Gingrich Not Crazy Enough for the GOP?

In one small area

WingnutsNovember 2011 • Views: 17,976

In a perfect demonstration of the extremism that now defines the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich was savaged by the other candidates in last night’s debate for not hating immigrants enough.

Ascendant Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich delivered an unapologetic defense of his views on immigration Tuesday night, declaring in a foreign policy debate that the GOP should not adopt a platform on immigration that “destroys families that have been here a quarter-century.”

Gingrich came under fire from multiple opponents for declining to say that he would turn out all of the country’s illegal immigrants in a forum hosted by CNN, The Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute.

The other “pro-family” candidates were all enthusiastically in favor of destroying immigrant families.

Don’t worry, though — Gingrich has more than enough craziness in the rest of his absolutist positions. He’s just smart enough to realize that alienating Latino immigrants might not be a good political move.

Jump to bottom

46 comments

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Nov 23, 2011 9:51:05am

OT: Yemen's President "gives away power, keeps title": [Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Games…

Decatur Deb Wed, Nov 23, 2011 9:51:35am

Evil enough, si.
Crazy enough, no

albusteve Wed, Nov 23, 2011 9:54:44am

it was all about money back in the day....now it's about money and votes...Latinos are a prized commodity and are maneuvered around like so many pawns...serious immigration reform is light years away, if ever

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, Nov 23, 2011 9:56:09am

re: #3 albusteve

it was all about money back in the day...

Back in what day? When you needed to own property in order to be eligible to vote?

Lidane Wed, Nov 23, 2011 9:56:54am

Newt's an unmitigated asshole and a slime of a human being, but he has enough sense not to parrot the usual anti-immigrant fail of the far right. And of course, the Freepers aren't happy:

[Link: www.freerepublic.com...]

Neither are the simpletons at Hot Air:

[Link: hotair.com...]

elizajane Wed, Nov 23, 2011 9:57:10am

He was trying to tread that thin line between tolerance and hatred. It's a tough one! Did you notice how when he said "we won't break up families" he also said, "families who've been going to church here, in your community, for 25 years?" Just to make clear that it's OK to deport them if they don't go to church. I heard him make this argument three times and twice he included the "going to church here" line.

albusteve Wed, Nov 23, 2011 9:58:31am

re: #4 000G

Back in what day? When you needed to own property in order to be eligible to vote?

back in the day when CA and AZ become agricultural powerhouses

makeitstop Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:04:41am

re: #5 Lidane

Newt's an unmitigated asshole and a slime of a human being, but he has enough sense not to parrot the usual anti-immigrant fail of the far right. And of course, the Freepers aren't happy:

[Link: www.freerepublic.com...]

Neither are the simpletons at Hot Air:

[Link: hotair.com...]

This is the issue that took the wind out of Perry's sails.

Who's up next? Does Kwazy Unca Ron get the next 15 minutes? They're running out of choices - Santorum and Huntsman are the only other ones left, and I don't see either of them getting much love from the Insane Base.

Areozol Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:05:25am

Well, Newt Gingrich's case is more and more weired, that it seemed before...

"Current primary frontrunner Newt Gingrich is often referred to as one of the leading "intellectuals" of the Republican Party. Gingrich has encouraged this view, even suggesting that the $1.6 million in consulting fees he received from Freddie Mac were for his services as a "historian."

In recent years, Gingrich's historical output has been mainly confined to a series of co-authored war thrillers and alternate histories. But he does indeed hold a Ph.D. in history from Tulane University and taught the subject at West Georgia College during the 1970s.

Curious about whether Gingrich's background as a historian does, in fact, shed any light on his current views, I decided to give a read to his 1971 doctoral thesis on the unlikely topic of Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945-1960. "

[Link: blog.foreignpolicy.com...]

Mattand Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:07:30am

re: #8 makeitstop

Who's up next? Does Kwazy Unca Ron get the next 15 minutes? They're running out of choices - Santorum and Huntsman are the only other ones left, and I don't see either of them getting much love from the Insane Base.

I'm actually surprised that Santorum has gotten more frothy mixture from the GOP base. He's got all of the proper extremist bona fides.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:11:19am

The other “pro-family” candidates were all enthusiastically in favor of destroying immigrant families.

I am pro family!!!

So what if I just mean white conservative families!!!

Lidane Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:11:58am

re: #8 makeitstop

This is the issue that took the wind out of Perry's sails.

It didn't just hurt Goodhair. It also hurt the book publishing industry:

How Perry's Fading Campaign Upended My Book Deal

It’s hard to remember when there was once a bidding war for Adios, Mofo in New York. Six publishers made our agent promise to give them a chance to bid on the proposal once Perry announced for president. When he rocketed to the top of the Republican field and looked like a tea-vangelical Ronald Reagan from the red states, a heartthrob for the angry mob, Moore and I ended up with a book deal that made national news.

And then Perry opened his mouth. Bless his heart.

Apparently he's found a new way to screw Democrats. He's run such a bad campaign that we lost our book deal. Heck, he's run such a bad campaign that he made Adios, Mofo look positively professional in contrast, even though most days I just sat at my desk wearing boxers and an undershirt. Of course, while Perry was stepping awkwardly on his own one-liners, I was writing jokes that our one review called “seasoned with biting humor and chortle-inducing details.” You take your wins where you get them, even if it’s a single review that you quote obsessively for comfort.

Heh.

SteveMcG Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:15:11am

I wouldn't trust anything a Republican says anymore. As far as I am concerned, it's just a "I'm not really THAT radical" kind of trick.

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:15:47am

re: #10 mattand

I'm actually surprised that Santorum has gotten more frothy mixture from the GOP base. He's got all of the proper extremist bona fides.

Catholic. Also, I think he comes across as a little effeminate for their taste. They like a very hard-hitting, hyper-macho approach--more like Perry--and I think Santorum comes across too gentle and whiny for that.

Killgore Trout Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:18:48am

FACT CHECK: How Serious is the Threat to Pakistan’s Nuclear Program?

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann serves on the House Intelligence Committee, so her comments on Pakistan’s nuclear program represent either a news-making leak of previously unknown classified information or another in her recent series of seemingly-random, and highly inaccurate, public comments.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:20:58am

I'm surprised Huntsman at least wouldn't get behind the Utah Compromise.

sagehen Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:25:48am

Even Grover Norquist knew enough to advise his party that "you won't attract a lot of votes by telling people you're going to deport their mother."

SanFranciscoZionist Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:26:50am

re: #17 sagehen

Even Grover Norquist knew enough to advise his party that "you won't attract a lot of votes by telling people you're going to deport their mother."

Yes, but Grover Norquist is a Muslim jihadi agitator, so he WOULD say that.

Amory Blaine Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:28:00am

re: #15 Killgore Trout

Republicans will say anything for political gain even at the cost of national security. See Iraq.

SteveMcG Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:28:56am

re: #19 Amory Blaine

Republicans will say anything for political gain even at the cost of national security. See Iraq.

Republicans equate national security with their own political gain.

Feline Fearless Leader Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:31:59am

re: #20 SteveMcG

Republicans equate national security with their own political gain.

That's because they are the Nation. The rest of us are the fluffy outside that acts as a protective ablative shell.

Lidane Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:32:26am

re: #18 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes, but Grover Norquist is a Muslim jihadi agitator, so he WOULD say that.

//

Speaking of Muslim jihadi agitators, the Harpy's massive fail about sharia turkeys is getting a lot of traffic on the intertubes. She's being mocked all over the place. It's glorious.

Cannadian Club Akbar Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:34:39am

re: #22 Lidane

Speaking of Muslim jihadi agitators, the Harpy's massive fail about sharia turkeys is getting a lot of traffic on the intertubes. She's being mocked all over the place. It's glorious.

You're being lulled to sleep by the sharia turkeys!!

Killgore Trout Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:35:58am

Update: Occupy protester's miscarriage claim questioned

Stebbins said Fox, whom she parented for 10 years, has a pattern of exaggeration. "My daughter is a compulsive liar," Stebbins said. "She's a wannabe drama queen."

Stebbins' older daughter echoed the statements in a separate interview.

"I seriously doubt, that if she is claiming she had a miscarriage, that she was even pregnant," said Nicole Botes, who has known Fox for a decade. "I'd like to see actual medical reports."

lawhawk Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:37:27am

re: #15 Killgore Trout

Fact checking the fact checking. That's a posting I wrote back in 2009, which relates that the Pakistanis were expanding their nuclear program, and that several of the suspected Pakistani sites had come under attack by the Taliban and/or suicide bombers in preceding years.

What she said:

Bachmann said that 15 Pakistani nuclear sites were vulnerable to jihadist attacks, and that six of the sites had previously come under some form of Islamist attack.

Based on attacks to at least 2 of the sites just in a quick review, the fact that all Pakistani sites might be vulnerable is plausible and wouldn't require revealing classified information.

nines09 Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:37:41am

Why any rational human being would believe one single word that falls from the lips of Newt Gingrich disgraced former Speaker of The House is beyond me. He puts the "G" in Grifter.

jaunte Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:51:17am

re: #9 Areozol

The conclusion of that is interesting:

Another passage that jumps out is one in which Gingrich goes way beyond the scope of his dissertation to sketch out a bleak vision of a future riven by inequality between the developed and developing worlds:

"Some specialists argue that American society will be warped and disfigured by this growing disparity in living standards. They suggest that as communications become more pervasive poverty-ridden populations will demand that the developed countries share their wealth. In response the developed nations will become virtual fortresses. A siege mentality will come to dominate and the liberal, open-ended society of the past century will have been replaced by a grim, inward-looking military camp. Without accepting the more extreme predictions, one can still agree with Robert McNamara that American society is far more threatened by the development gap than by Chinese nuclear capability."

I'm guessing it probably won't come up at tonight's debate, but I would love to hear whether Gingrich still believes that inequality is more dangerous than nukes.

Acemarilllion Wed, Nov 23, 2011 11:08:43am

I imagine a lot of conservatives still hold a grudge against Gingrich for his 2008 commecial PSA with Nancy Pelosi (gasp!) agreeing on climate change.

wrenchwench Wed, Nov 23, 2011 11:28:57am

re: #28 Acemarilllion

Welcome, hatchling.

aagcobb Wed, Nov 23, 2011 11:38:39am

"He’s just smart enough to realize that alienating Latino immigrants might not be a good political move."

That doesn't keep him from taking the position that English should be the official language of the US.

chunkymonkey Wed, Nov 23, 2011 1:16:22pm

What's the LGF position on illegal immigration in the USA? Obviously you're not for deporting illegal immigrants, at least not those who have children born in the country, or in which their families would otherwise potentially be split up.

Should we not expel any illegal immigrants? Should citizens of any country be able to simply show up and live in the USA? I'm still trying to work this out for myself, it's not an easy subject. My knee jerk response is to kick out all illegal immigrants, but I have illegal immigrant friends with families in the country, and I don't want to kick them out.

At the same time, I don't want the USA to become Mexico, for a lot of reasons. So what's the solution?

Obdicut Wed, Nov 23, 2011 1:20:53pm

re: #31 chunkymonkey

What's the LGF position on illegal immigration in the USA?

There's a lot of people here. Who are you talking to?

Obviously you're not for deporting illegal immigrants, at least not those who have children born in the country, or in which their families would otherwise potentially be split up.

Are you?

Should we not expel any illegal immigrants?

The criminal ones, definitely.

Should citizens of any country be able to simply show up and live in the USA?

What do you mean by 'live'? Right now, illegal immigrants pay into social security and a lot of other programs they're not eligible for, while working for below-legal wages a lot of the time or otherwise getting exploited. I'd rather have a guest worker program, an expanded green-card program.

My knee jerk response is to kick out all illegal immigrants, but I have illegal immigrant friends with families in the country, and I don't want to kick them out.

What about the enormous cost of kicking everyone out, the devastation to the economy, and the fact that they'll just come back? Aren't those also good reasons not to do it?

So what's the solution?

Expanded guest worker programs and a path to citizenship that isn't based on a lottery. The DREAM act is a good start.

chunkymonkey Wed, Nov 23, 2011 1:41:52pm

re: #32 Obdicut

There's a lot of people here. Who are you talking to?

Mostly Charles, but I'd like to know your position too.

What do you mean by 'live'? Right now, illegal immigrants pay into social security and a lot of other programs they're not eligible for, while working for below-legal wages a lot of the time or otherwise getting exploited. I'd rather have a guest worker program, an expanded green-card program.

Live = reside. While what you write is largely true, illegals also get a lot of services for which they do not pay, including ER visits, K-12 education, etc. On the other hand, hard to feel too sorry about someone being exploited when it was their choice to come here.

What about the enormous cost of kicking everyone out, the devastation to the economy, and the fact that they'll just come back? Aren't those also good reasons not to do it?

Those are things to consider, yes.

Expanded guest worker programs and a path to citizenship that isn't based on a lottery. The DREAM act is a good start.

So no limits on legal immigration whatsoever except for criminals? I do have concerns about whether or not such an approach is good for the country. I concede that I'm not convinced that these concerns are rational, but once the flood gate is open, there's no closing it, and if open immigration is a mistake, it's a mistake you can't take back.

The general feeling against open immigration comes I think for most Americans in two parts:

1. Increased population density is undesirable. Looking at countries with much higher population densities than the USA makes me feel claustrophobic.

2. Change in culture. While I do appreciate a lot of aspects of other cultures, some are less desirable. While political corruption in the USA is bad, it's nowhere near that of Mexico. Americans like the country to be American, just like Mexicans like Mexico to be Mexican. Just look at Mexico's immigration laws if you have any doubt.

3. I have Latino friends here in the pacific northwest who moved from southern cal. They left, they said, because the illegal immigrants have ruined the place. They didn't get into details, but what's up with that?

My business partner's parents are Mexican, his father formally an illegal immigrant. If everyone in the country was just like him, it would be a better place.

I think the guest worker program is a great idea. I also think that anyone brought here as a child and has lived most of their life here is effectively American and should be granted citizenship. I think a non-lottery path to citizenship is a good idea as long as there are a couple strong requirements in terms of the standard US history and political system, as well as a working knowledge of the English language.

wrenchwench Wed, Nov 23, 2011 2:37:14pm

re: #33 chunkymonkey

1. Increased population density is undesirable. Looking at countries with much higher population densities than the USA makes me feel claustrophobic.

Move. There are seven people per square mile in my county. I'm in New Mexico.

2. Change in culture.

Uh oh. What should we do with New Mexico?

While I do appreciate a lot of aspects of other cultures, some are less desirable. While political corruption in the USA is bad, it's nowhere near that of Mexico. Americans like the country to be American, just like Mexicans like Mexico to be Mexican. Just look at Mexico's immigration laws if you have any doubt.

Mexicans don't come here to be Mexicans. They either come here to work to make life better back home, or they come here to be Americans.

That's my opinion.

chunkymonkey Wed, Nov 23, 2011 2:43:46pm

re: #34 wrenchwench

Mexicans don't come here to be Mexicans.

The behavior of a lot of Mexican immigrants is to the contrary of your assertion.

wrenchwench Wed, Nov 23, 2011 2:53:40pm

re: #35 chunkymonkey

The behavior of a lot of Mexican immigrants is to the contrary of your assertion.

You want to be specific, or just make a general smear? Is this your proof?

3. I have Latino friends here in the pacific northwest who moved from southern cal. They left, they said, because the illegal immigrants have ruined the place. They didn't get into details, but what's up with that?

chunkymonkey Wed, Nov 23, 2011 3:34:58pm

re: #36 wrenchwench

You want to be specific, or just make a general smear?

Saying that Mexicans behave like Mexicans is not a smear any more than saying that Americans behave like Americans. For specific examples, not learning English and waving Mexican flags in the USA. I wouldn't wave an American flag in Mexico, unless it was at a sporting event and I was visiting. If I was an immigrant to Mexico, I'd damn sure wave the Mexican flag. I wouldn't fault Mexicans for getting irritated at American immigrants behaving that way either.

Is this your proof?

No, they didn't tell me what it was they didn't like about the illegal immigrants.

wrenchwench Wed, Nov 23, 2011 3:49:57pm

re: #37 chunkymonkey

Saying that Mexicans behave like Mexicans is not a smear any more than saying that Americans behave like Americans. For specific examples, not learning English and waving Mexican flags in the USA. I wouldn't wave an American flag in Mexico, unless it was at a sporting event and I was visiting. If I was an immigrant to Mexico, I'd damn sure wave the Mexican flag. I wouldn't fault Mexicans for getting irritated at American immigrants behaving that way either.

No, they didn't tell me what it was they didn't like about the illegal immigrants.

I've seen lots of people who have Irish ancestors but have never even been to Ireland wave Irish flags. They still want to be Americans. Why can't Mexicans do the same? I don't think that saying what you would do is a way to judge other people. How do you know people waving flags don't speak English? Are you referring to something specific?

chunkymonkey Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:09:12pm

re: #38 wrenchwench

I've seen lots of people who have Irish ancestors but have never even been to Ireland wave Irish flags. They still want to be Americans. Why can't Mexicans do the same? I don't think that saying what you would do is a way to judge other people. How do you know people waving flags don't speak English? Are you referring to something specific?

Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it is not.

wrenchwench Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:11:41pm

re: #39 chunkymonkey

Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it is not.

Weak.

chunkymonkey Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:26:40pm

For example, even having an Aztlan rally, much less waving a Mexican flag at one, would be something I'd deem innapropriate. Waving a Mexican flag at a soccer match or during Natalicio de Benito Juárez... who cares, whatever floats your boat.

chunkymonkey Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:27:10pm

My spelling is also something to be deemed inappropriate.

wrenchwench Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:50:20pm

re: #41 chunkymonkey

For example, even having an Aztlan rally, much less waving a Mexican flag at one, would be something I'd deem innapropriate. Waving a Mexican flag at a soccer match or during Natalicio de Benito Juárez... who cares, whatever floats your boat.

What's an Aztlan rally? Do you have something specific in mind? Something that actually happened?

jamesfirecat Wed, Nov 23, 2011 5:47:42pm

re: #31 chunkymonkey

What's the LGF position on illegal immigration in the USA? Obviously you're not for deporting illegal immigrants, at least not those who have children born in the country, or in which their families would otherwise potentially be split up.

Should we not expel any illegal immigrants? Should citizens of any country be able to simply show up and live in the USA? I'm still trying to work this out for myself, it's not an easy subject. My knee jerk response is to kick out all illegal immigrants, but I have illegal immigrant friends with families in the country, and I don't want to kick them out.

At the same time, I don't want the USA to become Mexico, for a lot of reasons. So what's the solution?

Its not the people who make Mexico "Mexico" it is the wealth inequality.

chunkymonkey Wed, Nov 23, 2011 9:19:56pm

re: #44 jamesfirecat

Its not the people who make Mexico "Mexico" it is the wealth inequality.

Right, so if the wealth was magically re-distributed tomorrow Mexico's problems would just go away. There's something fundamentaly messed up in that country. I have no idea what it is, I've never been there, and I only mostly know from the effects it has on the USA or from news reports.

Mexico has a lousy reputation. You are claiming that the rampant corruption is because of wealth inequity? There's a systemic problem in Mexico. The worlds richest man lives there, and has an actual monopoly (not a pretend one like Microsoft etc) and he has that because the government gave it to him. This seems more like a problem of a poor political culture than one of wealth inequality.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 24, 2011 2:54:42am

re: #45 chunkymonkey

It's both. Why is that hard to accept?

And our political culture is moving faster and faster in that direction, as money becomes the sole determinator of success in politics.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Gingrich Not Crazy Enough for the GOP?

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud