Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Gingrich promises a return to hate and fear.

Today, this week's Republican front-runner, Newt Gingrich announced that he would nominate John Bolton as Secretary of State. Here is the clip:

This is absolutely fantastic news if you are one of those people who is disgusted with the current administration's efforts to make our country more respected around the world. Favorable opinions of the United States continue to rise markedly in numerous countries, according to polls, in stark contrast to the Bush years. Obviously, it bothers a segment of the American electorate to see huge throngs of foreigners cheering the American president; to know that millions of people around the world admire the United States as a beacon of freedom and democracy. Evidently some people would prefer to see crowds throwing rocks or bombs at American embassies, or throwing shoes at the president. Why people would want that, I can't explain. But for those who are anxious to see a return to those days, Newt Gingrich is surely your man. By appointing someone like John Bolton as Secretary of State, he can virtually guarantee that people around the world will start hating us again.

After all, John Bolton is the guy who said "there's no such thing as the United Nations," and then acted surprised that the Senate would not confirm his appointment as UN ambassador. The guy who said, "I don't do carrots." The guy who lost the support of his own former boss, Colin Powell, and who was criticized by employees at the State Department for his abusive manner. And who currently takes every opportunity to take to the airwaves to undermine President Obama's foreign policy leadership.

If you want to return to the days when Americans were hated everywhere they went, from Europe to South America, you would want John Bolton in charge of the State Department. If you despise the very idea of international diplomacy and cooperation, yesterday's announcements presents another reason to support Newt Gingrich. 


  1. What about his idiotic remarks about poor people having no role models for learning the work ethic? So offensive.

  2. Offensive to you maybe, but red meat for all those people who go to Republican debates and cheer when Rick Perry brags about how many people he has executed, or when Ron Paul says the uninsured should be turned away from hospitals, or those who boo gay soldiers. Those are the people Gingrich has to satisfy to get nominated.

  3. I missed this. Thanks. I was reading about Obama and Biden's main man, ex senator and governor Corzine and the lost 1.2 billion. As well, Holder's inexplicable testimony. Maybe we ought to send Newt to the cornfield?

  4. I don't like Newt but Obama has been preaching hate and fear of the 1% of which he is a member.

  5. I'm curious, Harrison, what statements by the president you believe constitute preaching hate and fear of the 1%. I've heard him advocate taxing the rich, but I have never heard him suggest that we should hate the rich. Quite the opposite in fact. Please supply exact quotes and links.

  6. For most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t - and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

    We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or sometimes even understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets - and huge bonuses - made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

    It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs, homes, and the basic security of millions - innocent, hard-working Americans who had met their responsibilities, but were still left holding the bag.

  7. That is an interesting quote to choose, and it is interesting to analyze that quote in detail rhetorically, because I think it shows that the president is going out of his way to avoid demonizing any particular group of people. In the first paragraph he describes a situation. It is just a fact that inequality has grown over time, and that the wealthy have benefited disproportionately from the growth of the economy. Now why has this been true?

    In the second paragraph, notice the use of the passive voice, and notice that if anybody is being blamed for the situation, it would appear to be the government, for allowing mortgages to be sold that people couldn't afford, for allowing risky investments to be re-packaged and sold, and for failing to regulate banks sufficiently.

    And then in the third paragraph, notice the deliberate ambiguity of using "it" without an antecedent. "It was wrong." "It" could be the situation, or it could be the government's failure to regulate. But "it" does not seem to me to represent a particular group of evil-doers. Sure the president talks about the greed of the few, but he also takes about irresponsibility across the system. In other words, there is plenty of blame to go around, but it seems to me that the president is deliberately trying to avoid fomenting hatred of any group against another group. It sounds to me more like he is saying that we all participated in creating this mess, and now we have to clean it up.

  8. Joe, the entire tone of Obama and his party has been to go after the job creators and banks even though Goldman Sachs is one of the largest sources of donations to Obama's campaign.

    It's no different than Obama's telling Joe the plumber that when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody.

    One of Obama's biggest supporters, Steve Wynn, said:

    There comes a moment when the population realizes that it has to stop. And sometimes it takes a form of tax to rich people, which is a reflection more of a lack of understanding of how the economy works.

    We have an administration that is fanning the fires that this is somehow undeserved profligate millionaires, and it is worse than hypocrisy. It is totally dishonest.

  9. I really don't understand how you can say the Democrats are going after banks and job creators. The first thing the Obama administration did was to save the banks, and big banks had some of their best years ever in the couple of years after he took office. (This year is looking a little worse for banks, however. Could it be a coincidence that that happened after the Republicans took over Congress and many state legislatures last year and have instituted spending cutbacks at all levels of government?)

    When I was a kid, the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. Today it is 35%. I just can't understand how anyone can argue that we are treating the wealthy too harshly by suggesting that maybe the top marginal rate should go up to 39%, which would still be lower than it was when Ronald Reagan was president.

    What is happening today is that people have been waking up to the fact that the wealthy have benefited disproportionately during the last three decades, to the point where inequality is now back to where it was during the 1920's. So it is appropriate to have a conversation about the extent of inequality that we want to tolerate as a society, for example whether we want to return to the state that existed in the 1940's through the 1970's when the middle class had a much larger share of the wealth than they do today.

    We should be able to have that conversation without being accused of demonizing the wealthy.

  10. Joe... who do you think sets the tone?

    Class Warfare: Hundreds Protest Outside Bankers' Houses In DC

    Did Obama ever tell people they were over-reacting? Did he ever mention this? No... this is pure class warfare plain and simple.

    You want to blame the housing bomb on someone? Try Dodd-Frank... or Dodd (or Frank) both of whom are DONE in DC because of their criminal actions.

  11. I truly don't see how you can state the Democrats are following banks and occupation makers. The principal thing the Obama organization did was to spare the banks, and enormous banks had some of their greatest years ever in the couple of years after he took office. (This year is searching somewhat more awful for banks, in any case. Might it be able to be a fortuitous event that that occurred after the Republicans assumed control Congress and many state assemblies a year ago and have founded spending reductions at all levels of government