Does anybody else here find it incredibly ironic that Newt Gingrich is successfully running as the anti-Washington, populist candidate? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a man who bathes himself in hypocrisy is running on a platform completely antithetical to his record. But what is slightly disappointing (though, not so much surprising) is that the Republicans are actually buying his schtick. Remember, past is prologue.
Come on, people. The anti-Washington, populist who happened to have served in Washington for 20 years, during which he was embroiled in more than his fair share of scandals? Really? Ask Newt about check-kiting. Ask him about going after Clinton for Monica Lewinski while he was banging Calista behind his (then) wife's back. Ask him about shutting down the government (which despite what Republicans may think, is not a good thing) because Clinton forced him to sit in the back of a plane on the way to Yitzhak Rabin's funeral. Ask Newt about being the first Speaker of the House to be slapped with ethics violations for using a college course as a partisan playground and taking campaign cash in return for teaching "favorable ideas." Oh wait, that's right. College is where the liberal elitists brainwash kids with their partisan ideals. And of course, let's not forget that after he torched every bridge he had, his own party tried to overthrow him as speaker and when the Republicans lost seats in the House in the 1998 election (largely due to his actions as Speaker) he finally resigned in shame. Anti-Washington populist? Wake up people and learn your history.
Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite and a scam artist. He made his money after his resignation from Congress by peddling his name he so dubiously earned during his tenure. He rails about Fannie and Freddie being responsible for the economic crisis, yet has no problem taking a big fat paycheck from them. He buddied up with the Heritage Foundation when they called for an individual health insurance mandate, but now that the idea comes from Barack Obama, it's a socialist, fascist, commie, pinko policy. And while Newt may think it's absurd and shameful to be asked a question about his personal marital history, when you run with a socially conservative agenda, it's more than fair to have to answer questions about your own chronic infidelity issues.
All that aside, how can anybody stand to listen to this arrogant s.o.b. speak? This man's primary language is dog whistle and his litter responds to the same jaded rhetoric every time. I'm going to vomit if I have to hear any of the following phrases again:
Washington Elites
Liberal Elites
Media Elites
Anti-Religious Bigot
Saul Alinksy Radical
Pro-American Campaign
Food Stamp President
Newt never again has to answer a single question because all he has to do is make ad hominem attacks against the liberal media elites that are all just in the game to prop up Obama and take down all conservatives…(and the conservative crowd gives Newt a standing ovation). He accuses Judge Fred Biery, who upheld the establishment clause, of being an anti-religious bigot (let's ignore the fact that he went to college at a school associated with evangelical Lutherans and then got his JD from Southern Methodist).
A message to the religious right:
I understand that the crap you were brainwashed with as a child has impeded your ability to think with logic and reason and said upbringing has also created a vast propensity for you to accept fairy tales as absolute truth. So, for the umpteenth time, the First Amendment prohibits a government established religion while simultaneously providing for its free exercise. Government institutions (for example, public schools) cannot mandate prayer. However, they cannot stop you from exercising your right to practice your religion if it does no harm to anyone else. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Government can't force you to practice the tenets of Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Druidism, etc), but they can't stop you either. Your right to be a Christian does not preclude the right of others not to be.
Don't worry, though, elect Newt and every judge who disagrees with him will just be arrested. Talk about separation of powers. Why have a judicial branch of government when the executive can just throw any judge who dares to rule against its will behind bars? People who disagree with you are not anti-American. In fact, open disagreement is about the most American thing I can think of.
Moving on…The vast majority have never heard of Saul Alinsky, let alone Rules for Radicals (which, by the way, is a decent read), but thanks to Newt’s dog whistle I'm sure the mutts assume he's just another Bill Ayers type that Obama was pallin' around with back in his youth. For those of you not in the know, here are Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals:
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
If these tactics sound familiar it's probably because they're employed by politicians and organizations of every political affiliation. The only reason Alinksy pissed off the Republicans is because he happened to be a *GASP* community organizer (aka Commie Bastard). But I have two words for any conservative who wants to continue to claim Saul Alinsky's Rules are dirty pool: LEE ATWATER.
Finally we've got Newt's favorite dog whistle, the food stamp president. Obama is leading during the worst recession since the Great Depression. Of course people are in need now and at least part of the responsibility for that belongs to the economic policies of Ronald Reagan of which Newt so proudly touts being a part of. Trickledown economics created the vast and disgusting wealth gap that we're suffering today. And don't you think the fact that the Republican controlled House is doing everything possible to obstruct any bill that passes through its doors (unless that bill involves gaining more control over a woman's uterus) has something to do with the country being so slow to pull itself up out of the black hole of a recession that Reaganomics, deregulation, two unpaid for wars, American materialism, and idiots thinking they could afford a $500,000 house on a $35,000/year salary put us in?
Part of me doesn't believe that Republicans actually buy anything that Newt is saying. Part of me still wants to believe it's the last stand of the anti-Romney crowd and eventually Newt will fade off into the sunset. I know I said in a previous post that this Republican primary was the greatest show on earth, but now it's just getting kind of sad. For real, Republicans? This is the best you can come up with? I am here waiting for a reason not to vote for Obama again, but you just throw out religious wing nuts, hypocrites, spineless flip floppers who run away from their record (which isn’t so bad, by the way), and a crazy old man. Chris Christie--have you reconsidered your decision not to run (please)?
Yours,
Liz
No comments:
Post a Comment