*edit: there was a little (stupid) error with my dates because of a typo, but they're fixed now.
Today's topic, suggested by my mother, is Newt Gingrich. I had to do a lot of research on him because I wasn't sure if I knew enough about him to write this, but the more I read, the less I liked him. So, here's the scoop on Nasty Newt.
Today's topic, suggested by my mother, is Newt Gingrich. I had to do a lot of research on him because I wasn't sure if I knew enough about him to write this, but the more I read, the less I liked him. So, here's the scoop on Nasty Newt.
I’ve been to Newt Gingrich’s website. At first glance, he seems like a pretty good guy; he’s worked for/with the government before, he apparently knows his stuff financially, and he has a nice quiet personal life; a wife, a home. Comfortable living. His website features Gingrich supporters giving testimonies about why they chose to support him, and maybe they’re a little nasty, but those are other people. Some pretty big, well-known companies endorse him. His website doesn’t mention his earlier political scandals, but there’s no solid proof and he was ‘victimized’ anyway, so why should it? His wife has given several public talks, and they’re all positive.
Well, I say ‘his wife,’ but I should clarify that she’s his third wife. There’s nothing wrong with remarriage if your first marriage falls apart; my parents are both remarried, and I’m really glad they divorced in the first place. However, his first wife told us that he had an affair with the woman who eventually became his second wife. His second wife told us that after she refused to have an open marriage, he decided to cheat on her for six years with his campaign aide. Wait, what? This man professes to be trustworthy and religious and pro-family values, but he made a very calculated, conscious decision to commit adultery. He doesn’t even have the flimsy excuse of it just happened. He thought about it and decided to go ahead anyway. Furthermore, both of his ex-wives were ill – the recovering from cancer treatments, and the second with MS – when he left them.
Callista’s an idiot if she thinks she’s the end of this cycle, so we can’t trust her word, and it’s already a given that we can’t trust his. If he can’t behave appropriately in his personal life, how can we expect him to do it politically?
He believes America was once and should be the ‘dominant country.’ Why, exactly? What makes him think that we’ll be able to liaise with other countries if we’re so full of ourselves that we believe we’re better than everyone else? That causes resentment. That’s the kind of mentality which, on the playground, gets a kid beat up.
He talks big, talks about this ideal society – which is ridiculous, since everyone knows idealists never actually get anything done, because they’re working for perfection and perfection doesn’t exist – but even so, even if this ideal did exist, it wouldn’t matter; he doesn’t give any specific solutions. He cracks jokes and alludes to Big Plans; however, in all of my readings both ‘pro-Newt’ and ‘anti-Newt’ (there doesn’t seem to be a middle ground here), I haven’t found anything more than empty promises of a better country.
Okay, okay, he said some specific stuff about jobs. Again, he’s talking big; does he really believe he’ll get that done? He’s either completely idealistic or just delusional…do we want someone like that representing us?
Look, I know Gingrich supporters will tell me but he is specific! He’s telling us [a, b, c]! I understand where you’re coming from. He has lots of goals that sound really…sound. But how will he accomplish those things? For instance, how will he achieve 100% expensing? If he could back up his promises, maybe I'd be able to take him more seriously.
He says that there’s some war against religion. Generally, I like to use family-appropriate words on the internet, but this is bullshit. As an atheist, I’m ambivalent about religion; on the one hand, I can’t understand it intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually. On the other, everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe, as long as they aren’t violent about it. There was a proposed anti-bullying law which had a clause stating that you could bully someone if you objected to them from a spiritual, religious standpoint; it got rejected, but seriously?
War on religion? What Gingrich means is that there are other belief systems out there. Not everybody is Christian. That means that not everybody agrees with his standpoint and the standpoint of most of his followers. What Gingrich means is that he thinks everybody should be Christian. If we aren’t, we’re ‘anti-religion.’
Let me give you a little history lesson: the Pledge of Allegiance wasn’t written by any Founding Fathers. It was written by Francis Bellamy – a Christian socialist – in 1892. It certainly fits a socialist mindset, doesn’t it? ‘Under God’ wasn’t added until 1954. ‘In God We Trust’ was added to our coins in 1864, added to our paper currency in 1957, and adopted as the US motto in 1956. Our original motto was E Pluribus Unum, which means ‘Out of Many, One.’ If anything, conservatives should applaud the removal of ‘Under God’ from the pledge, and constitutionalists should move for the removal of ‘In God We Trust’ from our currency and abolish the pledge completely. Instead, they’re claiming a ‘war on religion.’
Speaking of war, we won the Second World War from 1941 to 1945? As in, the war only started in 1941? Here’s another history lesson: World War II started in either 1937 or 1939 (the dates are not set in stone, but they’re definitely in the ‘30s). America only joined in 1941 because Japan dropped a bomb in Pearl Harbor. I’m not going to go into the political and global issues that came along with WWII, because that’s another subject entirely, but Gingrich talks about the US ‘winning’ the war, because we dropped atomic bombs in Japan.
We were violent – and maybe it was necessary, but here's the thing: we didn’t ‘win’ anything, we just defended ourselves by going on the offensive. Thanks, Newt, for rewriting history.
I would say ‘Don’t get me started on attacks on other candidates,’ but this is the place to get me started. I don’t really want to focus on President Obama, because seriously, I could write a book on everything Gingrich has said to tear him down. But I will remind you that Gingrich said, at CPAC 2012, “My goal, with your help, is that by the time President Obama lands in Chicago, we will have repudiated at least 40% of his government on the opening‑day.”
This is a pipe dream. People were clapping and cheering for idealistic garbage; isn’t that part of why Gingrich hates our current President in the first place? Like I said before, idealists can’t get things done. I may not agree with Gingrich’s policies, but that’s not the point. People who believe in him shouldn’t. He’s empty.
Gingrich has opened an attack website on Romney. I think that speaks for itself.
Of course, Gingrich has very few negative things to say on Santorum, who is a complete loon who is dangerous to our country, to those of us who aren’t Christian, and to anyone who doesn’t fit the heteronormative profile. If Gingrich likes Santorum, there’s another problem; how can I, an atheistic homoromantic asexual, possibly hope to publicly be myself with Gingrich/Santorum supporters pushing to make my life hell? Just saying.
He’d also like to abolish child labor laws. Why? They’re ‘stupid.’ Let me tell you something about the reason for child labor laws. From 1908-1912, a photographer named Lewis Hine took photographs of children working in factories, mines, and other places. They were, frankly, horrifying, and they were a huge push for child labor laws. I’m not saying that children are going to be dirty, dressed in rags, and miserable, but I am saying that there’s a reason for them. If Gingrich doesn’t know this, he’s an ignorant fool saying stuff to attract equally ignorant supporters; if he does know this, he’s a jerk who doesn’t care. Aside from all of that, children work for less than adults do. If we abolished child labor laws, children would take jobs away from their parents, which would mean making less money for the family. That’s just great, isn’t it? Let kids work so adults don’t have to be responsible and family incomes will come down.
…Wait. That’s not a good idea. Well done, Gingrich.
I could go on, but I won't. I'm not that passionate about this; Gingrich is a jerk with lofty ideals and a narrow view of history, and I don't necessarily like to dwell on stupid people, because the more I speak about them the more irritated I get.
But all of this makes my grandma correct when she calls him 'Nasty Newt.'
I say let the little rugrats work for me! I could use a break for a while. Thanks for the opinion but I am all for child labor.....for heaven's sake....I had adult labor for many hours and didn't get paid squat!
ReplyDelete