Newt Gingrich plays on racial, political and social resentments
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 08:50 AM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Violent attacks on gays in New York up 70 percent in 2013
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
Archives
Clearly it’s the year of the demagogue. If the Republican presidential race is teaching us anything this week, it’s that we have all underestimated the sheer depth of the hostility that many conservatives harbor for President Barack Obama.
How else to explain the rise and rise of an already bluntly discredited politician to the point where he is looking like the main contender for the Republican nod in 2012?
Newt Gingrich has expertly ridden an untapped wave of Tea Party contempt all the way to the top. In fact he has crested on it with a kind of skill only shared by California surfers. This week it’s looking like it will take him the distance.
In South Carolina, the mostly white conservative audience predictably booed every time they heard the words Mexican, black, or gay. They cheered when Gingrich spoke of the despised “media elites.”
And they erupted with unbridled joy when he called Obama the “food stamp president,” a blatantly racist dog whistle.
If liberals can be classed as people who naively believe that everyone is equal, then conservatives can be classed as people who take the opposing view. For them there is always an in-crowd and an out-crowd, and it’s better to belong to the former.
And in conservative South Carolina, voters deeply resent it when the out-crowd starts agitating for their rights, hence all the jeering and cheering for Gingrich’s barbs.
Playing on all of those racial, political and social resentments like Christy Moore plays the bodhran, Gingrich connected with the conservative base there in a way that Mitt Romney never will. After all, Gingrich was a tea partier before the term was even coined, and he was among his people on Saturday and it showed.
Saturday also showed us the new face of the Republican Party. It’s an overweight jowly white guy with three marriages, a shady past and an anger management problem.
-----------------
Read more:
More US politics news from IrishCentral
FOX TV anchor Greg Kelly strongly denies rape accusation charge by woman he met
Liam Neeson has the full right to embrace Islam if he wants -- His wife's death has led to a search for life's meaning
-----------------
Only the most ardent Tea Party member could fail to notice that doesn’t auger very well in November.
Although South Carolina is arguably the most conservative state in the union and what plays there may fall flat elsewhere, it may already be too late to stop Gingrich’s populist freight train from going the distance.
But have you noticed that not one of Gingrich’s former colleagues in Congress have endorsed him yet? Isn’t that a bit striking?
None of the people who actually know him best have stepped forward in his praise or defense. Surely that’s an indicator of something rather significant?
And have you noticed that both he and Rick Santorum have recently been asked to cool their divisive rhetoric about race and poverty by Catholic leaders? A group of more than 40 national Catholic leaders at universities across the country sent a strongly worded letter to the pair this week urging them “to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail.”
You know things have gotten out of hand when professors and theologians are stepping in.
Bloggers are having a field day, of course. Online they are already referring to him as Newt
Swingrich, a play on his request for an open marriage with his second wife.
Actual swinger sites are also championing him as an exemplar of their values, which is a development he probably failed to foresee in the 1990s.
But isn’t it undeniably nauseating that at the same time as he was pursuing Bill Clinton for conducting an extra-marital affair, Gingrich was having an extra-marital affair himself?
Gingrich claims that he was hounding Clinton for having lied under oath, but in effect wasn’t he really hounding him for simply having been caught?
Questionable behavior doesn’t become moot when a conservative performs it, although you wouldn’t know that from the results that posted from South Carolina over the weekend.
What fascinates me is how many conservative women voters there, who otherwise espouse “traditional values,” watched the children of Gingrich’s first marriage attack his second wife over claims she made about his third wife without flinching. It was hard to keep up with these soap opera permutations.
Having voted for a serial adulterer, I don’t think, considering all the dubious morality that came to light, we’ll need to listen to the traditional values crowd scolding us for our own shortcomings ever again.
They may claim they were really protesting the gotcha questions so beloved by the media, and not embracing a deeply compromised politician, but their voting records don’t lie.
![]() |
Newt Gingrich (Google Image |
How else to explain the rise and rise of an already bluntly discredited politician to the point where he is looking like the main contender for the Republican nod in 2012?
Newt Gingrich has expertly ridden an untapped wave of Tea Party contempt all the way to the top. In fact he has crested on it with a kind of skill only shared by California surfers. This week it’s looking like it will take him the distance.
In South Carolina, the mostly white conservative audience predictably booed every time they heard the words Mexican, black, or gay. They cheered when Gingrich spoke of the despised “media elites.”
And they erupted with unbridled joy when he called Obama the “food stamp president,” a blatantly racist dog whistle.
If liberals can be classed as people who naively believe that everyone is equal, then conservatives can be classed as people who take the opposing view. For them there is always an in-crowd and an out-crowd, and it’s better to belong to the former.
And in conservative South Carolina, voters deeply resent it when the out-crowd starts agitating for their rights, hence all the jeering and cheering for Gingrich’s barbs.
Playing on all of those racial, political and social resentments like Christy Moore plays the bodhran, Gingrich connected with the conservative base there in a way that Mitt Romney never will. After all, Gingrich was a tea partier before the term was even coined, and he was among his people on Saturday and it showed.
Saturday also showed us the new face of the Republican Party. It’s an overweight jowly white guy with three marriages, a shady past and an anger management problem.
-----------------
Read more:
More US politics news from IrishCentral
FOX TV anchor Greg Kelly strongly denies rape accusation charge by woman he met
Liam Neeson has the full right to embrace Islam if he wants -- His wife's death has led to a search for life's meaning
-----------------
Only the most ardent Tea Party member could fail to notice that doesn’t auger very well in November.
Although South Carolina is arguably the most conservative state in the union and what plays there may fall flat elsewhere, it may already be too late to stop Gingrich’s populist freight train from going the distance.
But have you noticed that not one of Gingrich’s former colleagues in Congress have endorsed him yet? Isn’t that a bit striking?
None of the people who actually know him best have stepped forward in his praise or defense. Surely that’s an indicator of something rather significant?
And have you noticed that both he and Rick Santorum have recently been asked to cool their divisive rhetoric about race and poverty by Catholic leaders? A group of more than 40 national Catholic leaders at universities across the country sent a strongly worded letter to the pair this week urging them “to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail.”
You know things have gotten out of hand when professors and theologians are stepping in.
Bloggers are having a field day, of course. Online they are already referring to him as Newt
Swingrich, a play on his request for an open marriage with his second wife.
Actual swinger sites are also championing him as an exemplar of their values, which is a development he probably failed to foresee in the 1990s.
But isn’t it undeniably nauseating that at the same time as he was pursuing Bill Clinton for conducting an extra-marital affair, Gingrich was having an extra-marital affair himself?
Gingrich claims that he was hounding Clinton for having lied under oath, but in effect wasn’t he really hounding him for simply having been caught?
Questionable behavior doesn’t become moot when a conservative performs it, although you wouldn’t know that from the results that posted from South Carolina over the weekend.
What fascinates me is how many conservative women voters there, who otherwise espouse “traditional values,” watched the children of Gingrich’s first marriage attack his second wife over claims she made about his third wife without flinching. It was hard to keep up with these soap opera permutations.
Having voted for a serial adulterer, I don’t think, considering all the dubious morality that came to light, we’ll need to listen to the traditional values crowd scolding us for our own shortcomings ever again.
They may claim they were really protesting the gotcha questions so beloved by the media, and not embracing a deeply compromised politician, but their voting records don’t lie.
30 comments
Next
Page 1 of 3 pages
joanxis | Jan 28, 2012, 03:59 PM EST
Oh, Georgie Boy, we've had many exchanges over time, but you must have an awfully faulty memory. I never assured you that I would "honor" your request. I delight in annoying you so why would I give that up, plus I don't take orders from you. This forum is public and anyone can share their opinions. If you ever get a civil tongue in your face you will never hear from me again. You're a big boy, Georgie. You sure can dish it out. What's the matter, can't you take it when it's aimed at you. Come on, admit that you enjoy our little sparing. BTW, I'm not a racist, but you go one telling everyone that I am if that makes you happy.
Report abuse
joanxis | Jan 28, 2012, 03:51 PM EST
Oh, Georgie Boy, we've had more than one exchange over time, but you must have an awfully faulty memory. I never said that I would "honor" such a request. You may have asked me to refrain from addressing you on this forum, but I don't take orders from you. If you ever decide to become a person with a civil tongue in your head, you will never hear from me again. You're a big boy who loves to dish it out. Don't tell me you're the type of person who can't take it when it's dished out to you. And racist - isn't that a little like calling the kettle black. I am not racist, but that won't keep you from calling me one. Oh well, ....whatever makes you goofy.....
Report abuse
GeorgeDillon | Jan 27, 2012, 12:51 PM EST
joanxis: I remember I had an exchange with you a month or two back. At that time I said that, as you had shown yourself to be a racist, I felt it was better that you refrained from addressing me. You assured me that you would honor my request. Please do so, and refrain from addressing me, especially if you have only abuse and insult to offer. You may get some emotuonal catharsis out of virtual invective, but I would suggest taking a long walk instead. Much healthier, and would do wonders for your figure!
Report abuse
hollabackgurl | Jan 27, 2012, 12:20 PM EST
Barack Obama has put no one on food stamps. Population growth together and the most severe recession since the advent of the modern American welfare state, which was in full swing and which was Bush's gift to Obama came into office, conspired to make a record number eligible for government food assistance. The sheer delight of the South Carolina audience to the misleading phrase tells you all you need to know.
Report abuse
jflanagan | Jan 27, 2012, 10:21 AM EST
I'm not a Republican and do not like Gingrich but I didn't hear anything in the Food Stamp President comment that even mentioned blacks or hispanics. Since the majority of people on welfare and food stamps are white, how could that be racist? The only mention of "black" was when Juan Williams, a great guy in my opinion, put "black church" in his question. I don't think Juan would put race into the discussion on purpose but that is what made it all seem like Gingrich was racist, not anything I heard in his answer. Only those who stereotype blacks and hispanics as making up the majority of those on welfare, and isn't that racist even if you are a liberal, would find his answer racist.
Report abuse
SteveMD2 | Jan 27, 2012, 12:53 AM EST
Tks Irish central for your comments on Mr. Newt. IMO Newt is all but trying to restart the civil war, or supporting people with that mentality
Hate is like gasoline lying on the floor. YOu can put out the fire, but Newts mouth is like a flamethrower re-igniting it....................We need to come together, Newt, sri. he's a destroyer.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jan 26, 2012, 08:44 PM EST
GeorgeD, to answer your question about my comparing you to Gingrich, when I ask "who can compare to Gingrich for arrogance?" your name pops into my mind. On your "epistemological absurdity," Joe or Sue can be a leader whether you've ever heard of Joe or Sue or not. The only criterion of leadership is that someone follows what Sue or Joe says or writes. I "follow" the writing and speeches of several leaders, even some whom I often disagree with. I don't begrudge Gingrich the title of "leader" even though I wish I'd never heard of him and I think he'd "lead" this nation to h**l. The only "absurdity" is your blustering at me or hollaback-- we are not the same person! Oh, I just realized blustering is another way you compare with Gingrich. Why are you so irascible? Are your ears itchy? Has Cormac MacConnell's curse of Dec 09, 2011, 05:32 PM begun to take effect already?
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Jan 26, 2012, 05:03 PM EST
The evangelical right can set their principals to one side and support anyone who may be capable of unseating the first black president (whom they despise). What hypocrites and racists they are. I'm sure if the grand poobah of the KKK stood against Obama they would vote for the former,such is their hate.
Report abuse
MegK311 | Jan 26, 2012, 04:24 PM EST
Have you noticed that the people in DC who are coming out against Newt are the politicians who have been there for years and have got us in our present mess. If we are tired of what is happening in Washington then some of those folk are the people who need to go. I am not happy with the Republican party right now. But I will vote for anybody but Obama.
Report abuse
joanxis | Jan 26, 2012, 04:10 PM EST
Geogrie boy, why do you think everything revolves around you. All eiramach was doing was explaining what the term "leaders" meant. These leaders don't have anything to do with you. If you want to deny that they are your leaders that's ok, but they are leaders in the Catholic community. BTW - I am Catholic.
Report abuse
joanxis | Jan 26, 2012, 04:04 PM EST
Reading backwards - up this discussion line, once I hit George Dillon's comments, I was trying to formulate how and what I wanted to say to him as I finished reading. Eiriamach, you must have been reading my mind. I could not have said it better myself. Thanks.
Report abuse
GeorgeDillon | Jan 26, 2012, 03:59 PM EST
Youre a true idiot, eirihollamach. On what imbecilic basis do you liken me to Gingrich? Because your hate speech can think of no new slur to throw at me?
Report abuse
GeorgeDillon | Jan 26, 2012, 03:57 PM EST
Oh look, we now have another non-Catholic telling us Catholics who our leaders are. I don't even know who these individuals are, but you are pushing it down my throat that they are my leaders! What a fascist fool you are, hollaba. You say that this group doesn't "need GeorgeD's recognition". So now you're claiming these people are my leaders whether I like it or not? Is there any limit to the nonsense you peddle. An interesting epistemological absurdity--can one have as a leader someone you never heard of? Listen, do us all a favor--you're not a Catholic so Buzz Off and mind your own goddamn business when it comes to Catholic matters.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jan 26, 2012, 02:36 PM EST
Those who signed the "Open Letter to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum" are "leaders": professors of religious studies, scholars in theology, and heads of religious communities. In the words of Kristin Ford, they are "More than 40 national Catholic leaders and prominent theologians at universities across the country." GeorgeD does not have the privilege of electing them or voting against them. They rose in their professions. The news media, as well as Catholics, recognize them as "leaders." They don't need GeorgeD's recognition. Unfortunately, he can't keep his thoughts to himself but arrogantly insists that "everyone" thinks what he thinks. He's wrong again. If it weren't for Newt Gingrich, GeorgeD would be the only one of his kind.
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 3 pages
30 Comments

Report abuse