Newt

[Westside Steve]

Oh, you.

 

Here's a good read for you.

 

I think the last paragraph sums it up pretty well. Yeah I think had john mccain been president and the economy had gone from bad to worse after his pledge of change and hope, and had he proudly citedd the amount of food stamp recipients we now had.......

Yeah it would be fair to call him the food stamp president.

But then his race wouldn't be an issue, would it?

 

I know a few people on food stamps and not one is black.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

http://www.google.com/m/url?channel=iss&client=ms-android-verizon&defaultloc=Durham+Rd,+Norton,+OH+44203&devlocsession=off&ei=wj8YT5jID9Ld8waemgE&hl=en&q=http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/obama-ag-secretary-more-people-on-food-stamps-means-more-jobs/&safe=images&sky=mrdr&source=mobilesearchapp-vs&ved=0CA4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGUyvKt_uDHGkZKmVL9zD2Eh4hJ1w

[heckofajobbrownie]

I think the last paragraph sums it up pretty well. Yeah I think had john mccain been president and the economy had gone from bad to worse after his pledge of change and hope, and had he proudly citedd the amount of food stamp recipients we now had.......

Yeah it would be fair to call him the food stamp president.

But then his race wouldn't be an issue, would it?

 

I know a few people on food stamps and not one is black.

WSS

 

No, he wouldn't. Are you kidding? That's the whole point of that last paragraph. Liberals would probably fault him on the economy, but no one would be calling him a "food stamp president." That's term isn't a liberal buzz word. Liberals support social safety net programs like that.

 

Liberals faulted Bush on the economy. Did anyone ever call him "the food stamp president?" Come on, man.

 

I hate to tell you this, bud, but Newt picks his words carefully, and has been using this phrase for about a year. And this is designed precisely for people like you who think blacks need a lecture on responsibility, and for the people who go much further than that. (Newt's enormous sense of self-regard just takes it another level when he imagines he should be the one to give this lecture.) It's about appealing to racial resentment in the base of the Republican Party, particularly in the South. Full stop.

 

Or as Newt said not too long ago, "I know how to talk to the voters in South Carolina."

 

And damned if it didn't work. That exchange with Juan Williams was the most effective moment of his campaign. And here's why: guys like you, and many like you, have all sorts of things to say about black America, but feel like you can't say some of them because of liberals, and the threat of people calling you a racist - what you call "the race card." It drives you nuts that you can't say things like "black people need a lesson on work and responsibility" because you think that's true, not racist. And you feel like if you could only get that truth out there, blacks would be better off, instead of being coddled by liberals. Even though your knowledge of black America comes from music videos, and the only black leaders you can name are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

 

When Gingrich laid into Juan Williams, he got it all in there in one perfectly crafted message to the voters in South Carolina, and everywhere else who share that resentment, and who are driven by that resentment: 'I'm going to tell the black community to shape up, to get off the dole and get a job, and if you liberals don't like it you can suck it.'

 

But heaven forbid, don't play the race card! Because Republicans hate that!!

 

If you're even 10% as cynical as you think you are, you should be able to see what this is, and see why it appeals to a voter like you. Just about every seasoned political observer can.

 

PS - I could even agree with you that liberal hypersensitivity sometimes cuts off meaningful debate, and that there's a kernel of truth to be had there.

[heckofajobbrownie]

http://www.google.com/m/url?channel=iss&client=ms-android-verizon&defaultloc=Durham+Rd,+Norton,+OH+44203&devlocsession=off&ei=wj8YT5jID9Ld8waemgE&hl=en&q=http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/obama-ag-secretary-more-people-on-food-stamps-means-more-jobs/&safe=images&sky=mrdr&source=mobilesearchapp-vs&ved=0CA4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGUyvKt_uDHGkZKmVL9zD2Eh4hJ1w

 

I agree with him completely. What's your problem with that? This seems completely uncontroversial to me, and is backed up by data, which he cites. Contrary to some government programs, and stimulus programs, just about all of the money spent on food stamps - and on UI insurance - goes back into the economy, and even has a multiplier effect, though some might quibble with the figure he cites. This is why economists refer to those programs as "automatic stabilizers." They kick in automatically in bad times, and the additional spending helps stabilize an economy in recession. And in good times, they automatically recede.

 

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with this before I type any more.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And can we just say this before we go any further? Blacks don't need to be told to prefer jobs over food stamps. They really don't.

 

This isn't even good racism. It's supposed to be more coded than that.

 

PS - According to a bunch of polls out this morning, Newt is now leading Romney in South Carolina. I'm telling you, man, you guys eat that shit up!

[Westside Steve]

And can we just say this before we go any further? Blacks don't need to be told to prefer jobs over food stamps. They really don't.

 

This isn't even good racism. It's supposed to be more coded than that.

 

PS - According to a bunch of polls out this morning, Newt is now leading Romney in South Carolina. I'm telling you, man, you guys eat that shit up!

 

Actually my friend its you guys that eat that shit up. Personally like most pundits on both sides of the aisle I thought he did a great job in that debate. I think your side would be thrilled if your candidate could speak that well on his feet. Then again the race bit is the only thing you care about in the whole thing.

I think it's actually a good campaign strategy for your side to throw a fit about this.

Obama doesn't get re elected unless the black vote turns out in full force.

So you guys need to find some sort of race angle to make sure they're pissed off in november.

That's what I'd do if I ran the dnc.

I also have the president give a blistering speech against SOPA To keep the kids on his side.

 

And I'm not all that sure mccain would get away with the food stamp thing. There are plenty to attack him from the right and it's probably more a liberal thing.

 

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

I agree with him completely. What's your problem with that? This seems completely uncontroversial to me, and is backed up by data, which he cites. Contrary to some government programs, and stimulus programs, just about all of the money spent on food stamps - and on UI insurance - goes back into the economy, and even has a multiplier effect, though some might quibble with the figure he cites. This is why economists refer to those programs as "automatic stabilizers." They kick in automatically in bad times, and the additional spending helps stabilize an economy in recession. And in good times, they automatically recede.

 

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with this before I type any more.

 

Nothing really.

The point is that it makes for easy political fodder to brag about all the food stamps you're passing out.

If in fact, you didn't want to be called the food stamp president.

 

By the way, were you as angry with bill cosby?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Actually my friend its you guys that eat that shit up. Personally like most pundits on both sides of the aisle I thought he did a great job in that debate. I think your side would be thrilled if your candidate could speak that well on his feet. Then again the race bit is the only thing you care about in the whole thing.

I think it's actually a good campaign strategy for your side to throw a fit about this.

Obama doesn't get re elected unless the black vote turns out in full force.

So you guys need to find some sort of race angle to make sure they're pissed off in november.

That's what I'd do if I ran the dnc.

I also have the president give a blistering speech against SOPA To keep the kids on his side.

 

And I'm not all that sure mccain would get away with the food stamp thing. There are plenty to attack him from the right and it's probably more a liberal thing.

 

 

WSS

 

Yes, Steve, he's the best debater in that group, and that was his best debate. But you're completely ignoring why that was his best debate - because of that exchange with Juan Williams. Why do you think he chose that one to excerpt and make an ad out of it?

 

Boy, this is such a huge blond spot with you. You can't even talk about this without trying to make it about how liberals are "throwing fits." And that anyone is taking exception to Newt Gingrich saying that blacks are lazy and don't want to work is just doing so to get out the black vote. It wouldn't be because someone is saying that blacks are lazy and don't want to work. No, nothing wrong with that. After all, you agree with the message!

 

Someone has to tell those illiterate welfare criminals, right?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Nothing really.

The point is that it makes for easy political fodder to brag about all the food stamps you're passing out.

If in fact, you didn't want to be called the food stamp president.

 

By the way, were you as angry with bill cosby?

WSS

 

He's talking about the economics of it. Don't be deliberately dense.

 

And again with the Bill Cosby. Always Bill Cosby. (Or Chris Rock.) But this is my point - you're dying to say these things, and love it when someone else gives you cover to feel this way, whether it's Bill Cosby or Newt Gingrich.

 

So go ahead, my man. Rail against the loafing blacks criminals in the inner city. No one is stopping you. I just thought I'd point out that there's no validity to his claim that Obama "put" lots of people on food stamps, and that you should know who actually is on food stamps, and why Gingrich is playing on your racial resentment of blacks for votes, whether or not you can see it.

 

And which Cosby comment are you referring to?

[Westside Steve]

Actually it sure looks like you're throwing a fit now.

I thought that was a fine answer for the set up question but only people like you decided that it was the only point of the entire debate.

 

So your mad when somebody mentions cosby. Is it because you think he's wrong or because he's not?

And if you'd like to, pick some other black conservative.

(Though Bill isn't really conservative )

WSS

[Westside Steve]

>> And that anyone is taking exception to Newt Gingrich saying that blacks are lazy and don't want to work <<

 

But you made that up.

No one said that.

And Romney never called Obama a Communist.

You made that up.

 

You do that a lot.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm completely calm, I assure you. I know you like to believe I'm frothing, raving mad, but that's just one of your many crutches.

 

Nor was i saying it was the only point of the entire debate. (Clearly, it was the Gingrich campaign's favorite.) I just wonder if you can spell out how this game works for someone like you and have them still not see it. I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised.

 

Let's do this: Why, of all the economic argument Gingrich could make, why do you think he chose to call the president a "food stamp president" and then talk about how he would go to the black community and tell them that jobs are preferable to food stamps?

 

Why food stamps, which are something people qualify for the same way under this administration as they did under the last? Do you really believe that this wasn't a play on racial resentment of older, white Republican voters?

[heckofajobbrownie]

>> And that anyone is taking exception to Newt Gingrich saying that blacks are lazy and don't want to work <<

 

But you made that up.

No one said that.

And Romney never called Obama a Communist.

You made that up.

 

You do that a lot.

WSS

 

Haha. Priceless. What do you think he's saying? I'm not making anything up. That's the meaning of what he's saying. What do you think he's implying, that blacks are super resourceful? Wonderful self-starters? No. He's saying they prefer to take handouts rather than work - i.e. lazy - and he's going to tell them otherwise.

 

I can't describe someone who wants to take handouts and doesn't want to work as lazy? Really? If someone describes something as a mix of yellow and blue, is it okay if I say it's green? Jesus.

 

And Romney said Obama wants to equalize outcomes in the economy, no matter how hard you work or contribute. That's Communism he's describing. (Also completely unfounded, based on nothing, a total lie, a smear.) If I say that you enjoy fondling little boys in the park, someone might say that I called you a pedophile. Even if I didn't use that word. But that's not an inaccurate description of what I said is it? Nor is this.

 

Honestly.

 

Again, are you twelve? I know you think it's a high-minded point, and something that needs to be said. As Wilkinson said, "This haughty pose flatters the bigots, who Mr Gingrich knows full well are roused by talk of food stamps and an underdeveloped taste for honest labour, reframing their hoary prejudice as gallant unflinching fidelity to facts." Obviously, you, too, think it's vital to get the message to the black community, and you're just a truth-teller here. These are just facts.

 

But it really isn't vital. And your "facts" tell us nothing about what's actually going on, other than in your head, and in the heads of voters like you.

[Westside Steve]

Why, if not for racial purposes, would one wanna say food stamp president?

Because despite the promises of hope and change ( yes there were promises) things still suck.

now is that all the president's fault?

Probably not.

Did the people he inspired during the campaign realize that it was just bullshit to get elected?

Probably not.

So now after three years most of which with a veto proof majority we have...

not much.

 

So in place of the prosperity that his acolytes expected there are excuses and yes, food stamps.

And now we are in campaign mode.

That's exactly how you'd go after him if you were the other sides campaign manager.

 

But as always it's easier to call everybody racist than to face up to a failed economic policy.

WSS

[Chicopee John]

>>It drives you nuts that you can't say things like "black people need a lesson on work and responsibility" because you think that's true, not racist. And you feel like if you could only get that truth out there, blacks would be better off, instead of being coddled by liberals. Even though your knowledge of black America comes from music videos, and the only black leaders you can name are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.>>

 

Just to be fair and balanced, Bill Cosby is a pretty smart fellow - Phd from UMASS and all - and he believes much of what you stated in your hypothetical quote.

 

If memory serves me correctly, Obama also called out black fathers to be more responsible and actually be with their family and serve as role models.

 

Like I said before, many people like to shoot the messanger regardless of the message. Using different words - but saying, essentially the same thing - can be more effective, depending on your desired outcome.

 

Of course, I suppose much of the black community considers Cosby to be an Uncle Tom.

 

Sad.

[Westside Steve]

I think it's fair to expect anyone prominent in any group to want to set a good example.

ESpecially in cases where there has been historic prejudice.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Why, if not for racial purposes, would one wanna say food stamp president?

Because despite the promises of hope and change ( yes there were promises) things still suck.

now is that all the president's fault?

Probably not.

Did the people he inspired during the campaign realize that it was just bullshit to get elected?

Probably not.

So now after three years most of which with a veto proof majority we have...

not much.

 

So in place of the prosperity that his acolytes expected there are excuses and yes, food stamps.

And now we are in campaign mode.

That's exactly how you'd go after him if you were the other sides campaign manager.

 

But as always it's easier to call everybody racist than to face up to a failed economic policy.

WSS

 

First of all, Obama NEVER had a veto-proof majority. Get your facts straight. You need 2/3rds of the members of Congress to override a veto. That's 290 in the House and 67 in the Senate. Obama never had that in either house.

 

You want to retract that?

 

And the rest of it is just bunk with blinders on. If you can't see what Newt is going for with the food stamps and the NAACP and the "if liberals don't like it..." than God bless you, Virginia.

 

And we're having a discussion, Steve, about something in particular. If you'd like to have a discussion about the economy, fine. I've seen no evidence that you know the slightest thing about it - no one who is being fair would call it a "failed economic policy," which is a political statement - but if you want to do that, fine. But that's not what we're talking about.

 

You're not bullshitting on CNN, buddy. It's not like we have 30 seconds and you're trying to stay on message. "My opponent just wants to distract the nation from Obama's failed economic policy."

 

It doesn't get more hacky than that.

 

And if it makes you feel better, obviously I am saying that what Gingrich is saying is a play on the racial resentment of white Republican voters. I've said that a few times. I know you think that I'm supposed to shrink when you say "race card" or "calling someone a racist", but that's the whole point of what I'm saying - he's playing to racial prejudices.

 

Or as David Brooks wrote this week, "I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return."

[heckofajobbrownie]

I think it's fair to expect anyone prominent in any group to want to set a good example.

ESpecially in cases where there has been historic prejudice.

WSS

 

Me too. Are you saying that's what Newt's doing?

 

I'm saying that's not what he's doing. And that it's obvious that's not what he's doing. He's poking a finger in people's eyes because that's what the voters on the right want to see.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And hey, if it makes you feel better, ABC News has nothing new in this interview. It'll hurt him because it brings it all up again, and puts a face to it, but it's nothing we didn't already know.

[Westside Steve]

Okay he never had 2 thirds.

My bad.

Then again you don't need 2 thirds to pass budgetary matters.

Or nationalized healthcare for that matter.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And hey, if it makes you feel better, ABC News has nothing new in this interview. It'll hurt him because it brings it all up again, and puts a face to it, but it's nothing we didn't already know.

But that's not the point.

The point is to remind everybody right before the primary!

Nothing hacky about that huh?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Okay he never had 2 thirds.

My bad.

Then again you don't need 2 thirds to pass budgetary matters.

Or nationalized healthcare for that matter.

WSS

 

He didn't even have a filibuster-proof majority. And health care wasn't nationalized. But cheers on the retraction.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But that's not the point.

The point is to remind everybody right before the primary!

Nothing hacky about that huh?

WSS

 

I don't know the genesis of how the interview came to be, who approached who, so I don't know and I don't think you do either. It's certainly newsworthy and they'd run it if it were a Democrat, and did. (Remember Gennifer Flowers?) But I think, for the reason you mentioned, conservatives will see this as a liberal media attack on Gingrich right before the primary and it will either not hurt him or actually help him by rallying the troops.

 

There really isn't anything new in there except her saying it on camera instead of in print. Plus, I assure you that right now Gingrich and his top staff are preparing a chunk for the debate that will have three beats: I'm a sinner and I'm not perfect, I asked for forgiveness from God and my family, and despite the liberal media's timing and intention to turn this into a media circus I will not say anything negative about Marianne, who is the mother of my children, so suck it. (Pause for applause.)

 

Sinner, God, doesn't the liberal media suck.

[heckofajobbrownie]

One thing I'd ask you is if Newt's megalomania frightens you at all. He really is a unique character. When you look at some of the stuff he's said and written about himself, the self-regard, the belief that the rules don't apply to him, the fact that even his own staff used to refer to him as a sociopath, does that give you pause?

 

The guy who says stuff like this:

 

"I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it...Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it."

 

Or writes this down - about himself:

 

"Gingrich--primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces."

 

And try to answer without saying the exact same thing is true of Obama, and not making distinction between two different people with two different personalities, because I could write that post for you I've seen it so many times.

 

And look, it doesn't matter because Newt's not going to be president. I'm just asking you. Don't you think the guy is a little, well, off?

 

I mean, I think Mitt Romney is a total phony and his ambition is a little frightening, but I don't worry about his mental stability. That's why I like him - because I think he's calm and rational and mostly evidence-based once an election is over. Whereas I think Gingrich probably suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.

[calfoxwc]

He didn't even have a filibuster-proof majority egg-sucking weasel hatemonger Heck

******************************

Heck, you are stinking up this forum with your partisan denial.

 

More people are on food stamps now, than ever before in our history.

 

Obamao has no interest in fixing problems. He wants to use them for emotional Heck style

 

belligerent manipulation for more votes.

 

Otherwise, he would never have done all the stupid ass things he's done.

 

Like, most recently, turning down the pipeline because he "only had 60 days)...

 

that didn't run out until late Feb.

 

The dirtbag hatemonger in our White House needs to go.

 

He has failed, and failed completely, in being the "intelligent, charming, bringer of all of us together,

fix unemployment, make us more respected in the world"...

 

instead, he's been found out to have been a fraud, and an empty suit all along.

 

Even on the pipeline, he was really voting "present".

 

The totally dishonest blaming of Obamao's failed policies on Bush, or the Tea Party, is stupid ass.

 

That's you, Heck. You aren't honest enough to stop your bs, and actually criticize Obamao objectively.

 

Liberals never can. That would require thinking, and you liberals "feel" instead of analyzing.

 

BTW, I believe you most certainly did say something like "I do this for a living"... If I'm right,

 

what the freakin were you referring to?

[Mr. T]

 

"I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it...Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it."

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah you are really enlightening the whole world and we are supposed to be impressed? Sorry hippy nobody buys your BS.

 

 

Meanwhile lets look at the double standard of ABC who wasn't interested in the John Edwards story about him cheating on his cancer stricken wife. But some BS from Newt's ex-wife is somthing they think is big time news story. When was the last time ABC ever ran a story investigating any or all of Obama's crooked ways?

[Westside Steve]

I don't know the genesis of how the interview came to be, who approached who, so I don't know and I don't think you do either.

Right.

I'm sure it was a big coincidence.

Now who's 12?

 

Sinner, God, doesn't the liberal media suck.

True dat.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

What I'm saying is that she might have approached them. If she does that, and offers to speak on camera about Newt for the first time, of course they're going to run it.

 

Contrary to what you think, this isn't some plot designed to sink Newt. It's a plot to make news and to get ratings. After all, if you're a Democrat super secret spy journalist, like they ALL are, you want Newt to be the nominee. This is the guy you want to face. Because Obama will clean his clock.

 

Plus, this is going to help Newt, not hurt him.

 

I would also agree that the fact that this was the first question asked in the debate is sort of pathetic, and Gingrich is half-right, though that was quite a performance. Like I said, he knows what you guys want to hear.

[Westside Steve]

One thing I'd ask you is if Newt's megalomania frightens you at all. He really is a unique character. When you look at some of the stuff he's said and written about himself, the self-regard, the belief that the rules don't apply to him, the fact that even his own staff used to refer to him as....

 

That's a fair question.

I've already said I've had my misgivings.

What I've got a little more time I'll get to some of them, okay?

But one thing we all seem to miss on occasion is why we even bother to vote.

If it's just to elect the front runner then why bother?

Or is it just to advance a particular party?

or an agenda?

 

Just going with the front runner reminds me of the guy with dallas green bay niners steelers and patriots jerseys hanging in his closet.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I agree completely. I hate that argument - the "rally around the frontrunner" nonsense. That makes more sense in the general election. But in the primaries? You vote for who you want to see on the ticket, even if they're polling at 5%.

 

As for Newt, I don't think he's got the right personality for a president. But I don't begrudge you your choice. Those four are pretty lousy choices, and I think they all lose to Obama. A European collapse, or another event, could change everything of course.

 

I just think the country would be far better off under Romney than Gingrich. Gingrich has a real contempt for people he'd be representing, and expresses it willingly. It's like he's running to be a talk radio host, not a president.