-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The left is having a field day saying that Newt Gingrich’s South Carolina debate answer (blasting a question by Juan Williams, who actually is a prince of a guy) about Barack Obama being a “food stamp president” was somehow a “dog whistle” to racists, and that his success in South Carolina was partly due to his tacit racial appeals to the SC voters’ supposedly latent racist sentiments. We’ve heard it all week; heck, Ed Schultz has been saying it since last May. Last night on Schultz’s show, Chris Matthews was at it again:
[O]ne thing that bothered me personally as an American, and you talked about it, I believe, and so is Al Sharpton, this idea of talking about food stamps, which we all know is code. And to use that the night he won here, Saturday night, coming in to the panhandle of Florida, playing with the Southern people for the Southern tradition, white people, trying to play them like a banjo, I think that`s what he`s up to.
Schultz himself continued to push this line relentlessly, and encouraged Martin Bashir to say this:
We traced back an editorial from the “New York Times” in 1994 where they accused him of using coded language in exactly the same way. He`s doing exactly the same thing. It`s almost 20 years. He`s the expert at this. He barely conceals a nasty, virulent racism, and then he points it repeatedly at both the president and also at those who are picking up Food Stamps who need them.
And so on it went, at sickening length.
Well….
When people who have worked with Newt Gingrich describe his “Jekyll and Hyde personality” (a comment I’ve seen numerous times), they may actually be underplaying the truth. Gingrich doesn’t just have two personas; he has probably a half dozen or more. (He is vast! He contains multitudes!) For every Mr. Hyde there is also a Mr. Sieke; for every Dr. Jekyll there is also a Dr. Heckle. Trying to figure out which Newt was which was so impossible that it drove his colleagues to distraction while he was Speaker, which is one reason things fell apart so badly.
Nevertheless,in all of those Newtonian personalities, never have I seen even the slimmest hint either of racism or of tacit approval of the racism of others. Indeed, just the opposite: For all of his other flaws, Gingrich, from my observations, has been one of the Republican leaders most open to and insistent on outreach to minorities. I can’t cite a specfic example from memory, but during his Speakership the overall tenor was clear: Gingrich detested racism. The “good Newt” is a compassionate man and a man dedicated toward equality before the law. The good Newt also was the one who has never gotten his due credit for insisting that the GOP make it a priority to improve the city of Washington DC — to end the municipal corruption, to improve its governance, to prove that a majority-black city doesn’t need to be a city that people give up on. In fact, to the extent that the urban renaissance of DC was due to federal policy (which was indeed a significant extent, although of course the locals had much to do with it, obviously), that renaissance was driven by two men: Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Somewhere in the recesses of my mind I remember Gingrich once saying — it might have been as recently as last year, or it could have been years ago — that one main reason he was a “Rockefeller Republican” in the 1960s was because he thought the Northeastern Republicans of the time were more “progressive” (in the good sense of the term) on racial issues. Well, while evidence shows that was far from the only reason he was with Rocky (Gingrich was, at the time, a liberal Republican on many issues), it absolutely rings true when he cites his concern for civil rights as one of the issues that motivated him.
Yesterday, I cited at great length an absolutely scathing column that Mickey Edwards, former congressman and former chairman of the American Conservative Union, wrote about — meaning against — Gingrich last month. Yet even in that column, Edwards noted, as a compliment, that one reason he came to know Gingrich particularly well was that he, Edwards, included Gingrich in a group dedicated to reaching out to minorities:
During his first term, I established a small gathering of members I considered to be intelligent, thoughtful, and committed to an optimistic and big-tent conservatism. Newt was one of the members I invited to participate, along with friends like Jack Kemp, Bob Livingston, and Ed Bethune, each of whom had reached beyond the stereotypical conservative constituency and had worked assiduously to reach out to minorities and people with new approaches to problem-solving (Kemp was probably the archetype).
Some character traits don’t change. I happen to think that trait, the one that detested racism, is one of Gingrich’s constants.
Real racism is awful, and it should be denounced at every opportunity. There are plenty of conservatives who do so, and rightly so.
But fair is fair. It is utterly unfair to equate references to Food Stamps to a racist dog whistle, and it is unfair to put Gingrich in the camp of those who deliberately play on racial stereotypes.
There are plenty of other reasons to worry about nominating Gingrich for president. But as for racism, that dog won’t hunt.
View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/24/gingrich-is-no-racist
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Odds and Ends
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi.| 1.24.12 @ 2:17PM
Gingrich is the food stamp king. What do you call all those phoney contracts from Freddie Mac? He should complain about poor Americans getting some food while the welfare queen in the middle east gets hundreds of billions of American taxpayer money.
Gingrich is so disgusting to most American's, because of issues just like that. He will be destroyed by Obama and so would any party that nominates him.
Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 3:20PM
You're full of youknowhat! Why don't you become a true Republican and chastise the dastards in your state who are crusifying Scott Walker, instead of asininely chasing your loser of a candidate whose about as much Republican as I am Moms Mabley!!!!
Occam's Tool| 1.24.12 @ 4:59PM
Mentioning that Obama is crucifying Blacks is just truthful---Black incarceration is a problem, Black unemployment is a nightmare from hell, and the Black family is falling apart, all due to Obama's policies.
But he's vicious to his own people on little issues, too---he got rid of the scholarships to private High Schools for poor Black kids in D.C., which those EVIL, racist Republicans SUPPORTED!
Pete| 1.24.12 @ 7:07PM
I am wondering when African-Americans figure out he is not one of them. He has no tie back to slavery and neither parent was African-American. He has more in common with Muslims than African-Americans. At some point they too will feel duped.
He has no interest in helping people out of poverty. His votes come by putting more people into poverty - Hence foodstamp president is quite apropos.
martin j smith| 1.24.12 @ 2:22PM
This a perfect example of where the Republican Leadershit ( not Gingrich ) is a failure. There should be strong opposition to such accusations instead they often go un- answered--just like GWB. Romney should be the first to attack such crap but he will never do that-no poor little Obama can't upset his feelings can we ? If one wants to know why the Republican Party is dysfunctional look no further than the RNC and other leaders. The same ones that permit the MSM to smear our candidates. For shame!!!!!!!!!!
Pete| 1.24.12 @ 7:10PM
Now we have Coleman, Romney's advisor telling us that the GOP will not repeal ObamaCare. They will reduce the cost ;-) I have been warning people. GOP elites see the accumulation of power gathered by Obama and they want it for themselves.
ayrnieu| 1.24.12 @ 2:24PM
As none of the attacks are based in reason, the effect of a rational deflection is merely that you spend more time talking about the attacks in front of the American people, and thereby make them appear to be worth talking about.
Format permitting, the ideal response to a charge of racism is "F*** you."
Warrior | 1.24.12 @ 4:56PM
That would be code. Any word used to describe him or his policies will be called code. I can remember when one of the MSNBC nut jobs actually said that calling Obama articulate was code for racism.
Clint| 1.24.12 @ 2:24PM
Mr. Neutered Is The Pillsbury DoughBoy.
Aaaaand,
The Pillsbury DoughBoy Serves As Our Useful RINO-CINODupe To Extend The Campaign, Deny The Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney Enough Delegates And Head To A Brokered Convention.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Florida.
Dai Alanye | 1.24.12 @ 3:30PM
What about "chickenhawk?" Let not one opportunity go by.
Clint| 1.24.12 @ 4:25PM
Uh Oh !
You Just Called Our " Useful Fool " The Muffin Man, A " Chickenhawk ", Dai Job.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Occam's Tool| 1.24.12 @ 5:00PM
Yup. Paul can't win a straight on election because Americans HATE Treason.
SpiralArchitect| 1.24.12 @ 5:25PM
Clint, you make the Tea Party proud, indeed.
Quartermaster| 1.24.12 @ 2:53PM
I don't think either Newt or Paul are racist. UnPC? Yes, but not Racist. The Raaaaacist charge is just flung about when the liberals are losing.
SpiralArchitect| 1.24.12 @ 5:26PM
aka
ad hominem
Pete| 1.24.12 @ 7:12PM
Ron Paul called Michelle Bachmann a islamaphobe. He said she hates Muslims and wants to get them.
Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 3:25PM
Most of us understood his reference to 'the welfare president' as describing his socialistic political agenda, which requires the populations' welfaric depency upon government for economic/financial survival [and in quid-pro-quoism results in more Democrats becoming elected from their granting of such welfare]. Sadly its the '''''''STUPIDS'''''' out there who elected and support him and his TOO SHORT SHORTS surrogates that fail to comprehend the message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
C Bowen | 1.24.12 @ 4:20PM
Gingrich is a big fan of anti-white racism--quotas, Affirmative Action, but that is being over looked?
Clint| 1.24.12 @ 4:29PM
Our Useful Fool Mr. Newt Ain't No Raisin.
He's More Of A Plump Chubby Grape.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Pete| 1.24.12 @ 7:13PM
You prefer those old prunes.
Oldefarte| 1.24.12 @ 4:44PM
'.....Fearing Gingrich, Both Sides Say He's Unelectable Tuesday, January 24, 2012 04:04 PMBy: Matt BarberWhat do establishment Republicans and liberal Democrats have in common? They’ve long labored under a shared misconception: conservative candidates are unelectable.
In 1980, conventional wisdom held that Ronald Reagan didn’t stand a chance against Jimmy Carter. The GOP leadership, the mainstream media and liberal politicos alike lined up against the Gipper in an attempt to derail his presidential campaign.Rush Limbaugh recently addressed this phenomenon on his radio program: “Gerald Ford said that Ronald Reagan was unelectable. George H.W. Bush said that Ronald Reagan was unelectable. The entire Republican establishment thought Ronald Reagan was unelectable because they were governed and informed by the Goldwater landslide defeat. That’s what they think will happen to every conservative.”
That’s what they think will happen to Newt Gingrich.As it became clear last week that the former House speaker was on his way to an impressive victory in South Carolina, liberal strategist and MSNBC talking head Lawrence O’Donnell summed up bipartisan conventional wisdom by suggesting, against all the evidence, that Mr. Gingrich “cannot win a national election … It’s impossible.”On “Meet the Press,” fellow MSNBCer and mushy moderate Joe Scarborough declared, “Republicans are panicked in Washington, D.C., for good reason.”
Indeed, Mr. Gingrich’s solid win, coupled with another surge in Florida, has the establishment squealing and darting about like a flaming pot-bellied pig. Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney’s campaign has trotted out surrogates like Ann Coulter and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to nip at the speaker’s heels.
Coulter, who has moved briskly leftward in recent years, even joining the Republican gay activist group GOProud, has stooped to personal attacks against South Carolina voters. “Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall,” she said.Of South Carolina conservatives’ willingness to forgive Mr. Gingrich for his past marital infidelity — something he has long admitted to and repented for — Coulter snipped, “I think South Carolina is going back to its Democratic roots. I mean, to not care about that, that’s the position of the Democratic Party.”
Still, RINO Republicans’ fear of Mr. Gingrich stems from something entirely different from that which drives the left. The GOP leadership actually believes that he cannot win a general election, while — with a traumatic Reagan presidency still fresh in their minds — left-wing “progressives” know that he can.
It’s the liberal media and Democratic National Committee, in fact, that has largely pushed the self-serving “Romney-is-the-inevitable-nominee” meme.In a recent Fox News interview, Sarah Palin, who has all but officially endorsed Mr. Gingrich, said, “I believe the mainstream media and Obama want to face Mitt Romney in the general election.”And why wouldn’t they? In terms of his ability to inspire the base and get out the vote, Mr. Romney is a bit like Bob Dole without all the honorable accomplishments. After last week’s debacle in South Carolina, it’s little wonder that The Washington Post is reporting Romney will no longer commit to any further Florida debates. He finds himself in a Catch-22: he must either debate and lose to Mr. Gingrich or not debate and lose to Mr. Gingrich.Guess who else doesn’t want to debate Mr. Gingrich? Hint: his initials are BHO.I’ll state the obvious: Mr. Gingrich is not a perfect man. Neither is he the perfect candidate. Who is? The question is, do we allow repentance for personal sin? Do we forgive others their trespasses as we wish to be forgiven?
I’m reminded of the biblical account of King David. As a shepherd boy, he slew a giant. As a man, he fell into sin — marital infidelity and even murder. Yet through it all God called him “a man after [His] own heart.” Through it all, David remained a great leader.Like David, Mr. Gingrich has proven to be a man with many flaws. But like David, he has also proven to be a great leader. It was Mr. Gingrich, of course, who led the 1994 “Republican Revolution” that launched the political careers of many establishment Republicans who now fear their past leader’s future nomination.Our volatile times require a man who will decisively and decidedly lead from the helm. We cannot survive four more years of “leading from behind.”That’s why we need Newt Gingrich.....'
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.24.12 @ 4:51PM
Clint,
my scroll button thanks you for your short posts.
martin j smith| 1.24.12 @ 5:01PM
Romney acolytes can't stand him losing so they will throw the whole ship and sink it because they show that they really do not care about the voters--they want their profits on WS which have little to do with our economy. Accusations of racism against Newt can only benefit Obama and Romney. Thus I say garbage and enough craperoo. This kind of stuff pushes even more against Romney. But--Is this real or part of a play? We will never know the truth. In any event Romney is finished.
J. C. Calhoun| 1.24.12 @ 5:13PM
It is amusing to read how Republicans fall all over themselves to prove how non-racist they are. It is a grotesque spectacle. Perhaps they can prove it by pointless acts. Knock down the Jefferson Memorial because he was racist. Re-name the Hoover FBI Building because he was racist. Pass a bill making it a hate crime to fly the Confederate flag. Renounce the tens of millions of white-flighters over the past 50 years. Encourage their daughters to date outside their race.
SpiralArchitect| 1.24.12 @ 5:29PM
Hopefully your reference to Jefferson as a racist is not based upon his having slaves...
J.C. Calhoun| 1.24.12 @ 5:45PM
In his writings, Jefferson not only considered blacks to be inferiors, he considered women political inferiors not worthy of the vote. He was anti-"gay" as well.
Pete| 1.24.12 @ 7:16PM
gay meant happy.
Pete| 1.24.12 @ 7:15PM
Want a racists, check out Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Jackson. Now what party were they from again. Ole Woodrow the king of progressives himself. Want another racist, how about Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Bob Grant| 1.24.12 @ 7:47PM
Yep. Both were for eugenics. Oh, and by the way, Wilson was a huge fan of fascism.
GusCarlisle| 1.25.12 @ 1:16PM
So it`s all racial.Good.That means we can talk about white genocide:
Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white