Just because I criticized various media outlets — and others — who misrepresented Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s exchange with a gay Iowa Democrat (who, by his own logic, should be a big supporter of former Vice President Dick Cheney) does not mean I support the candidate.
Although I have impressed with how the former Speaker has conducted himself in debates and with tendentious reporters, I have a number of concerns about his record and his temperament. Not just that, he often makes some rather unusual — and unnecessarily polarizing — statements.
For example, in the exchange which excited all the hullabaloo today, he could have told his partisan interlocutor that he should consider all the stands a candidate has taken rather than focusing on just one in making up his mind, that a voter will find that he will disagree with each candidate on at least one issue.
When he recently expressed his opposition to gay marriage, he said:
I believe that marriage is between a man and woman. . . . It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate. I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know.
He could have simply left off at the word, “history”, but to call a debate that has been going on for at least a decade a “temporary aberration” is simply absurd. And to contend that the notion “fundamentally goes against everything we know” suggests a lack of imagination on the issue.
Now, to be sure, some radical advocates of gay marriage do want to destroy the institution, but most gay couples who have sought state recognition of their unions as marriages in jurisdictions which allow them to do so share the same values — and aspirations — of straight couples who do the same. Many elect monogamy. (Would be nice, of course, if gay marriage advocates featured such couples and promoted the values they incorporate into their unions — and criticized those who want to destroy the institution.)
Well, his statement may have helped Newt secure the endorsement of “Donald E. Wildmon, founder and chairman of American Family Association“.
All that said, gay marriage is only one among a great variety of issues of concern in the upcoming election. It’s not just Gingrich’s opposition to state recognition of such unions which concerns me, but the way he has expressed that opposition.
And that expression is one of the many things which has prevented me from elevating the former Speaker to the list of candidates I would consider voting for several months hence in the California primary.
Are you saying your feelings were hurt because you disagree with the manner in which he conveyed his position?
No, I am saying it’s bad politics — and unnecessarily divisive.
FWIW, my beef with Gingrich isn’t his position on gay marriage (which I actually haven’t thought about much until today), but the fact that he is a Big Government guy, just more right-wing than Obama.
As the inimitable Mark Steyn put it recently, “If… your idea of a conservative president is Calvin Coolidge – Newt is actually the antithesis of that… He’s got more solutions to stuff that most of us didn’t even know were problems… he believes in interconnected government solutions for everything. And what I find – that’s why the Freddie Mac thing [Newt taking big fees from them] is not a small point.”
P.S. Big Government-ness also my problem with Willard, who prototyped Obamacare (and now denies it). I don’t like either of them. And I couldn’t say, at least for now, which is worse/better.
If I were a republican candidate, I would keep distance from any and all gay issues and when a “gotcha” gay individual or self described conservative gay asked any question, I would direct them to my policy on the campaign website and turn and walk away. The LGBT vote is such a small one it’s just not worth the smears/critisism that always results for republicans/conservatives interfacing LGBT people.
Anyone have a good handle on Dr. Paul’s positions on gay-issues. I read thru his website and get the impression he’s trying to play both sides…and taking refuge in “States Rights” is a cop-out when it comes to ethical and moral issues. I certainly don’t agree with his position on abortion rights.
Re #3
Slightly off topic, but, based on what I’ve read about Calvin Coolidge, I’m surprised he isn’t more of an “idol” among conservatives. I think it is unfortunate that he is apparently overlooked so much (but maybe there is reason for that that I am unaware of).
Namloos,
The Progressive historians painted Coolidge as a do-nothing president with little to recommend him other than his taciturn nature and acting the clown who once donned an Indian headdress and looked entirely foolish.
Coolidge favored low taxes and Andrew Mellon (the Art Laffer of the 1920’s) advised that taxing over 25% would drive investment and spending into shelters and lower the amount realized by higher rates. But Coolidge (and Mellon) were excoriated for the Hawley-Smoot tariff which has long been blamed by Progressives as the main cause of the Great Depression. So, Progressive historians, beginning with Charles Beard, awarded Coolidge a near the bottom place in rating the presidents.
Reagan admired Coolidge and the Progressives had endless horse laughs over that. They saw it as one simpleton getting all excited over another simpleton.
Ted B. >> R. Paul believes the government should get out of the marriage business completely and also believes that marriage is a states rights issue. However, some contend that he’s not really taking a stand either way, as to “get out of the marriage business” would be as easy as putting a genie back in the bottle. As well, by leaving it up to the states, he doesn’t have to define his stance. Others contend it’s his way of dodging coming out against gay marriage, thereby alienating a contingent of voters who have already decided they wouldn’t vote for any other of the Republican candidates.
But, then, he’s also expressed support of DOMA. (and, conversely, also spoken against clarifying the definition of marriage.) So, he’s one big question mark on this issue.
Personally, I’m okay with that. Don’t know why. But, that’s just me.
Coolidge was actually very good on economic issues. I think I would have been happy with him in general. He presided over an era of peace and prosperity, and his philosophy of government was very much in sync with mine.
Can we clone him?
Naamloos – I feel the same way about Harding. Libs all say “Teapot Dome! Teapot Dome!!!1!” mindlessly, but the fact is, he solved the Depression of 1920. They hate the way he solved it: by small government. Part of me wonders how much the Teapot Dome thing was a manufactured hatchet/revenge job – I mean, at least in terms of Harding’s involvement. As scandals go, it seems almost quaintly innocent compared to… oh, I don’t know… Fast & Furious. Or Solyndra, LightSquared, etc.
Or (future cautionary tale for children) Bawney Fwank and the Giant Housing Bubble.
Or (ditto) Barry’s Giant Treasury Bubble.
I got a million of ’em… I’ll stop.
#11
There is a monument to Warren Harding in Vancouver of all places. That, the scandals, and that he died in office in San Francisco is pretty much all I know (knew) about him, which I guess as a product of my Canadian education.
However, upon reading a bit about him, I would agree that he is also underrated. Contrast that with FDR, who, IMO, is extremely overrated. That isn’t to say that I would have necessarily supported him (Harding) if he and I were contemporaneous (because of the scandals/corruption), but I might have if I viewed his evident corruption as less of a flaw than the flaws of his opponents (such as leftism), which is possible. IMO, leftism is worse than whatever corruption Harding may have been involved in.
It is also worth noting that both Harding and Coolidge were socially “progressive” for their era, favouring equal treatment of blacks and women (who were definitely denied equal treatment in a significant way, unlike contemporary homosexuals).
Haha. Gingrich’s “temporary aberration” statement isn’t that absurd. Even ten years is a mere drop in the ocean of thousands of years of world history. California is not the center of the universe.
What looks absurd is a thrice married Republican rediscovering his new love for monogamy. Romney is far more conniving. Jesus even more so. ,-)
Gay marriage is the least of my concerns, at this time. The economy is in shambles. At this time, Newt seems to be the most qualified of the candidates, that are remaining, to fix it.
Well, he did lower income tax rates very significantly, but that’s only half of the story. The half you’re forgetting is the Emergancy Tariff of 1921, which was superseded by the Fordney–McCumber Tariff. So lower taxes? Yes. Free trade? Absolutely not.
Pomposity, he also lowered spending very significantly – as much or more than he lowered taxes – thus putting the government budget into balance, and decreasing the burden of government on the People. Opposite of Obama… and opposite results.
Oh and along the same lines: Harding let bad businesses fail, again the opposite of both Bush and Obama. When you understand why that *helps* the economy recovery, you will understand something about business, and why Obama’s approach is doomed to fail. (Which is to say, you’ll never understand it.)
Contrary to left-wing myth, Hoover tried the Obama approach: he increased government spending, increased government “aid” to individuals and businesses, increased regulation, greatly increased taxes on the rich (just what Obama wants), increased deficits to “stimulate” the economy. All of that *prevented* the economy’s recovery from the Recession of 1930, and so *caused* the Depression. Then Roosevelt did it even more, which again prevented recovery and *caused* the Depression to run for an entire decade.
From Harding’s inaugural:
“Fiscal justice”… what a concept. Same with “individual prudence and thrift”. Or “charging off our losses” (as opposed to bailouts and money printing).
Me: “Yes yes, tax cuts. So, what about these tariffs?”
ILC: “He didn’t just cut taxes! He lowered spending too, and he let bad businesses fail! Hoover was just like Obama, he caused the Great Depression, and FDR made it worse. Harding was all about fiscal justice and that’s what we need right now.”
So, what about those tariffs?
Well, since Tariffs were the main method of income for the country prior to the income tax… what about those tariffs, Amy?
I didn’t really consider the revenue side of things there, but are we saying raising tariffs in order to cut income taxes is a good idea?
What about them? They appear to be a big deal to you. Why would they? And what warped thing are you imagining about my views, this time?
i.e. what’s the connection? do you have any point here, and if you do, what would it be?
crickets… I expected no better from Pomposity, ROFL 🙂
Tariffs worked well in the past but in our times it would be a complicated issue. I will have to research, but I doubt there were few if any multinational corporations in the early days of the twentieth century. Also , what about outsourced components. For instance, my Buick Century; the body was made in Canada, the engine in Mexico, who knows where the lesser components were made. but it was assembled in the U.S.A. NAFTA permited the situation. What parts of my car would have been subject to tariffs? In order to expand tariffs would we have to abrogate NAFTA, CAFTA, and any other free trade agreements?
“No, I am saying it’s bad politics — and unnecessarily divisive.”
B. Daniel, maybe what’s “bad politics and unnecessarily divisive” is a tiny sex group demanding that the majority scrap its venerable beliefs about marriage and family so members of said sex group can have more self-esteem, and then yelling, “BIGOT!!!!” at any member of the majority who won’t go along.
The question is, what exactly did Newt mean by “this”?
If he was predicting that the movement for same-sex Marriage™ (using the M-word) is going to fizzle out and be replaced by a more general push for federally-recognized “domestic partnerships”, then maybe (maybe!) future history will prove him correct.
But if he meant to say that gay demands for some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples is just a fad that the GOP and social conservatives can ignore because it’ll go away eventually, the appropriate response is “Newt, De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.”