Associated Press
Oh good, Newt Gingrich is hysterical again. It's been weeks since the disgraced former House Speaker had a noteworthy tantrum
Newt Gingrich accused President Obama on Wednesday of a secret "radical" plot to end work requirements in welfare reform, brushing aside denials from both the Republican architect of the 1996 bill and the Democratic president who signed it into law.
"I think on the hard left, there is an unending desire to create a dependent America," Gingrich said.
To recap, two Republican governors asked the Obama administration for some flexibility on the existing welfare law. The White House said that'd be fine, so long as the work requirement isn't weakened. It's consistent with the policy endorsed by many Republican governors, including Mitt Romney himself, just six years ago.
And now it's a conspiracy to make a country "dependent" on government.
I saw an email earlier blaming this ridiculous mess on the president -- he should have known, the argument goes, that Romney and the GOP would have lied about this.
I can't wrap my head around this. If Obama gives the states the flexibility they want, he's "eliminating the work requirement," even though he's not eliminating the work requirement. If Obama rejected the governors' request, it's very likely Romney would be running attack ads right now saying, "Republican governors want flexibility to help welfare recipients get jobs, but our big-government liberal president refuses to allow states to experiment. He doesn't want to help move people get jobs."
The point is, there's no way to anticipate what garbage the pathologically dishonest will come up with, just as there's no telling what kind of loopy conspiracy theories Newt Gingrich might concoct. Don't blame the target of shamelessly dishonest political nonsense; blame those disseminating the lies.
I'd be remiss if I neglected to highlight this gem.
Gingrich joined Mitt Romney and other Republican leaders in contrasting former President Bill Clinton, whom they now hold up as a model of bipartisanship, with Obama.
"In many ways Obama is the anti-Clinton," Gingrich, who clashed frequently with the president as speaker of the House in the 1990s, told reporters. "Clinton tried to move the party to the center, Obama's moved it to the left."
For those who remember the 1990s, this represents a new level of political hysteria. Gingrich woke up every day for years trying to destroy Bill Clinton, convinced that he was a radical leftist who didn't deserve the presidency. Plus, he even hurt Gingrich's feelings that one time, asking him to use a different door on Air Force One, leading the Speaker to shut down the government.
But now, Clinton and Obama -- who agree on practically everything -- are opposites, and Gingrich sees the man he impeached as a great centrist.
Shep Smith recently explained, "Politics is weird. And creepy. And now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality."
Truer words were never spoken.
Leave a Comment:
Yes, the GOP will twist whatever action (or inaction) to make the President look bad.
The only way through this, is to do the right thing for the people, even if it helps a Republican governor or two, and make sure the public gets the facts.
Noot. So last century.
"do the right thing for the people. . . and make sure the public gets the facts."
Its that second part that is a problem. The media contributes to, rather than clarifying, the confusion. And the Democrats, despite 30 years time since the media changed under Reagan, still have never learned how to message effectively in the current environment.
Thanks, whaddya. Our debate communication is managed by a media unfaithful to it's own duty of informing the public because of failing to demand answers that provide that information in the first place. Otherwise, we are discussing illusion and not substance. As far as messaging, it seems like Dems don't even meet to discuss the matter for lack of any coherency or visceral drive to indicate any truly concerted effort.
Gee, I wonder if corporate control has anything to do with that? What exactly did Reagan change? Oh yeah he allowed corporate advertising to enter the News game. Immediately following that decision the advertisers on Fox challenged a story on Fox forbidding the airing of a story showing the extreme dangers of bovine hormones in our milk that eventually led to the firing of seasoned journalists who were blackballed from the News.
The story incidentally was never aired and although bovine hormones have been banned in every single western country because they're as dangerous as cigarettes specifically due to public awareness in those countries, they are still in use here because the public is not aware of their danger.
Don't blame the Dems. Blame Reagan's Republican corporate model which has been responsible for America's 30 year decline across the board. TRUTH.
Board members are more concerned with satisfying corporate advertisers concerns than with consumers information.
Sed: Sure enough. Those advertisers are the customers of the corporate media stations where the entertainment value of the show is key to keep people watching commercials and where informing the public is fodder at best. Poor host moderation and reporter questioning practices that prevent the chance of obtaining information to give the public.
For sheer shamelessness, even Romney can't hold a candle to Newt.
The Romney ad on welfare reform wasn't concerned about truth or accuracy. It was ugly race-baiting. They might as well have said that strapping young bucks were collecting checks for playing video games and (whatever else we all "know" they do).
I'm going to give the Obama campaign some advice, which I'm sure they'll ignore.
Use this "welfare" issue as part of a larger campaign, showcasing the many Romney lies, position flips, dishonest editing of Obama and Clinton speeches, etc. There's certainly no shortage of material.
As anyone familiar with advertising knows, repetition is the key. No matter what specific instance of dishonesty is being highlighted, use the same tag line at the end--with lettering on a blank background or always using the same graphic. That tag line: Mitt Romney. We Just Can't Trust Him.
If Democrats really wanted a dependent society...at a certain point...wouldn't everyone be dependent on the government? And then no one would be working in a way that could finance the government to give the dependents the benefits upon which they've been conditioned to feel they are entitled to have?
I mean, if that were the case, then Democrats would not only be trying to "destroy America as we know it" as Republicans are fond of claiming. They'd be doing a kamikaze run into the heart of the economy by making all Americans want to suck at the teat of "entitlements" without the workers to pay for it.
There I go again, bringing logic to a Republican fight. D'oh.
No, Noot. Obama has stayed near center. It's the GOP that has moved wayyyyy to the right, so lacking any ability to perceive true movement, they see it as if Obama has moved left.
Oh, they have to know full well that Obama has NOT moved left, but saying that he has is one of their favorite lies.
If I could go back in time and provide only one twentieth century American couple with a condom on a particular night, Gingrich's parents would be on the short list, somewhere near Lee Harvey Oswald's (if only because I'm not 100% sure doing the latter's parents access to contraception would have made a difference to the way history unfolded).
Everything that's gone wrong in American politics these last twenty odd years traces back to Gingrich's normalization of the right's always latent propensity for hysterically attributing ridiculously, cartoonishly evil motives and intent to political opponents.
Problem is, you run into the 'grandfather paradox' in situations like that. If relative future events are the cause of your trip into the relative past, you can't undo the cause of those future events without also undoing your motive for going to the past in the first place. (You spend most of your life watching Doctor Who, and this is how you think.)
Poor old Newt. He must hate the new republican party but he just can't stand not being the center of attention even if it means running with a lie.
I would change two words: "Poor old Newt. He must
hateLOVE the new republican partybutAND he just can't stand not being the center of attention even if it means running with a lie."Why not just say Noot loves the new teapub party because he loves running with lies and liars.
So Romney is reduced to using one of the most unpopular figures in America to defend his lying campaign or campaign of lying?
"The point is, there's no way to anticipate what garbage the pathologically dishonest will come up with, just as there's no telling what kind of loopy conspiracy theories Newt Gingrich might concoct..."
Duh.
Wasn't future lying the plot for Minority Report?
Hard Left? What Hard Left?
Exactly!
Agreed. And now I have a vicious headache realizing that this refers to something that was said... on... Fox. (Ouch, ouch, ouch! I think I got some nasty cuts going through that Looking Glass. But, it's all right, Ma, I'm only bleeding).
;-(
"But now, Clinton and Obama -- who agree on practically everything -- are opposites, and Gingrich sees the man he impeached as a great centrist."
Well, guess what--Rush Limbaugh is ranting and raving about the same BS--how Clinton did a good thing and now Obama is doing something very wrong. First, they are ranting about a fallacy, second--suddenly, they LOVE Bill Clinton (in retrospect)--they use him all the time now, as an examplary figure. I suppose somewhere down the line, they will be touting President Obama as the best Liberal they ever knew!
Gingrich is a welfare conspiracy! Along with being a sleeze, a wife cheater, an unregistered Lobbyist, and an all around d-bag!