Newt the Salamander

Newt Gingrich, former Loudmouth of the House, won a plurality of the votes in the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary because the ignorant rednecks of that benighted state liked his aggressive way of attacking liberals. Despite their claims to “Family Values,” the right-wingers of that state were able to overlook Newt’s many moral failures because their belief system is ultimately built on the same kind of hypocrisy that underlies the career of Newt the Salamander.

Why is it that so many ultra-conservative Republicans like this slimy reptile? I suspect that they recognize in him the same set of rotten moral values that they hold. Most of them claim to have “Family Values,” but in reality, most of them live morally hypocritical lives just like Newt. He appeals to their darker natures, their resentment of the more educated and intelligent liberal Democrats, and their hatred of blacks and immigrants.

In one editorial, The New York Times described some of Gingrich’s many inflammatory rants against Democrats including the claim that President Obama and his party are “left-wing radicals” who lead a “secular socialist machine.” He accused them of producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” And then averred that: “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.”

Recognizing that he was in South Carolina, the bigotry capital of America, Newt stooped to abject racism in his fight for the nomination. This is not new from the former Georgia congressman. He had previously charged that President Obama displayed “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” In the South Carolina fight, he repeatedly called Mr. Obama “the greatest food-stamp president in American history,” and lectured a black questioner at a debate about the amount of federal handouts to blacks, suggesting their work ethic was doubtful. Once again, the South Carolina right-wingers (who no-doubt drip with nostalgia for the good-old days of racial segregation) approved of Newt’s appeal to their hatred of blacks.

Gingrich appeals not only to racism but also to every form of bigotry available. He has claimed that advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment. He stated that Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.”

The most disturbing thing about Newt is not his long history of marital infidelity. It is his blatant hypocrisy. Newt repeatedly denounced President Clinton for immoral behavior when the House tried to impeach Clinton for the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, Gingrich was, at the same time, while married, having a sexual affair with a female staffer. Newt’s history of marital infidelity is epic, especially when seen against the background of his moralizing criticism of Bill Clinton.

Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, when he was 19 years old and she was 26, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. Battley said that Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital following cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after the divorce from Battley, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.

In the mid-1990s, while still married to Marianne, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the period in which Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal. Marianne claims that after Newt took-up with Callista, he told her that he wanted her to agree to an “open marriage” which would allow him to continue his affair with Callista while still married to Marianne. In 2000, Gingrich divorced Marianne and married Callista.
In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” This is Newt’s excuse for infidelity and hypocrisy! He loved America and worked too hard! If anybody swallows that line of crap, they deserve to have Newt as their president.

While Slick Mitt Romney may be the leading flip-flopper among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Newt is not far behind. In 2004, Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President, John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president. Gingrich said on Fox News: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief." Nevertheless, Gingrich has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issues.

On Meet the Press, Gingrich said: “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.” When David Gregory asked him: “But that is the individual mandate, is it not?” Gingrich replied: “It’s a variation on it.” Nevertheless, in May 2011, Newt issued a statement saying: "I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional."

As of March 7, 2011, President Obama had not yet announced that the United States would be involved in a military action to institute a no-fly zone over Libya. When asked by Greta Van Susteren on March 7: “What would you do about Libya?” Gingrich replied: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” On March 23, after President Obama ordered U.S. forces to be actively involved in instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich said: “I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.”

In 2007, Gingrich favored "mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system.” In 2008, he even produced a video with Nancy Pelosi on the urgent need to stop global warming. Later in 2008 he said: "A carbon cap and trade system ... would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy."

In a recent editorial, The New York Times pointed-out that: “Newt Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina turned on an almost comically broad deception, an inversion of the truth in which the insider whose personal wealth and political experience are entirely creations of Washington becomes the anti-establishment candidate. That it worked speaks poorly of voters who let themselves be manipulated by the lowest form of campaigning, appealing to their anger and prejudices.” The editorial goes on to point out that: “For years, he was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage company, making more than $1.6 million over eight years. He also cashed in on his influence by selling access to health-care companies and insurers, bringing in $37 million over eight years.”

Former Republican Leader of the Senate and Presidential Candidate Bob Dole recently said that Newt Gingrich did not listen to others or take advice. Said Dole: “It was his way or the highway.” This, no doubt, partially explains why, earlier in the current campaign, most of Gingrich’s campaign staff quit on him. It is hard to imagine him as President of the United States. He is a deceiving, manipulative, flip-flopping, egotistical, hypocritical salamander, and the people who are enthused by his appeals to anger and prejudice are no better than him.

Slick Mitt

George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, and former governor of Michigan, was too honest. He admitted that when he visited Vietnam he was “brainwashed” by the generals. For this candor he lost his bid to be Republican nominee for president. His son Mitt learned the lesson well. He decided that the last thing you need in politics is honesty and integrity. With his abundant fortune, and vulpine character, he is now the frontrunner in the race to get the prize that escaped his father.

In 2006, when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he supported and signed a health care law that became the model for the federal health care law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) signed by President Obama. The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage. It provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) who are not eligible for Medicaid. The law also subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL.

Now that he is again running for President, Romney has condemned the federal health care law that was based on his state law. His most fervent distinction is that his was a state law and that the law signed by President Obama is an excessive exertion of federal power. This is not the first time Romney has had to explain his many flip-flops on political questions. Like all of his other flip-flops, however, the explanations he provides are little more than nit-picking and quibbling.

In 1994, when Mitt was running against Ted Kennedy for senator from Massachusetts, he said: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” During the 2002 governor's race in Massachusetts, Romney said: "The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." Yet, when he first began campaigning for president, Romney came out in support of state laws forbidding abortion and criticized the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. He said: “I am firmly pro-life.”

In his 1994 senate run, Romney indicated that he opposed prayer in the schools. In 2007, he called for allowing prayer in school ceremonies.

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research and promised to lobby President Bush to provide federal funding for such research. During his presidential campaign, however, Romney renounced his 2002 position and said that he now agreed with Bush's decision to ban federal funding for stem-cell research.

In Romney's 2002 race for governor, he said: "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” But just before declaring his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, Romney joined the National Rifle Association. He said: "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms.” The Associated Press reported in April 2007 that Romney never sought a hunting license in any of the four states where he has resided.

In 2002 Romney supported the right of homosexuals to form civil unions and said he would support domestic partnership benefits. He said: "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation." During his first campaign for president, however, Romney stated that he is opposed to such civil unions as well as same-sex marriages.

These are just a few of the issues on which Slick Mitt has changed positions since he started running for president. Romney has calculated that the base of the Republican Party is far more conservative than the electorate in Massachusetts. He simply could not get nominated with the positions which he embraced during his races for senator and governor of Massachusetts. He appears to have calculated correctly. Republican voters do not care that this man is a total fraud and liar. They like him now that he is speaking like a true conservative. What does this say about the values of the “values” Party? Is honesty not one of the Republican values?

In an editorial, The New York Times said of Mitt Romney: “It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.”

Romney called himself the candidate of “change.” What did he mean? During the 2008 run for the presidency John McCain made a good point when he said that sure, Romney was the candidate of change because had changed his position so many times.

What this country needs is not the small change of an imposter like Mitt Romney. It still needs a man of integrity like Barack Obama.