Highbrow Magazine - Newt Gingrich https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/newt-gingrich en For GOP, Incompetence Is a Feature (Not a Flaw) https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/8648-republicans-incompetence-feature-not-flaw <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Sun, 11/19/2017 - 14:57</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/trumpandkelly.jpg?itok=8uJLfqdv"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/trumpandkelly.jpg?itok=8uJLfqdv" width="480" height="307" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> </p> <p><strong>This is an excerpt from an article originally published in <a href="http://billmoyers.com/">BillMoyers.com</a>. Read the rest <a href="http://billmoyers.com/story/republican-experts/">here</a>. </strong></p> <p> </p> <p>It has been said that Newt Gingrich is “a dumb person’s idea of a smart person.” Who coined that phrase is a matter of scholarly dispute, but there is broad agreement that the sentiment is applicable. I will go further and say this characteristic of Newt’s is not just a personal foible; it establishes a model for Republican politicians and operatives since his time in Congress.</p> <p> </p> <p>Having had the opportunity as a former congressional staffer to experience his speakership up close, it was clear to me that Gingrich had a ready opinion on every subject from aardvarks to Zoroastrianism. He was usually wrong. But through a combination of confident and aggressive assertion, citation of “facts” and “statistics” that, while specious and cherry-picked, the listener was not in any position to immediately refute, and the glibness that masquerades as eloquence, he dominated his colleagues and set the House of Representatives on its path to becoming the extremely unfunny joke it is today.</p> <p> </p> <p>Consistent with his pose as a public intellectual, Gingrich schmoozed with Alvin Toffler, the author of <em>Future Shock</em>. Yet one of his first acts on assuming the speakership was to abolish the Office of Technology Assessment, an agency solely responsible to Congress and which gave an appraisal of new technologies independent of executive branch puffery.</p> <p> </p> <p>He also slashed the budgets of the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), impairing Congress’ ability to receive disinterested evaluation of a vast range of subjects. Who needs CBO (now a favorite whipping boy of congressional Republicans) when you know that tax cuts increase revenue?</p> <p> </p> <p>What began with Gingrich has culminated in the nightmare of the Trump presidency, where wildly incompetent pseudo-experts run riot through the government and endanger the well-being of the general public. America has become a laboratory to test whether its institutions can weather the present flood of Republican expertise.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Republicans: Assuring National Insecurity</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>The national security functions of government have long been a subject of mystification: The public and the press have a tendency to regard its practitioners as a kind of priesthood possessing an arcane and special knowledge. But long before Trump, the GOP treated it as a political reward for crackpot ideologues whose credentials were thin or nil.</p> <p> </p> <p>Bill Kristol, whose only qualification for anything was being the offspring of Irving Kristol, somehow blossomed in the late 1990s as a Republican national security expert. His current claim to fame is being wrong about everything; that has not prevented him from making a comfortable living via the “wingnut welfare” provided by right-wing media.</p> <p> </p> <p>Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense under George W. Bush, caused my jaw to drop in February 2003, when he informed the House Budget Committee on which I served that the invasion of Iraq would probably result in fewer US casualties than the near-negligible number the military suffered in the Balkan intervention, and also that the invasion would pay for itself through Iraq’s oil revenues.</p> <p> </p> <p>While his testimony immediately aroused concern if not derision in the country, most Republican committee members seemed to eat it up as the wisdom of a latter-day Clausewitz. On leaving the Pentagon, Wolfowitz’s gold watch for confecting such prophecies was the presidency of the World Bank.</p> <p> </p> <p>The Republican so-called experts’ pronouncements weren’t exactly unplanned. In early 2001, just before George W. Bush’s inauguration, the Heritage Foundation produced a policy document intended to help the incoming administration choose personnel. The authors stated the following:</p> <p> </p> <p>. . . the Office of Presidential Personnel must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second, and the whole governmental apparatus must be managed from this perspective.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/ktmcfaland.jpg" style="height:468px; width:624px" /></p> <p> </p> <p>A decade and a half later, Trump’s operatives must have been impressed by one of the document’s authors, George Nesterczuk; he was nominated to become director of the Office of Personnel Management, but later withdrew his nomination, complaining about “partisan attacks” (possibly a euphemism for “careful scrutiny”).</p> <p> </p> <p>Trump has built on Bush’s national security legacy. His first deputy national security adviser was K.T. McFarland. While she held national security positions in previous administrations, what probably commended her to Trump’s handlers was her stint as a national security “expert” on Fox News, a sinecure and career booster for the right-wing nomenklatura. From that perch, she recommended that Vladimir Putin be granted the Nobel Peace Prize. Foreign policy writer Jim Lobe describes her expertise <a href="https://lobelog.com/the-empty-headedness-of-k-t-mcfarland/">here</a>.</p> <p> </p> <p>It also must have helped that she ran for the Senate in New York in 2006. Although she was heavily defeated in the GOP primary, she claimed that the campaign of the incumbent Democrat, Hillary Clinton, was spying on her through her bedroom window and flying helicopters over her house in the Hamptons. When called out on it, after denying she was serious, she later told a <em>New York Post</em> gossip columnist that news of her “helicopters” remark had unhinged her: “I sat in a ratty old robe, tears spilling down my face. To ease my anguish, I killed off half a pint of ice cream. Next morning, I was in the fetal position. Still crying.” To GOP talent scouts these days, anyone who spreads conspiracy theories about Clinton is bound to appear highly qualified.</p> <p> </p> <p>Another early pick for the Trump national security team was Sebastian Gorka, named deputy assistant to the president for terrorism issues. Although this pompous little martinet insists on being called “Dr.,” his Hungarian Ph.D. sounds suspiciously like the product of a diploma mill. His reputation since then has been “widely disdained within his own field.”</p> <p> </p> <p>His professional seriousness may be inferred by his proposal to keep Muslims out of Hungary by affixing pigs’ heads to the country’s border fences, and by showing up at Trump’s inaugural ball costumed and bemedalled like the Balkan despot in a Marx Brothers movie.</p> <p> </p> <p>His garment and insignia pin were seen as a reference to Vitézi Rend, a Hungarian organization that is a legacy of Hungary’s collaboration with Nazi Germany, causing some Senate Democrats to publicly wonder why Gorka’s membership in the group (a charge Gorka has strongly denied) did not make him excludable from the country. It may also account for his never receiving a security clearance high enough to be appropriate to his sensitive White House position.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Gen. Kelly: New Broom or Partisan Hack?</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>McFarland and Gorka are now gone from the White House. Is this a sign that a new seriousness is prevailing at the White House? Although McFarland landed on her feet (Trump nominated her to be ambassador to Singapore), Gorka’s departure from government was widely attributed to the arrival of Gen. John Kelly as White House chief of staff (predictably, Fox News is now providing Gorka with wingnut welfare).</p> <p> </p> <p>But as we have seen in the distasteful episode involving Kelly’s public feud with a Florida congresswoman over Trump’s perfunctory condolence call to the widow of a fallen soldier, the usual press and public tendency to genuflect to a high-ranking military officer could be misplaced in his case. At the same White House press briefing in which he insulted the congresswoman, his reputation was further tarnished by his refusal to call on reporters who didn’t have a connection to Gold Star military families, thus suggesting that military members are of a higher social caste, as in Wilhelmine Germany.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>This is an excerpt from an article originally published in <a href="http://billmoyers.com/">BillMoyers.com</a>. Read the rest <a href="http://billmoyers.com/story/republican-experts/">here</a>. </strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Mike Lofgren is a former career congressional staff member who served on the House and Senate budget committees. His latest book is The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government. He appeared several times as a guest on Moyers &amp; Company. Learn more on his website: mikelofgren.net.</em></strong></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/gop" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">GOP</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/newt-gingrich" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Newt Gingrich</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/john-kelly" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">john kelly</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/k-t-mcfarland" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">k t mcfarland</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/donald-trump" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Donald Trump</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Mike Lofgren </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Google Images; Wikipedia Commons</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Sun, 19 Nov 2017 19:57:03 +0000 tara 7824 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/8648-republicans-incompetence-feature-not-flaw#comments Hillary, Helmets, ‘Crossfire,’ and Cash https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2783-hillary-helmets-crossfire-and-cash <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/media" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Media</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Tue, 09/10/2013 - 09:46</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1hillaryclinton%20%28Cherie%20Cullen%20Wikipedia%20Commons%29.jpg?itok=T1FFcDWv"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1hillaryclinton%20%28Cherie%20Cullen%20Wikipedia%20Commons%29.jpg?itok=T1FFcDWv" width="480" height="320" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/marty_kaplan/article/hillary_helmets_crossfire_and_cash">Jewish Journal</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> Money, they say, is the mother’s milk of politics.  Also of news, sports and the rest of the entertainment industry. Three recent stories drive that home.</p> <p>  </p> <p> When Reince Priebus pressured Comcast’s NBC to drop a miniseries starring Diane Lane as Hillary Clinton, the hostage that the RNC chairman threatened to snuff was the network’s access to the 2016 presidential primary debates.  When the NFL forced Disney’s ESPN to pull out of a documentary about concussions jointly produced with PBS’s Frontline, the league’s leverage was its deal with Disney’s ABC to air Monday Night Football.  And when Time Warner’s CNN hired Newt Gingrich for its exhumed edition of Crossfire, its motive wasn’t political journalism in service of democracy; it was stunt casting in service of ratings.</p> <p>  </p> <p> On the surface, the fight between the GOP and NBC is about the effects of media on audiences.  The party’s presumption – based on no evidence – is that the miniseries would put Clinton in a favorable light, and – also based on no evidence – that the halo would translate into votes.  But if a movie could do that, then John Glenn, heroically portrayed in the 1983 movie <em>The Right Stuff</em>, would have been the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee.  The real issue here isn’t the impact of entertainment on audiences, it’s the coup that took presidential debates out of the hands of citizens and handed them to party hacks.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Once upon a time, groups like the League of Women Voters sponsored the debates, and all cameras were welcome to cover them.  But starting in 1988, the Democratic and Republican parties wrested control of the process.  Since then, the general election debates have had an aura of patriotic respectability, but in reality they’ve been run by the same folks who’ve earned an eight percent approval rating for Congress.  The primary debates have become cash cows for the networks, interest groups and faux think tanks.  They’re spectacles that provide free media to candidates, attract eyeballs to sell to advertisers and offer co-branding opportunities to burnish the images of the evenings’ co-sponsors.  The right question isn’t whether NBC’s miniseries would put a finger on the scale.  It’s why the hell a political party should be permitted to use the money that can be milked from the democratic process as a bargaining chip.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/1espn%20%28Jason%20Gulledge%20Wiki%29.jpg" style="width: 650px; height: 433px;" /></p> <p> When ESPN withdrew its logo and credit from Frontline’s “League of Denial,” a two-part investigation of the N.F.L.’s handling of head injuries, its explanation was that “the use of ESPN’s marks could incorrectly imply that we have editorial control.”  The N.F.L., of course, denies that it coerced ESPN, but as the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/sports/football/nfl-pressure-said-to-prompt-espn-to-quit-film-project.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0">New York Times</a> has reported, ESPN’s turnabout came a week after a heated lunch between Roger Goodell, commissioner of the N.F.L., and John Skipper, ESPN’s president.  For more than a year, the ground rules covering editorial authority had been working just fine; Frontline and ESPN each had control over what each aired.  PBS and ESPN executives had even appeared together this summer at the Television Critics Assn. to promote the coming documentary.  But when the N.F.L. belatedly realized – hello? – that they were about to get slammed for their see-no-evil response to players’ brain traumas, they took ESPN to the woodshed.  Disney is paying $1.1 billion for the lucrative rights to broadcast Monday Night Football this season, and $2 billion next season.  “Nice deal you’ve got here.  Too bad if anything were to happen to it.”  Surely nothing like that got said over the salad.</p> <p>  </p> <p> What makes this especially grim is its impact on the ESPN newsroom.  Ever since CBS discovered that <em>60 Minutes</em> could make a profit, the networks have treated news as a revenue center within their entertainment businesses.  For sports reporters operating within that corporate structure, there’s an inherent conflict between the network’s financial contracts with sports content rightsholders, and its journalistic contract with its viewers.  The fate of “League of Denial” is a case study of who wins that fight.</p> <p>  </p> <p> CNN, like NBC and ESPN, lives and dies by ratings.  Outside of the new morning show “New Day,” CNN president Jeff Zucker’s efforts to resuscitate the network have not much tested the possibility that actually covering the news, rather than filling time with blowhards, food fights and murderers, could be a winning strategy.  Anyone who’s watched CNN International while traveling abroad knows that CNN can, in fact, deliver solid, round-the-clock journalism, but apparently management thinks Americans are too ADD-addled, or maybe just too dim, to have a hearty appetite for real news.  So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that CNN is pulling Crossfire out of mothballs, or that it’s giving a certifiable demagogue like Newt Gingrich a regular seat at its table.</p> <p>  </p> <p> When Jon Stewart appeared on Crossfire in 2004, he was the guest from hell.  “Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America,” he told its then hosts, Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala.  “I’m here to confront you, because we need help from the media, and they’re hurting us…. I would love to see a debate show,” he said, but calling Crossfire a debate show was “like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition…. You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably…. I watch your show every day.  And it kills me… It’s so – oh, it’s so painful to watch…. Please, I beg of you guys, please…. Please stop.”  That <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE&amp;feature=player_embedded">clip</a> went viral.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/2jonstewart.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 341px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> The story goes that King Canute had his throne carried to the shore, where he ordered the waves to stop.  When they didn’t stop, he said he’d done this to demonstrate that kings were powerless compared to God.  Three months after Stewart’s “stop hurting America” appearance, when CNN announced it was cancelling Crossfire, I thought he was a god.  Now, with Crossfire coming back, it looks like the god with the last laugh is Mammon.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <em>This article was first published in <a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/marty_kaplan/article/hillary_helmets_crossfire_and_cash">Jewish Journal.</a></em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Marty Kaplan is the Norman Lear Professor of Entertainment, Media and Society and directs the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.  In the Carter Administration he served as chief speechwriter to Vice President Walter F. Mondale.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong><em>Photos: Cherie Cullen (Wikipedia Commons); Jason Gulledge (Wikipedia Commons).</em></strong></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/hillary-clinton" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Hillary Clinton</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/cnn" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">cnn</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/crossfire" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">crossfire</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/newt-gingrich" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Newt Gingrich</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/jon-stewart" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Jon Stewart</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/espn" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">espn</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/frontline" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">frontline</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/nfl" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">NFL</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/tucker-carlson" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Tucker Carlson</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Marty Kaplan</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:46:51 +0000 tara 3481 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2783-hillary-helmets-crossfire-and-cash#comments Super PACs and the Specter of Democracy https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1054-super-pacs-and-specter-democracy <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 20:21</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1mediumsuperpac.jpg?itok=PTkOhX4Z"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1mediumsuperpac.jpg?itok=PTkOhX4Z" width="480" height="250" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> In the wake of <em>Citizens United v. the Federal Election Committee</em>, a landmark Supreme Court decision that prohibits the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations, the notion of “democratic elections” in America now sounds more like an oxymoron than an impetus for political participation.</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> In 2008, a conservative nonprofit group, Citizens defied the FEC by trying to air a scathing film about Hillary Clinton, on DirecTV. Broadcasting “Hillary: The Movie,” a feature-length attack ad against the popular primary candidate, explicitly violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, a now infamous 5-4 decision that has corrupted political democracy in the name of “free speech.”</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> Justice Kennedy asserts in his majority opinion: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” A baffling slippage between the free speech of citizens and the unbridled electioneering of corporations has since roiled our political climate.</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> Civil rights histories of sit-ins at segregated lunch counters and marches on Washington do not exactly spring to mind at the mention of Sheldon Adelson, Newt Gingrich’s personal billionaire, whose financial contributions continue to prolong Newt’s flailing candidacy, which has well outlived its political plausibility. The specter of democratic representation is now haunting the United States of America. It has taken the form of a mutant breed of Political Action Committee dubbed the “Super PAC,” which wields unprecedented control over our elections today.</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> If Newt Gingrich embodies the specter of a real candidate, Mitt Romney must be a robot of one. It seems that every corporate CEO and wealthy investment manager in America has made a stout contribution to Romney’s campaign—unofficially, of course. From Julian Robertson to J.W. Marriott, Jr. to William Koch, the top .0001 percent are determined to make Romney’s bid a success despite its overwhelming lacks of charisma and popular appeal. What corporate CEO could resist a candidate who openly declares: “I like <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/45942386/Mitt_Romney_s_Firing_People_Gaffe">firing people</a>?”</p> <p>  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/2mediumsuperpac.jpg" style="width: 650px; height: 579px; " /></p> <p> Even Stephen Colbert formed his own <a href="http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/">Super PAC</a>, “Making A Better Tomorrow, Tommorow,” which ran satirical attack ads in South Carolina against Mitt Romney for being a serial killer. Colbert’s Super PAC ultimately weighed in favor of the most comically viable of the GOP Candidates, Herman Cain, whose own campaign was pure parody—too bad his sex scandal erupted or we might have gotten a Fox News show out of the deal: “9-9-9 at 9:00 with Herman Cain.” Politics have relapsed into pure spectacle.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Indeed, candidates orate for shock value above logic, in the hopes that their sound bites “go viral” and win them a bit of free publicity; after all, they are competing against billionaires, virtually. Going on their 28<sup>th</sup> Primary debate of the season, Republicans need to keep things entertaining in order sustain their high TV ratings.</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> Amidst all of the jockeying about how bad contraception, earmarks and healthcare are, I still think that the best quote out of all the debates comes from Ron Paul in  January's New Hampshire debate: “Santorum is one of the top corrupt individuals because he took so much money from the lobbyists.” Although the dripping irony is what makes this quote newsworthy, it would seem that its form has gotten lost in its content.</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> Romney and Gingrich, too, have been attacking Santorum for his corporate corruption, attempting to rebrand the “the last consistent conservative standing” in the moulds of their own image. After going head-to-head against any number of short-lived frontrunners, Romney must be especially antsy to wrap this one up. With Gingrich on PAC-life support, Santorum seems to be the last obstacle standing between Romney and his coveted nomination.</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> Romney’s Super PAC already outspends Santorum’s 4-1. Given Romney’s record of flip-flopping, it would be too risky for him to attack Santorum from the left, and he is never going to compete with Santorum’s credentials from the right. Whereas Romney drove to Canada with his <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/02/16/romney_s_dog_seamus_did_he_run_away_to_canada_.html">Irish Setter strapped to the roof of his car</a>, Santorum  brought his premature <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/karen-santorum-bringing-dead-baby-home-was-way-to-grieve/">dead baby</a> home after his wife had a miscarriage. Singling out Santorum for the corporate complicity that is now the basis of the entire system seems to be Romney’s last resort. While the GOP primary lurches toward a climax, irony has awakened from an abyss and quite literally reached its endpoint.</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> As California Democrat Malcolm Burnstein opines in his <em>New York</em><em> Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-money-and-influence-in-us-elections.html?_r=2&amp;scp=17&amp;sq=pac&amp;st=cse">Letter to the Editor</a>: “Let the Koch brothers’ ideas contend with other ideas based on merit rather than the size of the wallets.” Burnstein’s impassioned plea for the politics of campaign finance reform—which runs from Teddy Roosevelt’s 1905 Acts of Congress to the 2002 McCain-Feingold—now seems like an impossible dream; perversely, it also kind of has the ring of a PAC attack ad.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio: </strong></p> <p> <em>Maggie Hennefeld, a contributing writer at </em><em>Highbrow Magazine, hails from Brooklyn, NY, and currently lives in Providence, R.I., studying in a Modern Culture and Media Ph.D. Program at Brown University. She worked for four years during college as a writer and section editor of</em> 34th Street, <em>the weekly Arts and Entertainment magazine of</em> The Daily Pennsylvanian<em>. Maggie has published in academic journals including</em> Screen, Media Fields, Alphaville <em>and</em> Comedy Studies. <em>She is currently working on her dissertation, titled "The Politics of Film Comedy: From Vaudeville to Terrorism."</em></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/super-pacs" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">super pacs</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/sheldon-adelson" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Sheldon Adelson</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/jw-marriott-jr" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">J.W. Marriott Jr.</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/newt-gingrich" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Newt Gingrich</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/mitt-romney" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Mitt Romney</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/stephen-colbert" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Stephen Colbert</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/citizens-united" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Citizens United</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/hillary-movie" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Hillary: The Movie</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Maggie Hennefeld</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:21:42 +0000 tara 647 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1054-super-pacs-and-specter-democracy#comments Revisionist Historian: How Newt Gingrich Rewrote the GOP Race https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/revisionist-historian-12how-newt-gingrich-89rewrote-gop-race <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:08</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumGingrich_0.jpg?itok=t35s70Cg"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumGingrich_0.jpg?itok=t35s70Cg" width="480" height="268" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> Just a few days before the Iowa caucus was set to take place, Newt Gingrich <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/01/nation/la-na-gingrich-20120101" target="_blank">could be found at a winery</a> in Carrol, Iowa, lecturing sedated company on American history. At a time when his main Republican rivals were eliciting rallying cries from big crowds and trotting out flashy, formidable political allies, Gingrich was recounting droll historical anecdotes—like how<a> George Washington imported Spanish sheep </a>to improve his livestock—to a crowd of less than 200.</p> <p> <br />  <br /> A long and tortuous road it has certainly been for the "Newt 2012" campaign for the Republican nomination. Few people could have predicted that it would meander into the Santa Maria Vineyard &amp; Winery just days before the pistol officially fired on the GOP race. But the former Speaker of the House has proven a renegade in both political form and function, blazing a campaign trail every bit as erratic and full of gambits as his politics and incendiary rhetoric. And although Gingrich would place fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire, if his recent attacks on his rivals are any indication, his modest finish seems unlikely to subdue him.</p> <p> <br />  <br /> In the funhouse mirror reflections through which we see primary elections, saturated with media hype and public vagaries, the status of a campaign is a very deceptive thing. Such was the case with Newt Gingrich this past summer, when an ill-conceived vacation and dereliction by many of his staffers left his campaign on life support. For most of the summer, he was no longer considered a legitimate candidate. Sideshow upstart Herman Cain and longstanding Texas governor Rick Perry seemed better bets to usurp the frontrunner-by-default Mitt Romney. But then in August, the debates came.</p> <p> <br />  <br /> For the next few months, the GOP debates proved themselves to be astonishingly effective at cutting through the clouds of charisma, bravado, and other superficial methods of endearment that the candidates had been using to ingratiate themselves with the electorate. After many a presidential hopeful was damaged, if not felled entirely, through this televised gauntlet, Gingrich began to stand imperiously over his opponents. On the strength of his debate performances alone, the old hat had surged back to relevance in the primaries.</p> <p> <br />  <br /> As much as a comeback of this magnitude seemed improbable, veteran pundits and political insiders should have seen it coming. After all, this is the man who became House Minority Whip 23 years ago, House Majority Leader 18 years ago, and spearheaded the <a href="http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html">"Contract with America"</a> that helped Republicans reclaim the House after 40 years of banishment. Add all this up, and you get a man highly adept at not only executing in the spotlight but manipulating it to his advantage.</p> <p> <br />  <br /> There is no better example of this savvy media courting than Gingrich's relationship with cable network C-SPAN. At the time of the network's inception in 1979, Gingrich was just beginning his career as a representative for the 6th Congressional District of Georgia. Gingrich's political career and the fledgling network streamlined perfectly. Although it has now expanded to provide coverage of the U.S. Senate, C-SPAN began by offering an exclusive glimpse into the proceedings of the House of Representatives. There was no congressman more poised to take advantage of this valuable new inroad to the American people than Gingrich. For much of the 1980's, Gingrich saw C-SPAN cameras as an opportunity to depict himself and his fellow conservative representatives as the righteous scourges of Democrats and their spending. C-SPAN <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70209.html" target="_blank">became his platform for building conservative zeal</a> in American households, one that helped him stage the historic 1994 Republican coup of the House. Perhaps just as important, he learned that a television camera thrives off of controversy and rhetorical conviction. Even when the chamber was virtually empty and little was at stake legislatively, Gingrich continued his invective on Democrats. There is no doubt that this rousing rhetoric inspired legions of conservative viewers. It was a grassroots campaign perfectly conceived for the television age. </p> <p>  </p> <p>  <br /> These years of experience under the media glare clearly prepared Gingrich for the debate circuit. His gift of elocution was on display for all of December, and will be on display for much of January. If we have learned one thing about the American people during Obama's tenure as president, it's that nobody likes a dry lecture. We value eloquence and clarity, certainly, but they must come with emotional wallop and unapologetic honesty. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss" target="_blank">violent rhetoric from the right</a> that was a major media topic in early 2011 can be interpreted as an extreme version of this appetite for fierce, passionate voices on the political stage. Equanimity is simply out of fashion. That's why the man who believes that children from poor economic backgrounds should mop the floors of the schools they attend still poses the greatest threat to Romney. </p> <p>  </p> <p> To be fair, it's not just verbal hyperbole and a penchant for conjuring surreal hypothetical futures (<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/12/beach-volleyball-child-labor-and-other-craziest-newt-gingrich-comments.html" target="_blank">a socialist, Islamist America?</a>) that have given Newt his longevity. Fortunately, his self-aggrandizing persona is buttressed by a sharp understanding of some of the major issues facing America today. He has proposed some aggressive plans for repairing the economy, including reducing the corporate income tax from 35 percent to a paltry 12.5 percent. He has also said that he would support other significant tax cuts, including a 50 percent reduction in payroll taxes and a complete abrogation of the capital gains tax. Generally, Gingrich seems focused on stimulating the economy and job growth through these sweeping tax cuts and small business incentives. </p> <p>  </p> <p> In recent years, Gingrich has also discussed the increasing urgency for entitlement reform. Like many other politicians, he believes that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (once considered the untouchable third rail of American politics), are no longer financially sustainable. He has suggested that these entitlements need restructuring so that they are driven and/or triggered by work and productivity. His attitude toward welfare and unemployment benefits has drawn perhaps even greater attention over the years. Never admired for his compassionate qualities, Gingrich believes that welfare and unemployment collection disincentivizes people from going out and getting jobs. Furthermore, he maintains that the horizontal model of welfare and unemployment traps people in a cycle of poverty. Better if the government institutes programs offering guaranteed employment and worker retraining. </p> <p>  </p> <p> During the GOP primaries Gingrich has arguably been more adept in his magisterial grasp of foreign-policy issues. He has said that recent foreign policy administrations have been weak and that he would reinstate a stronger, more tenacious strategy. Not surprisingly, he has been critical of Obama's foreign policy approach, noting how Obama's attitude of diplomacy, appeasement, and the endeavoring toward disarmament have been met with apathy by potentially dangerous nations such as North Korea and Iran. Gingrich believes that America should handle rogue nuclear nations with far greater vigilance.</p> <p>  </p> <p> His criticism of Obama is not limited to foreign policy, either. He has been wildly outspoken in his disapproval with the direction of the Obama administration, even going so far as to call Obama's behavior as president <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42056.html" target="_blank">"Kenyan and anti-colonial." </a>  He nonchalantly refers to Obama as the leader of a secular, socialist machine.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Of course, this brand of heady aggression would provide a compelling counterpoint to Obama in a showdown in the fall. The stark contrasts between the two men would be on full display in a presidential race. For every practiced word and automated hand gesture that underscore Obama's imperturbable style, Gingrich would be ratcheting up the <a href="http://nymag.com/news/politics/32864/" target="_blank">politics of personality</a> in an attempt to depict himself as more experienced, more competent, and more audacious.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Alas, the presidential election is a far cry from the primaries, and does not have the same latitude for polarizing figures such as Gingrich. The same grandiosity that served him well in debates and media frenzies during the primaries would be his undoing in a general election that voters inevitably take far more seriously. Obama has always carried himself with humility and sobriety for the deluge of issues facing Americans in the past few years. Despite his political acumen, Gingrich seems capable of going on an eccentric four-year power trip in the oval office if he were to become president. The American people are not in a position to roll the dice with such an impetuous candidate. All told, it would be a tall and unlikely order for Gingrich to seriously compete with a formidable incumbent such as Obama.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Still, it's difficult to say how such a huge gap in leadership styles would play out in a presidential race: While it may not affect conservatives or staunch liberals, it could certainly impact independents and disillusioned Democrats. And what of that amorphous group known as the Tea Party? If Gingrich gets the Republican nomination, will they finally achieve the sort of political symbiosis with a candidate that seems far less likely if Romney were to triumph? These are obviously premature questions, as Gingrich has gone from campaign derailment to frontrunner to longshot all in the course of four months. But if Republicans are looking for an alternative to the sleepy predeterminism that defines the Romney campaign trail, they need look no further than the historian imposing his will on the Republican race. </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Mike Mariani is an adjunct English professor and freelance writer.</em></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/newt-gingrich" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Newt Gingrich</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republican-nomination" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republican nomination</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/presidential-elections" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">presidential elections</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/primaries" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">primaries</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/2012-elections" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">2012 elections</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Mike Mariani</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:08:59 +0000 tara 433 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/revisionist-historian-12how-newt-gingrich-89rewrote-gop-race#comments The Republicans’ Quest for the Ultimate Outsider https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/republicans-quest-ultimate-outsider <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:42</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/2mediummittromney.jpg?itok=G-6zp9rq"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/2mediummittromney.jpg?itok=G-6zp9rq" width="480" height="369" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/news/">New America Media</a> and <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/">FirstPost</a>:  The most bizarre thing about the American presidential election is that everyone who wants to move into the White House spends all their time trying to emphasize how they don’t really belong there. It is probably the only job in the world where prior experience is actually viewed as something of a liability.</p> <p>  </p> <p> When Mitt Romney says he left politics in the 1990s to try other things, Newt Gingrich dismisses it as “pious baloney.” “You’ve been running consistently for years and years,” Gingrich sneers. “Just level with the American people.” “Running consistently” is bad for your outsider street cred.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Watching the New Hampshire debate, one is struck by the spectacle of these white men in black suits with their power ties (usually red) and too much hair gel, all tripping over each other to persuade the voters that they are “outsiders”.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Ron Paul has spent 20 years in Congress. In all that time, he’s only managed to get one of his bills passed. In any other job interview, that would be a minus. But Paul is touting it as a plus in the Republican party nomination circus. It shows he is an outsider in a Congress that is “out of touch” with the American people.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The Republican Party faithful tend to be in love with this fantasy of the new sheriff who rides into town and shows everyone who is boss. It dates back to their love affair with the original cowboy viz Ronald Reagan who didn’t let his governorship of a state as big as California get in the way of this Hollywood-esque bio of the straight-shooter riding into Washington, D.C.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But the quest for the ultimate outsider is sending the party further and further to the fringes as it seeks to find the man who will unseat Barack Obama. In the process, it’s happy to ride roughshod over the man who might actually have a good chance at doing exactly that.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Jon Hunstman, the former governor of Utah, is the kind of conservative who could reach across party lines despite being solidly pro-life and anti-tax. <em>Mother Jones</em> calls him “the Democrat’s Republican.” In a field [once] filled with the likes of Michele Bachman, Huntsman sounds like a rational moderate, worrying that the Republican Party is becoming the “anti-science party”. But he fails the litmus test for conservative purity in a party dominated “by an alliance of religious extremists and warmongers,” writes James Joyner, publisher of <em>Outside the Beltway</em>.</p> <p>  </p> <p> So Huntsman has to defend himself against charges that he’s some kind of a turncoat for having been Obama’s ambassador to China. “I just think it’s most likely that the person who should represent our party running against President Obama is not someone who called him a remarkable leader and went to be his ambassador in China,” said Romney. As Ryan Lizza blogs in the <em>New Yorker</em>, that decision transformed him from a “successful popular governor from the most conservative state in the country into an employee of Obama, the most despised figure among G.O.P. primary voters.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Huntsman supporters say that’s exactly the sort of person America needs, “a leader who can bring both sides together.” Add to that, his fluency in Mandarin. If he was running for president of a multinational, he would be a shoo-in. But although the Republicans seem to be enamored with the idea of the president as CEO, the primary voters aren’t interested in any of the qualities that would make someone a good CEO in today’s world. Except perhaps an anti-tax manifesto. They are only interested in taking down Obama. That hatred for Obama is a rallying point for the Republicans. But it’s also turning into a gigantic blind spot as the party keeps veering to the right – warmonger, anti-immigrant, anti-science, anti-gay.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Democratic strategist and commentator Paul Begala writes in <em>Newsweek </em>that the Republican party faithful is so conservative now it would boo an Eisenhower off the stage. It would pillory Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, which they want to abolish.</p> <p>  </p> <p> So if you were a successful Republican with eyes on the White House — one who actually believes the scientific consensus that carbon pollution harms the planet, or that contraception prevents abortion —you would figure out pretty quickly that you could not survive in today’s GOP.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The GOP faithful rhapsodize over a hardcore conservative albeit defeated senator like Rick Santorum who wants to pick fights about gays and contraception (issues most middle-of-the-road voters care little about) and they end up settling for a plastic action figure like Mitt Romney who seems vaguely electable. That in primary parlance means someone who has been running for so long, he is beginning to look like a guy a casting director would pick to play president in a B-grade Hollywood disaster movie.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The worrying question for Republicans, writes political columnist EJ Dionne, is that the primary, rather than strengthening the party for the coming battle against Obama, will instead “leave it more marginalized from the views of swing voters by requiring candidates to spend so much time and energy wooing voters far to the right of the mainstream.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> Mitt Romney probably thinks that as the former governor of a liberal state like Massachusetts, he can tack back to centre when it comes to the actual presidential campaign. But as the party gets more and more conservative, that’s going to be harder to do. His campaign will have to contend with Tea Party conservatives, something a John McCain didn’t have to deal with.</p> <p>  </p> <p> And it will leave people like <em>Outside the Beltway’s</em> James Joyner ruing about what might have been – mainly a President Huntsman.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Now, while I happen to like Huntsman and would prefer him over all the candidates running this year, he’s almost certainly never going to be the Republican nominee. He’d make an excellent prime minister, but he doesn’t have the campaign chops to come out on top in our presidential nominating system….</p> <p>  </p> <p> On the other hand, we could get a Mitt Romney. And that is a sobering thought, indeed.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/01/republican-primaries-the-quest-for-the-ultimate-outsider.php">New America Media</a></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republican-primaries" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republican primaries</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/mitt-romney" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Mitt Romney</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/john-huntsman" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">John Huntsman</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/2012-elections" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">2012 elections</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/newt-gingrich" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Newt Gingrich</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/ron-paul" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Ron Paul</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/conservatives" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">conservatives</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Sandip Roy</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:42:54 +0000 tara 405 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/republicans-quest-ultimate-outsider#comments Romney Wins Iowa Caucuses by Eight Votes https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/romney-wins-iowa-caucuses-eight-votes <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:42</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumiowa.jpg?itok=Qe5Va5vy"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumiowa.jpg?itok=Qe5Va5vy" width="480" height="261" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> <strong>From IowaPolitics.com:</strong></p> <p> DES MOINES — It was an Iowa caucus night that came down to the wire, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum running neck-and-neck for first place in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination.</p> <p>  </p> <p> At 1:36 a.m. Wednesday, the Republican Party of Iowa declared Romney the winner by just eight votes over Santorum, the dark-horse candidate who ran his campaign on a shoestring budget. With all of the state's 1,774 precincts reporting, Romney received 30,015 votes to Santorum's 30,007. Percentage-wise, the two tied with 25 percent of the vote.</p> <p>  </p> <p> GOP officials said the caucuses do not provide an opportunity for a recount when there's a close vote, because it's an event run by the political party, and not the government.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The virtual tie led both candidates to make their speeches in advance of knowing the final results of the state's first-in-the-nation presidential nominating contest. The photo finish likely will give both Santorum and Romney momentum going into the Jan. 10 New Hampshire primary.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "Game on!" declared Santorum, who was Iowa's most frequent visitor this caucus cycle, spending about 100 days in the state but remaining at the back of the pack until a last-minute surge around Christmas.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "Thank you Iowa for the great send-off you're giving to us and the other winners of this campaign," Romney gushed, as he took the stage at Hotel Fort Des Moines to congratulate his Republican competitors and his own campaign.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Romney vowed to head to battle in New Hampshire, and to defeat President Barack Obama.in November in what he called an "election about the soul of America."</p> <p>  </p> <p> For Santorum, Tuesday's results were a near repeat of what former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee did four years ago: A social conservative candidate coming from behind to win Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The crowd at Santorum's party at the Stoney Creek Inn in Johnston grew larger and more enthusiastic as the night drew on. They chanted, "Go, Rick! Go, Rick!!" and "We pick Rick! We pick Rick!" as they saw results coming in on TV. Showing their evangelical side, they also sang "Amazing Grace" and "God Bless America" as they waited.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Evangelical voters were key behind Santorum's success. Santorum was endorsed Dec. 20 by Iowa social conservative leaders Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley, after a campaign in which such voters were sharply divided on whether to support Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry or Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "I kind of believe in what he says, that we shouldn't settle on a candidate," said Jeremy Masterson, 33, of Prairie City, who attended Santorum's post-caucus party. "I believe in his conservative values. That's something we've kind of gotten away from here recently. Plus, the way he did it, the way he started from the ground up in visiting all 99 counties, it really tells me that he supports the people."</p> <p>  </p> <p> But Steve Scheffler, a Republican National Committee member from West Des Moines who's president of the Iowa Faith &amp; Freedom Coalition, told IowaPolitics.com that he doesn't believe the endorsements were the reason for Santorum's surge.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "Even before endorsements, he was coming up in the pack," Scheffler said. "He laid a groundwork a long time ago. At the end of the day, people have a lot of respect for candidates who actually try to come and win their vote."</p> <p>  </p> <p> For Romney, Tuesday's win secures him as a national front-runner heading into the months-long process to secure the Republican nomination for president.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "We're going to change the White House and get America back on track," he declared.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/2mediumiowa.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 333px" /></p> <p> Kim Schmett of Clive, a former Polk County Republican chairman and congressional candidate who said he went to see most of this year's GOP presidential candidates 10 to 15 times, said it was Romney's experience as a business leader that made him decide to support Romney a week or two ago.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "He has the best chance to win," Schmett said. "There's too much at stake of where our government is headed, to not win this election. His skill set is almost perfectly matched for what our country needs at the moment."</p> <p>  </p> <p> An Iowa win was the outcome that Romney had hoped for in the 2008 campaign, when he spent more than $10 million in Iowa and campaigned in all of the state's 99 counties, only to finish second to Huckabee in the caucuses.</p> <p>  </p> <p> That cycle, Romney fought for the caucuses with 52 full-time staffers, but this time, he had only five, he told the crowd of 200 supporters who were invited to join his victory celebration.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Romney only spent about 20 days in Iowa during the 2012 caucus campaign and much less money, although his spending was boosted by the super PAC, Restore Our Future, which ran TV ads attacking former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia. Combined, Romney and his super PAC spent more than $1.5 million on 2,246 ad spots in the Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Quad-Cities markets, according to an analysis by IowaPolitics.com.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "Many of Romney's critics lambaste him for not paying enough attention to Iowa, not enough days visiting here in the last year," said former Iowa House Speaker Chris Rants, R-Sioux City. "But tonight Romney will see the fruits of the labor he put in four years ago."</p> <p>  </p> <p> Rants, a former senior adviser to Michigan U.S. Rep. Thad McCotter who last year briefly sought the GOP nomination for president, said Republicans want a candidate they trust. But he said even more so then four years ago, they also want a candidate who can win.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, who was considered a contender to win, on Tuesday translated his loyal base of supporters and large, enthusiastic crowds into a strong third-place finish with 21 percent of the vote.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "It may make people take him more seriously on a national stage," said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. "It will give him a boost, keep him in the campaign longer. I don't think he'll end up being the national nominee. He's the ultimate anti-government candidate."</p> <p>  </p> <p> Paul, who had attracted large crowds throughout the campaign, on Tuesday night addressed a crowd of several hundred supporters, many of them young, at the Courtyard Marriott hotel in Ankeny shortly after learning that he came in third in the caucus. The Texas congressman said even though he brought home the bronze medal, his campaign pillar of very limited government won.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "Those are the issues that we have brought front and center," Paul said. "They're out there. They're not going away."</p> <p>  </p> <p> Paul's promise to cut whole federal government departments and end the war in Afghanistan are why Joe Stevens voted for Paul Tuesday.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "He's got a plan to balance the budget, to cut spending," Stevens said. "I think those are key."</p> <p>  </p> <p> Paul promised the roaring crowd that he will keep up his campaign.</p> <p>  </p> <p> "I think there's nothing to be ashamed of, everything to be satisfied (with), and be ready and raring to move on, on to the next stop," he said.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The Texas congressman had long complained that the media wasn't giving him the attention he was due, despite a close second-place finish in the Aug. 13 Ames Straw Poll, steadily growing public support in opinion polls and crowds as large as 1,000 that turned out to see him, especially on college campuses.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Many doubt whether Paul, who previously ran for president as a libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008, can go on to secure the Republican nomination for president. Fellow Republicans have been critical of his advocacy for ending all wars and bringing U.S. troops home.</p> <p>  </p> <p> et political analysts pointed out that while the caucus campaign has featured a "flavor of the month" ranging from Bachmann to Perry, former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain and Gingrich, support for Romney and Paul have remained steady at 20 percent or higher.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Since 1972, no candidate that has finished worse than third in Iowa has gone on to win a major party presidential nomination. The 2000 Iowa winners, Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, and the 2004 Iowa winners, Democrat John Kerry and incumbent Bush, won their party's nominations.</p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/iowa-caucuses" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Iowa caucuses</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/2012" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">2012</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/gop" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">GOP</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republican-candidates" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republican candidates</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/presidential-elections" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">presidential elections</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/mitt-romney" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Mitt Romney</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/rick-santorum" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Rick Santorum</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/ron-paul" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Ron Paul</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/michelle-bachmann" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Michelle Bachmann</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/newt-gingrich" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Newt Gingrich</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Lynn Campbell, Hannah Hess and Andrew Thomason</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Thu, 05 Jan 2012 01:42:22 +0000 tara 388 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/romney-wins-iowa-caucuses-eight-votes#comments Ron Paul Flunks the R (Racism) Test https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/ron-paul-8flunks-r-14racism-test <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 10:38</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/MediumRonPaulPhoto.jpg?itok=HFKhx2qA"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/MediumRonPaulPhoto.jpg?itok=HFKhx2qA" width="480" height="320" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/news/">New America Media</a>: Things got worse for GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul when his rival Newt Gingrich recently called him out for purportedly using racially inflammatory language in official fundraising newsletters during the 1990s. The newsletters in question - Ron Paul’s Political Report and Ron Paul’s Freedom Report - brought in a considerable haul of cash for Paul, a longtime politician and presidential candidate. His half-baked racial scribbles are by now well known: He’s bashed Blacks for being chronic welfare grifters, thugs and lousy parents. He has also said Black people are inherently racist toward whites.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Following Gingrich’s attacks, Paul issued a terse denial that he authored or even read any of the aforementioned racial slanders. But there is also no evidence that he ever wrote a correction or issued a clarification.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Paul was back at it again in 2008, when he was also running for president. On his campaign website, ronpaul2008.com, Paul spotlighted race as a major issue when he wrote: "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In short, the landmark1954 Supreme Court case Brown vs. Board of Education, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of other court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are, according to Paul, worthless. Going even further than that, Paul has suggested that those laws have promoted bigotry by dividing Americans by race and class.</p> <p>  </p> <p> None of this would have much mattered to Gingrich, or to the mass media, if Paul hadn’t recently polled as a front-runner in the Iowa Caucus.</p> <p>  </p> <p> His kind-of, sort-of, let’s drop the subject dodges to the racism charge are standard Paul, and his protestations seem driven by political timing rather than sincerity. Paul has no choice but to embrace a diverse electorate if he is to have any credibility as a serious presidential contender. But Paul’s past writings and statements are more than likely a reflection of his true sentiment about racial matters.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Paul’s boast that he would not have voted for the landmark 1964 civil rights bill that's been the law of the land for nearly six decades is a textbook case in point.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Paul's rap against the bill is just as absurd and tortured as the rap that Southern Democrats and Northern GOP conservatives who bottled the bill up for more than a year in Congress used to pretty up their opposition to it: It violated property rights.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Paul, nearly six decades after those efforts failed, has had to deny those allegations in recent interviews: “I'm for property rights and for state's rights, and therefore I'm a racist? That's just outlandish."</p> <p>  </p> <p> The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment wiped away the bogus claim that property rights trump racial discrimination, a century before Paul and Jim Crow maintenance proponents used this ploy to torpedo the civil rights bill. Yet linking the anti-civil rights position directly to the old property rights canard fits neatly into the stock libertarian argument that the best thing government can do is stay out of the affairs of private citizens and private business. It’s a philosophy that claims the root of America's woes -- bloated spending, soaring deficits, congressional gridlock, crippling energy dependence, massive tax disparities, the drug plague and even America's wars abroad are the result of top heavy government interference and intrusion in the lives of Americans.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Paul also knows that spicing up the horribly distorted Jeffersonian principle of limited government with race has broad implications for scrapping regulations on environmental and civil liberties and consumer protections, gutting regulations to prevent corporate abuses, and of course, slashing funding or eliminating government health services, education, welfare and labor law.</p> <p>  </p> <p> At the end of the day, Paul’s seemingly anti-establishment, anti-party, maverick position plays well with the legions of frustrated, disgusted and enraged Republican rank and filers and Libertarians who are desperate to have an alternative to the field of GOP establishment-anointed presidential contenders.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Paul could be magnanimous and apologize for his racist rants, while deftly deflecting blame to someone else and telling the press to get over it and talk about the “substantive” issues. But why would he? The dredging up of the newsletters gave him what he wanted. He is now nearly a household name and a viable force in the GOP. A slash and burn assault on government, even when it’s race tinged, doesn’t hurt Paul one bit. It gets media and public attention, draws denunciations from his defenders as hitting below the belt, and solicits quiet cheers from the multitudes that happen to agree with Paul, his suspect views on race notwithstanding.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst, a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network, the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge, and a regular correspondent for New America Media. He hosts the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour on KTYM Radio Los Angeles streamed on ktym.com, podcast on blogtalkradio.com and on thehutchinsonreportnews.com.</em></p> <p> --<a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2011/12/ron-paul-flunks-the-r-racism-test-for-good-reason.php">New America Media</a></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/ron-paul" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Ron Paul</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/gop" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">GOP</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/newt-gingrich" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Newt Gingrich</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/racism" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">racism</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/2012-elections" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">2012 elections</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Earl Ofari Hutchinson</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:38:15 +0000 tara 366 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/ron-paul-8flunks-r-14racism-test#comments Newt Gingrich Breaks Away From the GOP on Immigration https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/newt-gingrich-breaks-away-gop-immigration <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Tue, 11/29/2011 - 13:53</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumGingrich.jpg?itok=tSLIevqg"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumGingrich.jpg?itok=tSLIevqg" width="480" height="268" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/news/">New America Media</a> and <a href="http://colorlines.com/">ColorLines</a>: Can GOP voters stomach a presidential candidate who talks about undocumented immigrants without calling them “illegals”?</p> <p>  </p> <p> Can the Tea Party base that’s driving the Republican party handle a presidential hopeful who acknowledges the impossibility of deporting every one of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country, and who voices anything beyond an enforcement-only approach on immigration?</p> <p>  </p> <p> Such are the questions the Republican party has been grappling with in the days since Newt Gingrich, the GOP’s most recent frontrunner, broke away from the pack during CNN’s national security debate last Wednesday and uttered a fairly startling set of words on immigration.</p> <p>  </p> <p> “I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families,” Gingrich said on Wednesday. “If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> In the current immigration debate, where anything besides a “secure the borders” agenda gets slammed as reviled “amnesty” by immigration restrictionists, the backlash was immediate, but Gingrich refused to be cowed the way Rick Perry was when he was attacked for defending an in-state tuition bill for undocumented immigrants he’d backed in Texas. On Friday, Gingrich defended his remarks at a town hall in Florida.</p> <p>  </p> <p> “I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally,” he said, The Hill reported. “But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties run so deeply in America that it would truly be a tragedy to try and rip their family apart.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> In a field full of anti-immigration hardliners, Gingrich’s sophisticated tonal shift marked the first real departure this election season away from the fear-mongering tactics and demagoguery that’s become all but a prerequisite for GOP candidates talking immigration these days. And in doing so, Gingrich dared remind his party of days gone by, when even conservatives had enough political space to back legalization proposals. His remarks were a reminder of how far the right has moved on immigration, and how twisted the immigration debate has become for both parties. It’s too soon to say, but Gingrich’s remarks could be a sign that Republicans are ready to heed growing calls from within their own party to temper the anti-immigrant rhetoric and stop alienating Latino voters.</p> <p>  </p> <p> It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who signed the most recent amnesty 25 years ago which allowed nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants to gain legal status. And it was just a few years ago when Sen. John McCain backed the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform with immigrant rights champions like the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, only to turn his back on both in recent years. The open racism of anti-immigrant campaigns in last year’s midterm elections, and the bitter defeat of the DREAM Act last December, when even original sponsors of the bill like Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett voted against the narrow legalization bill for a set of undocumented immigrant youth, showed how far right the party had moved on immigration.</p> <p>  </p> <p> And Mitt Romney, who many consider the likely GOP nominee, has followed the tide. On Wednesday night Romney advisor and spokesperson Eric Ferhnstrom told the Washington Examiner Romney was pushing a hard right “attrition through enforcement” platform. “”You turn off the magnets, no in state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment,” Ferhnstrom said. “You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self retreat. They will go to their native countries.”</p> <p>  </p> <p> What’s notable where Gingrich is concerned is his very clear tonal shift. Gingrich was willing to recognize immigrants as members of U.S. communities, as people whose presence sustains their families, as people whose work contributes to the economy. But more than that, it’s the fact that Gingrich was willing to acknowledge a practical reality that the hard right of the GOP is currently unwilling to address—it’s not just impossible to deport every undocumented immigrant in the country, it’s also unwise.</p> <p>  </p> <p> It’s this new tone that helps obscure the nuts and bolts of Gingrich’s actual policy platform, which has been criticized roundly by both immigration advocates and restrictionists. Gingrich’s proposed “red card program,” put forth by the conservative Krieble Foundation, calls for giving the millions of undocumented immigrants in the country a literal red card that would grant them work permits and permanent residency but no citizenship. Under Krieble’s Red Card Solution, children of this class of immigrants would not be granted birthright citizenship, which is currently an automatic right afforded to anyone born in the country. Immigration restrictionists have called it, predictably, “amnesty.” Immigrant rights advocates say that the program would create a second class citizenry who are granted legal status but none of the rights and privileges that come with it.</p> <p>  </p> <p> For now, Gingrich is forcing Republican voters to grapple with the question of whether their party can nominate someone who dares to see immigrants as human beings.</p> <p>  </p> <p> After all, as Gingrich said Wednesday night, “I don’t see how the — the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century.</p> <p> --<a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2011/11/gingrich-sees-immigrants-as-humans.php">New America Media</a></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/newt-gingrich" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Newt Gingrich</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/tea-party" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Tea Party</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/gop" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">GOP</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/immigration" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">immigration</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Julianne Hing</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:53:25 +0000 tara 268 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/newt-gingrich-breaks-away-gop-immigration#comments In Defense of Rep. Weiner (and Other Scandal-Ridden Politicians) https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/defense-rep-weiner-and-other-scandal-ridden-politicians <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 20:02</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Weiner.jpg?itok=D8e8fpMd"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Weiner.jpg?itok=D8e8fpMd" width="480" height="360" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> <em>This article was updated on August 23.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p>  In 1998, President Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky engaged in an act that would forever leave its mark on American politics, not to mention a certain blue dress. It was the day that doomed the reputation of one of our most popular presidents and transformed Capitol Hill into <em>The Real World.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> Since the notorious Lewinsky scandal, Americans have started looking at politicians as characters in a reality show. We have lost sight of the issues, opting instead to look for controversy in our nation’s leaders.   And it seems as though, like in reality television, our politicians feel inclined to deliver.</p> <p> “Obama Beats Weiner”--<em>New York</em><em> Post</em></p> <p> “Weiner Lets it All Hang Out”--Huffington Post</p> <p> “Little Weiner In The Oven”--<em>The Daily News</em></p> <p> “A Tough News Package to Handle”—<em>Time</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> Anthony Weiner is the poster boy for the 21st century scandal. He never engaged in any sexual acts with women other than his wife. He never broke any laws within the bounds of the legal system or his marriage. Everything he did was conducted in cyberspace--a place where  nothing is private.   Since his crimes were not crimes, merely colossal embarrassments, the media has treated it as a joke. Anthony Weiner has become a walking euphemism, an embodiment of his over-publicized member.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But after all the laughs at his expense, talking only of how closely his name resembled the focus of his indiscretion, he was pressured by most, including his own party, to step down. He was booted out of office not by the law, but rather public opinion.   “I urge Congressman Weiner to seek that help without the pressures of being a member of Congress,” said House minority leader Nancy Pelosi at a press conference.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Due to the nature of Weiner’s misdeeds, he is viewed as a deviant who must be quarantined. And since there are photos to prove his fallibility, it is all the more important to remove him from the public eye.  </p> <p> <img alt="" src="http://www.mouseclickconcepts.com/clients/highbrow/sites/default/files/Clinton.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 363px" /></p> <p> Newt Gingrich has had two affairs over the course of his career, one of which coincided with the Lewinsky scandal. Each infidelity ended in marriage, divorcing the first for the second. Despite his lack of moral compass, Gingrich was never ousted from politics. Instead, he is one of the forerunners for the 2012 presidential election.  </p> <p>  </p> <p> What makes Gingrich untouchable and Weiner so easily rubbed out? Perhaps infidelity has become too common of a controversy. Weiner is like that fancy new sports car of  scandals--you’ve never seen it before and you just can’t take your eyes off it.  </p> <p>  </p> <p> And then there’s Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The former IMF director was charged with the sexual assault of a Manhattan housekeeper who claims that he tried to rape her and forced her to perform sexual acts against her will. However, the case against Strauss-Kahn has fallen apart. According to an August 23 <em>New York Times</em> article, the charges against Strauss-Kahn have been dismissed.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Authorities reportedly discovered that various cash deposits had been made in the victim’s name. One such deposit was allegedly made by a man who was recorded urging her to charge Strauss-Kahn with sexual harassment.   The best-case scenario for Strauss-Kahn is that he gets to trade a sexual assault charge for a sex scandal. He can go home to his wife having proved that he didn’t forcibly have sex with anyone outside his marriage. He can claim he did so consensually.  </p> <p>  </p> <p> In other parts of the world, however,  there seems to be a more clear separation of a politician’s political and personal life. In France, unlike the U.S., not everyone gets thrown into the tabloid column. François Mitterrand, French President from 1981 to 1995, had extramarital affairs over the course of his marriage and political career, including a longtime mistress who bore him a daughter.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Surely these indiscretions tainted his constituents’ perceptions of him as a husband, but throughout his career, he was viewed as a good president. People judged him by his national decision-making abilities, not his personal ones.  </p> <p>  </p> <p> Sometimes the delineation between a politician’s personal and professional lives is not so clear-cut. Sometimes a politician does something that taints every aspect of his character. Sometimes there’s a John Edwards. Edwards allegedly spent campaign donations to cover up his affair and subsequent child born out of wedlock.   Edwards was indicted in June, but according to a June 3 <em>Washington Post</em> article, “The indictment triggered immediate criticism from a range of campaign finance and legal experts, who said the government’s case is unprecedented and appears weak.”  The question remains as to whether Edwards’ actions actually qualify as crimes.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Then there is the former California governor. When news broke that Arnold Schwarzenegger had a child born out of wedlock, it wasn’t viewed so much as a scandal than as a plot point in a film; an unfortunate turn for the heroine of the story, Maria Shriver.  </p> <p>  </p> <p> At the end of the day, what makes our politicians so ripe for the picking? Does their power make them feel invulnerable? Do they think that a different set of rules applies to them? Or is it because we portray them as celebrities--movie stars, minus the good looks and talent?  </p> <p>  </p> <p> Whatever the reason, why should we care? In the end, what does it matter if Congressman Weiner sent racy photos or if Bill Clinton did ruin a perfectly good dress? We should not elect our officials based on their Twitter accounts or Facebook profiles. And if they do misbehave in their personal lives, we should be happy that they avoid mischief in their professional ones.  </p> <p>  </p> <p> <em>Photo of President Bill Clinton: World Economic Forum, Flickr </em></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/rep-anthony-weiner" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Rep. Anthony Weiner</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/bill-clinton" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Bill Clinton</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/newt-gingrich" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Newt Gingrich</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/monica-lewinsky" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Monica Lewinsky</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/john-edwards" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">John Edwards</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/arnold-schwarzenegger" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Arnold Schwarzenegger</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Sam Chapin</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">TalkMediaNews, Flickr</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:02:25 +0000 tara 39 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/defense-rep-weiner-and-other-scandal-ridden-politicians#comments