots of entitlements, subsidies, welfare, (and high taxes to pay for it all) ALONG WITH a very tightly controlled immigration policy to keep criminals out, and the population in balance to what the country needs to function and can reasonably support.
What we CAN’T have is the toxic combination of wide open borders AND a benevolent social democracy (as defined above and as is failing across Europe) and expect to survive as a sovereign country. That’s where we seem to be going, though–full speed ahead. Americans who are concerned about immigration are addressing this aspect. Most are not racist or xenophobic. They’re being realists, and are looking at the spendings through this lens, I think
elissa (fe1702) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:09 pmI vote for the former but like Mr. Milhouse said there is a for reals security concern… but we’re a long long way from addressing that
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:13 pmelissa
I agree, but I ponder how illegal aliens get all the benefits of our benevolent society when all fedeal programs require proof of citizenship? as do allmost all state programs as well
I wonde why people come here to wor and pay taxes without any benefit except the chance to better themselves and how a fence is any kind of impediment to the human spirit of wanting a btter life?
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:21 pmActually they don’t and here’s why;
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38409
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:22 pmnot true narcisco – the parents have to be citizens – True the babie – and it is an american citizen gets wic – foodstamps – but thats about it
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:29 pmI am my own anchor baby
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:31 pmYou shittin me?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:34 pmYour shatting me.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:35 pmQuestion, what is the main elements of spendings at
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:35 pmthe local and state level?
and even then the government asked for their citienship status when applying for their baby
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:38 pm(That’s not even counting the third reason which nobody will admit: racism.)
Wow. Great broad brushing there.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:45 pm_________________________________________
Actually they don’t and here’s why;
The key passage from the article you linked to is…
^ And the real kicker — or the extra slap in the face — is that after all is said and done, a large percentage of such people (based on things like rates of literacy and academic achievement) won’t even be creating and nurturing an enviable, healthy, prosperous society in the future.
Observers and pundits who say otherwise? Okay, they just better not dare act like the classic limousine or latte liberal when they’re in the middle of cold, tough reality. But in most instances, you know they will.
True the babie[s]
And other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Mark (411533) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:45 pmThank you for posting that @123, Narciso. In addition to the illegals’ anchor babies who immediately upon birth become U.S. citizens, the sainted proof of citizenship requirement argument has more holes than swiss cheese when you incorporate the fraud, stolen identities, non-taxed cash commerce, on-demand “emergency services”, and the special blessings and perks provided in our openly law breaking Sanctuary Cities.
Anyone who suggests that non-citizens do not regularly benefit from our current high cost and broad entitlement and welfare culture, is either unbelievably naive or is being purposefully quite disingenuous, I think.
elissa (fe1702) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:49 pmYou don’t get half million dollar ‘revolving accounts’ at Tiffanys without a strong work ethic featuring somewhere in the process, just sayin. Having said that, it would be well worth the effort by someone in the righty blogosphere, to examine the ethics of exactly how Newt goes about earning his crust.
Spartacvs (b8fad1) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:52 pmMark
California allows it, Texas and the other states dont – and still thats not a court case thats just a prop piece
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:53 pmSpurty never fails to be an imbecile.
JD (318f81) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:54 pmalso baby births dont cost 15,000 either
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:55 pmSpurty, Well, with respect to earnings I am willing to bet that (in contrast to the current occupant of the WH) Newt prolly writes his own books and articles.
elissa (fe1702) — 11/27/2011 @ 5:59 pmelissa
Or anyone who thinks that all illegals are here to steal benefits are disgusting human beings who condemn people afer posting quite racially tinged comments in a thread while declaring themselves to be above the fray while wallowing in the gutter of recipes and mixtures adn upsetting the “balance”
just an observation..
Its thanksgiving weekend, racists turn my stomach, of course thats a general observation – against me
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:05 pmElissa – ignore it.
JD (318f81) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:07 pmJD–Yes. That’s a good plan, I think.
elissa (fe1702) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:14 pmelissa
yes please ignore it – in fact why dont you try to imagine looking at what you erote and be thankful that your recipes are in balance and your friends and neighbors, relatives and co workers dont see it
Yes thats a great reccomendation – and when you go off on one of your screeds again – lets not bring it up – your total grabs at stats without documentation and your views on what balance “is”
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:14 pm132. Meanwhile Jon Corzine gets a pass and Warren Buffett gets admiration.
Newt’s personal worth $6.7 Million, Daddy Warbucks.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:19 pmAhhhhhhhhhhhh yes those poor illegals.
ESAD eric.
By the way Israel will attack Iran thus preventing an EMP attack IMO.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:22 pm140. Ophthalmic Redwood Alert!!!
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:24 pmMany details like that footnote are left out of the picture,
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/11/silence-of-mainstream-media.html
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:37 pmSo let me get this straight opposing illegals is racist but falsely accusing the duke lacrosse players of raping Gail Crystal Magnum because they were white is not?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:39 pmThe enclosed Time link, is worthy of blind squirrel,
Ken Ashford
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/11/23/climategate-2-a-weak-sequel/
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:41 pmAnd Jimmy the useful idiot carter deserves to be villified for his handling of the Iran hostage crisis and sucking up to communists.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:51 pmElissa – consider yourself in good company, being the target of yet another baseless smear from the joooooooo counter.
JD (318f81) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:57 pmThey run a whole host of scams, whether ‘hiding the decline’ creating the astroturf behind Campaign Finance Reform, or the demand for subprime mortgage debt, or the Levick Group and Seton Hall’s Gitmo
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 6:58 pmdetainee effort.
And by the way EPAbots why can’t congress pass laws regulating pollution instead of the EPA.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:03 pm“I agree, which is why I said “this time” he was not being misogynist.”
Milhouse – Missed your “this time” reference. My bad.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:25 pmThe rich left-wing get richer while they destroy our jobs and they have the audacity to accuse rich right-wingers of getting rich at our expense?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:33 pm_____________________________________________
Or anyone who thinks that all illegals are here to steal benefits
Eric, I didn’t notice Elissa qualifying her comments with “all.” To paraphrase, she mentioned “non-citizens…regularly benefit from…,” and everything else she stated is borne out of hard, cold reality. So why should anyone noting that 2-plus-2-equals-four be embarrassed in front of friends, family, co-workers, etc?
Moreover, those who will be most resentful or indignant (and most likely to proclaim “racist!” “xenophobe!” “bigot!”) when tough truths are acknowledged probably are — and, yes, this is a generalization too, but it’s often applicable — “limousine liberals.” And one doesn’t have to be wealthy to be guilty of that two-faced, phony behavior, that form of supposed tolerance, compassion and sophistication.
Mark (411533) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:35 pmNewt, has this penchant for saying provocative things, that often have limited applicability,
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:36 pmOoooh, My fav article of the day. Juice Box Journalista Ezra “briefs” a group of senate Democrat Chiefs of staff.
Below is the email FBDC sent to Ezra–
“Hi Ezra,
Hope you’re headed into a great Thanksgiving holiday and hope you get the wishbone. Wanted to ask you about a briefing you gave to Senate Democratic Chiefs of Staff last Friday. Why were you briefing them? Isn’t a reporter supposed to be briefed by lawmakers and aides, not the other way around? Do you see this as a breach of ethics? If not, how do you see it?
Thank you.”
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/wapos-ezra-should-have-de-kleined_b56658
elissa (fe1702) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:37 pmAll illegals have committed a crime by sneaking over our border no matter what race they are.
How many times do we have to drill that into your thick skull Eric?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:38 pmMaybe Frum would like to revise and extend his remarks;
http://pjmedia.com/blog/huntsmans-disqualifying-distortion-about-vietnam/
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:45 pmWell, Sporty, I would say the left is doing the job of exposing all of Gingrich’s faults.
Who Tiffany’s extends credit to is that company’s business. It’s not a moral nor ethical benchmark. I don’t know why you think it is.
I mean, after all, there may be a blue box under Michelle’s Christmas tree this year.
Regardless, who cares?
Ag80 (ec45d6) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:45 pmSo when a 34 year old Harvard Law grad with little accomplishments to his names, score a multi million dollar book deal,’look squirrel’
narciso (ef1619) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:48 pmYeah Chuckles Schumer punish the rich who work hard for their money but do not raise taxes on those who get rich via shady business dealings.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:55 pmpunish those rich leftys that is.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 7:55 pmAnyone who voted for Obama has no right to call others communists.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 8:08 pmit would be well worth the effort by someone in the righty blogosphere, to examine the ethics of exactly how Newt goes about earning his crust.
Comment by Spartacvs — 11/27/2011 @ 5:52 pm
— Have no fear, for Sparticles earns his crust the old-fashioned way . . .
One skidmark at a time.
Icy (4acfcb) — 11/27/2011 @ 8:13 pmSpartac got any pro-mohammedian websites to troll?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 8:17 pmIn post #137 Eric called elissa a ‘disgusting human being’.
Mr. NBC (nuthin’ but class) strikes again.
Icy (4acfcb) — 11/27/2011 @ 8:30 pmwomen and men – the whorish ones – they get pretty much the same welcome from me whether it’s Meghan’s cowardly whore of a father or a white trash attention-craving quitter from Alaska they can all suck it EQUALLY I think
— Well, if it’s a choice of which one of those people you want to perform said action . . .
Icy (4acfcb) — 11/27/2011 @ 8:37 pmPalin is white trash?
Imagine the outrage from poopyfeet if someone called Moochelle black trash?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 8:51 pmI swear I’d rather listen to Icy reciting the name of 50 states while holding his breath.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 8:58 pm…Newt was thinking more about
the big picture, Newt, as he often does…There, fixed that for ‘ya. No matter how many times the gasbag get patched, The Newtonburg still manages to leak as it drifts toward its inevitable, implosive fate. Lakehurst, N.J., awaits.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 11/27/2011 @ 10:29 pmThe Left will lie about the Catholic Church and Newt Gingrich saying they oppose Birth Control for those who do not want to be pregnant when they don’t.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 10:42 pmKarl, you have transposed a couple of letters in the surname of our SecState. Google tells me that 56,000-odd other places on the interwebz, we can find the same unfortunate transposition. Some of them doubtless intended it, and intended it in a very bawdy way.
Beldar (65378a) — 11/28/2011 @ 12:25 amWhoops, same surname, but your reference was to Bubba, not the SecState. Changes the Freudian slip analysis considerably. Mea culpa.
Beldar (65378a) — 11/28/2011 @ 12:26 amAhh, if it’s Sunday, then it’s
Icy (68544b) — 11/28/2011 @ 1:57 amMeet The PressDisco Stu and His Ad Hom Spew.With apologies to JD and Elissa and to anyone who knows them:
racists turn my stomach – just a general observation
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/28/2011 @ 2:47 amhttp://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/28/newts-health-problems
narciso (ef1619) — 11/28/2011 @ 4:51 amGo f@ck yourself, Eric. I guess we should be relieved you are accusing us of racism without any foundation, as opposed to rape, grand theft, and your other fevered rantings.
JD (3d0bb5) — 11/28/2011 @ 5:33 amJD
Eh, caught defending something thats indefensible, again JD?
yeah why dont you share your mixing blending views with those who pay you and see where you come out on
america’s wmoved on JD – get with the program
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/28/2011 @ 6:16 amJD
I didnt accuse anyone of racism – just pointed out that deciding who is able to be blended coud be considered racism – by – well – Americans
but be sure to express yourself to your colleagues – your defending views that we have the right to chose our blending ingredients – go right ahead – see how it plays out there
you’re better than that JD
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/28/2011 @ 6:22 amHe doesn’t get it, whether they’re Irish, like Doherty of the IRA, or Jaziri, the Tunisian preacher, or the fellow who felled Brian Terry,
narciso (ef1619) — 11/28/2011 @ 6:33 amthe common element is their illegal status.
I did nothing of the sort, Eric. You are again a f@cking liar. And your not so veiled threat to take your crazy to real life shows how vile you are.
JD (3d0bb5) — 11/28/2011 @ 6:45 amC’mon, JD. You know it’s not a workday unless EPWJ accuses someone of something vile, and then oozes away from having done so. It’s a game, and not handled very adroitly.
Just a troll, as always.
How many times has this guy’s schtick been pointed out? And no, EPWJ, not by me—but by many, many people. You aren’t very popular around Patterico’s place because of that prior behavior. You should ask people to vote here, to find out how many people think you are a swell fellow. I think you know the answer.
And once again, you cover yourself with glory.
Same as it ever was.
Simon Jester (69b102) — 11/28/2011 @ 6:46 amDidn’t Newt support Universal Hillary healthcare?
BarackObama (ef98f0) — 11/28/2011 @ 6:52 amDamn sockpuppet.
Always happening.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/28/2011 @ 6:54 amSimon – you are right. He was right about one thing, I am better than this. I know better than to engage his particularly vile strain of asshattery. Epwj is not better than this – smears and dishonesty define him.
JD (3d0bb5) — 11/28/2011 @ 6:57 amElderly Queen with speech impediment abdicating.
No not PeeWee, Barney doesn’t have the legs to run from Urkel.
Ginrich prohibitive fave in IA and SC(Rummy 3rd), up in AZ by 5.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/28/2011 @ 7:07 amHeh Bawney won’t run for re-election.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/28/2011 @ 7:15 amJD
Sure you did – so are you saying you condemn it – nope didnt see it, its your pride, with your history of smears, lies and distortions, how can you in the same threadclaim something different
JD, your family and your colleagues must and ould be terribly dissapoined that you actively support Elissa’s “blending” and the white oops – right ingredients for the melting pot?
surely, you dont?
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/28/2011 @ 7:33 amWhy do the left hate standardized tests?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/28/2011 @ 7:33 amLiar. Effing liar. You are claiming I support something that Elissa never said. It is layers upon layers of lying, what you are doing. And it is par for the course for you.
“Sure you did”
I call your BS. Show me my exact words in support of what you claim. And, show everyone elissa’s exact words. You won’t, because you cannot. They don’t exist. You have to attribute a position to Elissa that she never espoused, in order to then lie about me supporting a position she never espoused. It is what you do.
JD (87dfcc) — 11/28/2011 @ 7:41 amhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095159/quotes
narciso (ef1619) — 11/28/2011 @ 7:46 amBy attacking me, telling elissa to ignore it – sure you did – do you actually read what you wrote?
Or are you in support of what she wrote? Is it right to write thing like that?
If you were objecting then you enjoin – this is what alot of long time commentators who have left this blog have with you – your lying disenginueous manner – with o support for your position othe than – gee if JD says it – it must be true?
Well, do you agree or diagree with comments like Elissa said and if she took the time to write something like that – what does that tell us about your eagerness to defend it?
And yes you defended it
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/28/2011 @ 7:46 amLie. That is a lie and you are a liar. I told her to ignore you, which she wisely did, because responding to your lies leads to crap like this, more lies. More smears. More imaginary positions defended. Point out your douchenozzlery does not, in any world, signify support or defense of some imaginary position you disingenuously attributed to Elissa.
Quote exactly what she actually said that offends you so. You won’t, because you have created a ficticious position that she never held, so yo could call her a racist based on something she did not say.
JD (87dfcc) — 11/28/2011 @ 7:50 amIf you were objecting then you enjoin – this is what alot of long time commentators who have left this blog have with you – your lying disenginueous manner – with o support for your position othe than – gee if JD says it – it must be true?
Is this Engrish?
JD (87dfcc) — 11/28/2011 @ 7:57 amHow Newt Gingrich Abetted the Theft of Average Joe’s Home
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-newt-gingrich-abetted-theft-of.html
The Real Newt Gingrich
http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/11/real-newt-gingrich-part-1.html
The Irrelevance of the Republican Party
Charleston Voice (f25e6b) — 11/28/2011 @ 8:04 amhttp://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2011/11/irrelevance-of-republican-party.html
Obama sucks ass he should suck less ass just as a matter of principle I think
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/28/2011 @ 8:05 amJD
In your words – Gee Eric – I’m too stupid to read what I write and the implications of my advocations – or in simple terms I’m 0 lying racist enabler who blogs anonymously so I dont lose my clients and family because I have some need to be different on a blog than in life?
Which ingredient are you – I hope I’m included elissa’s melting pot, lets hope most of us are…
Sharp edges indeed
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 11/28/2011 @ 8:06 amIf you are going to say “in your words” it should be followed by my actual words, not another fevered rant.
JD (87dfcc) — 11/28/2011 @ 8:10 amWish I could stay around and read more of your incoherent insane ranting and smears. Sound like so much fun, but alas, I cannot. Assume my response to epwj is “that is a lie, and you are a liar”.
JD (87dfcc) — 11/28/2011 @ 8:12 amWhy so serious Eric?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/28/2011 @ 8:18 amI guess I’m just an inbred bitter clinger grasping desperately to my guns and religion:
I’d a been proud to write elissa’s summation.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/28/2011 @ 8:48 amWith apologies to JD and Elissa and to anyone who knows them:
— You should begin every post this way . . . except, of course, for the slightly important fact that you didn’t really apologize.
so are you saying you condemn it – nope didnt see it, its your pride, with your history of smears, lies and distortions, how can you in the same threadclaim something different
— Are you speaking to yourself about your own false allegations of “Herman Cain is a rapist” and “Herman Cain placed an ad accusing fellow Republicans of being essentially klansmen”?
this is what alot of long time commentators who have left this blog have with you – your lying disenginueous manner
Icy (68544b) — 11/28/2011 @ 9:05 am— Seriously, look in the mirror, dude.
EricPW – Does Texas Sparkle let you write your filthy comments at her blog or have you been banned?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/28/2011 @ 9:08 amWell, do you agree or diagree with comments like Elissa said
— Yeah, JD. Do you agree? or “diagree”?
I hope I’m included elissa’s melting pot, lets hope most of us are…
— Why do you care so much about her opinion of you, Eric? After all, she’s one of the “disgusting human beings,” remember?
Quote exactly what she actually said that offends you so. You won’t, because you have created a ficticious position that she never held, so yo could call her a racist based on something she did not say.
Icy (68544b) — 11/28/2011 @ 9:20 am— There you go, Eric. Once again you have been slapped in the face by the challenge gauntlet. So: quote WORD-FOR-WORD exactly the words elissa wrote that you found objectionable, and then give a detailed (no patronizing language or ad homs) explanation about why it was wrong.
Go!
Happy you mean Bawney right?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/28/2011 @ 9:59 amC’mon, Icy. You know the deal. The nutcase will never give you direct quotes, because he can’t. But personally, I love it when he accuses people of things that cannot be supported, because it is one step closer to getting his bizarre self banned.
All the guy is, really, is DCSCA without spell check. Weird.
Plus I love his consistent drumbeat that he is so darned popular everywhere.
Right.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/28/2011 @ 11:48 amHey I have a grand idea let’s have Maxine let us nationalize oil companies waters replace Bawney Fwanks…………..honestly my liberal family members agreed with her now but they don’t think so anymore.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/28/2011 @ 12:04 pmComment by Chuck Bartowski — 11/27/2011 @ 2:38 pm
The reason Clinton kept tying Dole to Gingrich in 1996 was the government shutdown in 1995. It was highly unpopular, and common sentiment blamed Gingrich for it.
And the interesting thing is that Clinton vetoed the continuing resoution!
Exactly the same thing George Bush the elder had done in 1990, and he got properl;y blamed for the government shutdown.
Clinton ran ads in 1995. He also had nbarroweds the differences as much as he could without risking an agreement.
Gingrich fleeww on the plan with Clinton to and from Yitchak Rabon’s funeral. Gingrich expected to discuss the budget problem. Clinton avoided him, at one point spending a lot of time playing hearts with Mortimer Zuckerman. Gingruiich started to complain and try to tell people what the real story was and then…
Mortimer Zuckerman publiched a political cartoon on the front page of the new York Daily News that pretended to be a legitimate news illustration or something showing Newt Gingrich as a crybaby disappaointed that he didn’t get to talk to President Clinton, and Charles Schumer made a speech with a big reproduction of that cartoon on the House floor (treating this cartoon like a story and like a neutral source) and Newt Gingrich stopped arguing.
I would hope that this year, Newt Gingrich knows enough not to let that kind of thing happen again. It might not even work even without refutation – and if it gets mentioined to his face in a debate or the like, well, he’s going to disagree.
Clinton wanted the public to associate Dole with the then unpopular Gingrich.
It’s a different ballgame today. Gingrich doesn’t have that negative hanging around him anymore.
They are actually tryingt o set up similar things today. Like, reopublicans wanting to raise taxes on everyone. By not voting to continue the 2% payroll tax cut. It is said that republicans prefer to keep a tax cut on the rich (upper income tax bracket) to one on the middle calss – because the democrats propose to “pay for” the payroll tax cut with a tax raise on highest incomes. And if not that, the democrats are prepared to try several other ways of Paying for it. I suppose in the end they’ll pick something that works, unless they really, really, want to have a tax increase blamed on Republicans.
sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/28/2011 @ 2:35 pmComment by happyfeet — 11/27/2011 @ 3:54 pm
this is a pathetic little country whose finances would utterly implode should it ever see a 4% prime rate again
I wonder if people realize this?
sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/28/2011 @ 2:38 pmIcy – notice how the cowardly lying epwj scurried away when called upon to do something as simple as cite the words that he found to be so offensive?
JD (318f81) — 11/29/2011 @ 5:38 amYou have to be kidding yourself if you think Gingrich doesn’t still have negative baggage.The guy is up to his eyeballs in it.The guy may come out with this repentance spin but the only ones who will buy it are those who don’t like the only candidate(Romney) that has a possibility of beating Obama.Gingrich may not be acting as he did his whole life, that is probably because he is old enough to no control his hormones.That that consistent type of behavior set up a pattern. The guy left the House with ethic problems and his real problems are yet to come if the far right of the party nominates him. There is info yet to be vetted in this 1.5 to 2 million for lobbyist/consultant? in the Freddy Mac issue. The guy is the ultimate Washington Insider.Look at the issues he stood on the side of the Democrats with, Immigration, global warming, women’s choice, etc. yea he’s changed, same as Romney.But Romney polls much better than Gingrich in polls against Obama and he has been vetted to all ends, no surprises.We majority of Independents will vote for Romney. Many will vote for Obama before a real low life.
packeryman (bfc5b9) — 11/30/2011 @ 6:00 amMoby
JD (0e41ea) — 11/30/2011 @ 6:10 amApparently semi-full scale attack on Newt Gingruich about this. News reports seem to treat what he said as self-evidentaly wrong. No, he’s right.
There are no more paperboys. Every newspaper is delivered by a 30-year old man with a car.
He’s not wrong. And he’s not proposing hard labor.
He’s not wrong. Even though he seems to be going back to something pre-1920s.
But boy, is this politically incorrect.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 12/1/2011 @ 3:44 pm