NOT THE SHARPEST KNIFE IN THE DRAWER: The Day Newt Gingrich’s Candidacy Died
During an interview on “Meet the Press,” Newt Gingrich made a bone-headed gaffe. Leaving aside David Gregory associating food stamp use with black Americans ("You gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded, racially tinged language calling the president, the first black president, 'a food stamp president.'") here’s how Newt answered (emphasis, The Stiletto):
[T]his kind of automatic reference to racism, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States has to be held accountable. … [W]hat I said is factually true. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. One out of every six Americans is on food stamps. And to hide behind the charge of racism? I have - I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist.
What Newt meant (#1): "I have never said anything about President Obama that is racist.”
What Newt meant (#2): "I have never said anything about President Obama, which is racist.”
In the first statement, Newt declares that none of the statements he has made about the president have been racist. In the second statement, Newt declares that he has never made a single statement about the president, despite which would be racist, because it suggests that notwithstanding Obama's historic status as the nation's first black (or, biracial, which is more accurate) president he was beneath Newt's interest or notice.
Clearly, Newt was trying to say his rhetoric is not racist - but if he's a brainiac, as some keep claiming, how come he doesn't know the difference between "that" and "which?"
Not that The Stiletto needs to waste much time pondering this, as Newt has just consigned himself to the dustbin of history, at least - especially - in this election cycle. In that same interview (the real news, not the irrelevancy Mediaite’s Matt Schneider chose to focus on), Newt made two other bone-headed gaffes that knock him out of contention as a serious candidate:
GREGORY: Now, I know you’ve got big difference with what you call Obamacare. But back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate:
I am for people, individuals – exactly like automobile insurance–individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?
GINGRICH: No, it’s not precisely what he did.
GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay–help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond … or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.
GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?
GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.
But, wait. There’s more. Newt also attacked Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to bring fiscal discipline to entitlement programs:
GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors … some premium support and - so that they can go out and buy private insurance?
GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. …
GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.
GINGRICH: I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump.
The Washington Post reports that in an interview with The Wall Street Journal later in the day, Newt “also said he would like to see the mandate implemented at the state level, with states experimenting with alternative approaches” that applies to all Americans.
In a desperate attempt to reverse his televised brain infarct (or is that brain fart?), Newt released this amateurish video – he’s facing the sun, looking all squinty-eyed. But his candidacy is not expected to survive.
Comments