That Newt Gingrich should win the South Carolina Republican primary is no surprise. South Carolina is the most reactionary state in the union.
It fired the first shot in the Civil War. It still proudly flies the Confederate flag on its capitol grounds.
But no matter to South Carolinians. He’s their boy in the GOP fight for the presidential nomination even though Gingrich carries more baggage than an airliner
President Obama should be salivating. Gingrich and the other three GOP presidential candidates--Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum--are unsuited to be president.
Let’s talk about the worst first: Gingrich.
He is an arrogant, pompous fraud. A hollow man. He was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first House speaker disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.
Even dedicated Republicans are calling him erratic, unethical and even dangerous.
Gingrich’s ideas are deplorable. He would fire unionized janitors and hire kids in their place. He opposes extending jobless insurance because that’s “giving people money for doing nothing.”
His racism is blatant. His stereotypes are from the Dark Ages. Blacks are lazy and don’t want to work, their families are on the dole.
His racism is also subtle. Gingrich says Obama “put more people on food stamps than any president in history.”
Gingrich would abolish the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He urges a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He laments elimination of prayer in the schools because kids are “now adrift morally.”
He is violently anti-labor, favoring right-to-work laws and abolishing the National Labor Relations Board.
Gingrich says the Palestianians are “invented people,” which earned him a $5 million campaign gift from multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Adelson, owner of the largest circulating newspaper in Israel, had already contributed $8 million to the Gingrich campaign.
Gingrich claims not to be a member of the “national establishment” yet has been a Washington insider for four decades.
He was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, government-sponsored mortgage company, making $1.6 million over eight years. At the same time he sold access to health care insurers to reap $37 million.
Gingrich makes $60,000 a speech, a huge sum for selling snake oil. His credit line at Tiffany’s is $500,000. In 2010 he reported $3.16 million income. He and his third wife, Callista, have a net worth of $6.5 million.
Frank Bruni, New York Times columnist, writes: “Gingrich lashes out against secularism. He and his wife trumpet their Catholicism although for six years they lived in defiance of its tenets.”
His chronic philandering led him to demand an open marriage with his second wife. He divorced his first while she was battling cancer.
Mitt Romney? The best of a dreadful lot.
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone sums up his character perfectly: “He is totally insincere, calculating and soulless.”
As Massachusetts governor Romney pushed through the legislature a health plan similar to Obama’s. But now he repudiates any liberal instincts.
Romney and his wife Ann had an income of $27 million in 2010 and $20 million last year.
“They held millions in Swiss bank accounts and millions more in Cayman Islands partnerships,” the New York Times noted. The Times also reported that his family’s blind trust holds $250 million.
Heading into the Florida primary Tuesday, Romney made a blatant appeal to the large Cuban-American population living in Miami. He grimly vowed: “if he becomes president Fidel Castro will be taken off this planet.”
Romney’s union-bashing will appeal to right-wingers in Florida, declaring that “the National Labor Relations Board is stacked with union stooges.”
Not true. But campaigning politicians have a mere nodding acquaintance with truth.
The stooges remark shows that Romney and most Republicans abhor the magnificent insight of Republican Lincoln: “labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration.”
Ron Paul makes excellent anti-war points. He’s against the absurd U.S. war in Afghanistan. He would bring all overseas troops home. He opposes the stupid drug war.
Otherwise he’s dreadful. He would repeal civil rights laws, overturn Roe and abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
As for Rick Santorum, he is so retrograde that even most Republicans cannot vote for him. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
Rape victims? Why, Santorum says, women must “accept what God has given them.”
Santorum is one of those religious fanatics who give you the creeps.
In sum, all four GOP candidates are regressives. They are Social Darwinists like the robber barons of the Gilded Age.


Salon.com
Comments
But what Paul Krugman calls "Zombie lies" keep coming back agian, like the monsters in horror films you think have been killed.
It's as if the Republicans assume that we're all retards that will swing their way for a handful of jawbreakers and a yo-yo.
He is an arrogant, pompous fraud. A hollow man. He was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first House speaker disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.
Even dedicated Republicans are calling him erratic, unethical and even dangerous.
Gingrich’s ideas are deplorable. He would fire unionized janitors and hire kids in their place. He opposes extending jobless insurance because that’s “giving people money for doing nothing.”
His racism is blatant. His stereotypes are from the Dark Ages. Blacks are lazy and don’t want to work, their families are on the dole.
His racism is also subtle. Gingrich says Obama “put more people on food stamps than any president in history.”
Gingrich would abolish the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He urges a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He laments elimination of prayer in the schools because kids are “now adrift morally.”
He is violently anti-labor, favoring right-to-work laws and abolishing the National Labor Relations Board.
Gingrich says the Palestianians are “invented people,” which earned him a $5 million campaign gift from multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Adelson, owner of the largest circulating newspaper in Israel, had already contributed $8 million to the Gingrich campaign.
Unfortunately, Jake, not only are these NOT negatives for a large segment of the American voting public, they are actually considered positives of a sort. There are people who adore him…and are hoping he ultimately is the Republican nominee so they can happily and enthusiastically cast their vote for him.
There are others, much less enthusiastic, who will hold their noses and vote for him if he is the nominee, simply because he will be the not-Obama choice.
Despite the fact that he is a slug and one of the most disgusting candidates I’ve seen during my lifetime…if nominated, he may actually become our president on January 20th, 2013.
Romney will be the Republican nominee and all Republicans and enough Independents will rally to his side to get rid of the misguided kid that is presently polluting not only the White House but also the noble principles of the United States.
What astonishes me is the shocking lack of principle that enables people to support Obama when every day his calendar is packed with broken promises, constitutional end runs, political pay-offs, rampant intellectual inconsistency, and golf dates.
Hummm…that “astonishes” you, does it, Gordon?
Because it is so different from all the other recent president…who never broke promises, made constitutional end runs, accepted political pay-offs, had rampant intellectual inconsistencies, and who never played any golf?
Really?
And to think, you started your comment with, "Nothing new here!"
As far as "nothing new," I challenge you to find one observation about the Republican field that hasn't been all over the news for weeks.
It's all a matter of degree, Frank. For example, Bush gave up golf after 9/11. And I doubt that you can quote Republican atrocities comparable to Obamacare, the manifold outrages of Eric Holder's Justice Department, and what's going on at the NLRB.
Ahhh…so you are faulting Obama for playing more golf than W! But Bush I played lots of golf; Clinton played lots of golf; Eisenhower played lots of golf…and other presidents had other kinds of diversions. The golf should not really have been in there. The “broken promises” was a laugh…the making “constitutional end runs” was a hoot; the “political pay-offs” was manna from Heaven for people wanting light to come in the windows; and “rampant intellectual inconsistencies” after W’s administration should be printed out, shredded, and used to fertilize rose bushes.
The outrages of all presidencies play better to opponents than to adherents. You know that. Bush I and Bush II had many of ‘em…Reagan’s would fill an encyclopedia.
As far as "nothing new," I challenge you to find one observation about the Republican field that hasn't been all over the news for weeks.
Can’t believe you missed the sarcasm there again, Gordon. You must be working too hard. There was nothing new in the observations about the Republican field and nothing new in the retorts in response. That was my point. If you want to challenge me...invite me to the golf course or to a local bar--and you will get a taker. Also, we will have a ball.
That is what we do here in OS…say essentially the same thing over and over again using different words. That, in fact, is what the Republican field is doing!