Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 76 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  1. Profile photo of iWe Member
    iWe

    Well. Yes and no. His last line is true and right. But I’d rather he had the guts to say that income inequality is not a bad thing in itself. He could even be stronger in pointing out that liberal policies always create more inequality in addition to more failed cities.

    • #1
    • January 2, 2014 at 7:59 am
  2. Profile photo of Songwriter Member

    I love that quality in Newt. More Republicans should have that quality.

    • #2
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:00 am
  3. Profile photo of The Mugwump Inactive

    Income inequality is about as well-defined as social justice, which is to say that it’s a constantly shifting target. So, having lost the war on poverty, we’re going to launch a new war on inequality! You see how the left uses the lexicon, right? What an opportunity for mischief!

    • #3
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:16 am
  4. Profile photo of Bulldawg Inactive

    Kudos to Gingrich for saying Rs should be concerned. This is a great opportunity for Rs to hammer the fact that it is D policies that exacerbate if not cause the economic problems so many suffer.

    Hit them on their war on Jobs.

    Hit them on their war on Healthcare.

    Hit them on their war on the family (both parents having to work to put food on the table.)

    And exhibit A should always be Detroit.

    But they should carefully distinguish that inequality of outcome cannot be eliminated. Inequality of the opportunity to do the best one can, can and should be eliminated.

    • #4
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:19 am
  5. Profile photo of iWe Member
    iWe

    Best of all would be pointing out that all these taxes and regulations and lousy public schools make it nearly impossible for truly poor people to get rich.

    • #5
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:22 am
  6. Profile photo of robberberen Inactive

    He doesn’t back down? Newt began that conversation by saying Republicans have been indifferent to poverty.

    Great. 

    So he starts by surrendering the moral high ground, and then tries to point out that Democrats’ policies are bad. Sorry, Newt. The argument’s already over. You lost. That’s precisely the rhetorical strategy that led Republicans into the wilderness.

    Shorter Gingrich: “I recognize that conservatives like myself are mean and unfeeling. But the nice guys’ policies don’t work, so please vote for me.” And yet we don’t win elections. It’s a mystery.

    We have to stop doing this. Don’t try to earn the moral high ground. Just seize it first, then explain how your policies put you there. 

    Democrats don’t care about the poor. Say it again. Democrats don’t care about the poor. Don’t be afraid to say it. Democrats don’t care about the poor. Look at the cities they run. Democrats don’t care about the poor. We’re trying to lift the poor out of poverty, but unfortunately the Democrats don’t care about the poor. Repeat it over and over until the public understands it to be true.

    • #6
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:22 am
  7. Profile photo of J.Maestro Inactive
    Songwriter: I love that quality in Newt. More Republicans should have that quality. · 19 minutes ago

    Shout it from the rooftops.

    The false premises and shoddy analysis of the Left are well-known. There is no excuse for anyone to be taken by surprise by the dishonest assertion of a Reich or a Pelosi or an Obama.

    Is Newt the only one on our side who preps to challenge the false premises? How can that be? Is everyone else new to this game?

    Democrats must laugh themselves to sleep every night, tickled at how “they fell for it again, they let my BS accusation stand!”

    • #7
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:24 am
  8. Profile photo of Gary Bokelmann Inactive

    Sorry, but I don’t see it. I’m as big a fan of Newt as anyone — even voted for him in the primary in 2012 — but this is not one of his best moments. 

    Yes, the last line in the clip was perfect. But why on earth does he begin by bemoaning Republicans’ “historic indifference” to the poor? That’s the real “baloney” in this clip. “Republicans don’t care” is standard Beltway/media boilerplate — in other words, a [CoC]-[CoC] lie. Why on earth does he lend credence to it? He ought to know better. 

    Refusing to pour billions of dollers into dead-weight bureaucracies that only make problems worse does not mean we’re indifferent. The real indifference is found in smarmy politicians who think that because they’re willing to throw gobs of other people’s money around they are entitled to lecture the rest of us on inequality. 

    The only way to overcome this lie is to confront the liar directly — and belligerently. Newt hit his stride at the end of the clip, but only after first reinforcing one of the most pernicious lies of today’s politics.

    • #8
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:34 am
  9. Profile photo of J.Maestro Inactive
    iWc: Best of all would be pointing out that all these taxes and regulations and lousy public schools make it nearly impossible for truly poor people to get rich. · 2 minutes ago

    It ought to be a mantra: “Democrats have made it harder than ever to start a business or create a job. And they mean to make it even harder.”

    There are fuller explanations but they tend to cede too much power to government. The government can’t do anything about income inequality — not without also addressing workload inequality, risk-taking inequality, work ethic inequality… strength… attractiveness… literacy… etc.

    Of course, statists would love to exploit those inequalities as well so it’s dangerous to even bring them up. Still, the Dems’ main focus will always be the money because, well, that’s why they’re in this issue at all… they want a skim of the redistribution.

    • #9
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:34 am
  10. Profile photo of BuckeyeSam Member

    Child homelessness? Liberals policies at all levels undermine two-parent homes, which are the best way to give every child an equal opportunity.

    Why the h*ll do we create policies to undermine two-parent families? So that we can create whole new liberal policies and bureaucracies to paper over the fiasco created in the first instance?

    • #10
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:35 am
  11. Profile photo of Inactive
    Anonymous

    I say let’s get this ideological war underway and really fight. The moderates and social Leftists need to pick a side these next two years.

    • #11
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:40 am
  12. Profile photo of Gary Bokelmann Inactive

    I see Blake beat me to the point. (And said it better, too.) While I was typing, he was posting. Glad to see others noticed Newt’s gaffe as well. As Blake said, we have to keep exposing that lie, over and over and over again, every single time we hear it. Even when — or especially when — our own party “leaders” buy into it.

     

    • #12
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:42 am
  13. Profile photo of Barkha Herman Member

    Newt matters. The contract with America is the one item that can be referred back to as a positive achievement by Republicans in recent history.

    And yes, he does not back down.

    • #13
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:42 am
  14. Profile photo of flownover Inactive

    I love when Chokie Roberts couldn’t get her talkingpoints out in time .

    Sputtering with that smug tv smile, she wanted so badly to jump on top of Reich’s accessible shoulders .

    Cory Booker leaves behind the smoldering mess of Newark ,Rahm Emanuel takes over the shooting gallery in Chicago , deBlasio marches off to defenestrate the horsedrawn carriage operators and probably doom their steeds to a glue factory, and people have a hard time seeing the parallels with feudalism ? The democrats love order from the top down, work towards a communal misery, and abhor the free market . Sounds like medieval ethics rule. 

    Newt is wasted on network tv, he is brave enough for it, but the game is fixed. 

    • #14
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:47 am
  15. Profile photo of robberberen Inactive
    Gary Bokelmann: I see Blake beat me to the point. (And said it better, too.) …

    Not at all. This is brilliantly said, and absolutely true:

    Gary Bokelmann:

    Yes, the last line in the clip was perfect. But why on earth does he begin by bemoaning Republicans’ “historic indifference” to the poor? That’s the real “baloney” in this clip. “Republicans don’t care” is standard Beltway/media boilerplate — in other words, a [CoC]-[CoC] lie. Why on earth does he lend credence to it? He ought to know better. 

    The only way to overcome this lie is to confront the liar directly — and belligerently. Newt hit his stride at the end of the clip, but only after first reinforcing one of the most pernicious lies of today’s politics. · 8 minutes ago

    …and once he reinforced that lie, the argument was over. Nothing he says afterward matters to the average voter.

    • #15
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:47 am
  16. Profile photo of Marion Evans Member

    Reich is no match for Newt. It is almost unfair to put them together. Newt is for capitalism. Reich is for socialism and for cronyism (via his Clinton affiliation), both of which are antithetical to capitalism.

    • #16
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:57 am
  17. Profile photo of Nat Brooks Inactive

    Sorry Rob, but Newt is as dangerous as he is compelling. He has the same problem as Reich in his heart. Namely, he believes has has all the answers. He believes that a better engineered policy (with Newt as the great architect) is the answer.

    Totally agree that we need Republicans to fight. But we need to fight on the ground of decentralization, individual rights and responsibilities; and everywhere expose the infantile leftist prerogative to power. Republicans should do this by campaigning in the poorest neighborhoods and among the most disadvantaged. We can’t just pour rhetorical soap in the pan, we must get on our hands and knees and scrub if we ever hope to put the leftist dream out of business.

    • #17
    • January 2, 2014 at 8:57 am
  18. Profile photo of VooDoo Member

    I would have paid money to watch Newt debate Obama. We most likely still have lost, but watching Obama get his nosed rubbed in it would have been priceless.

     

    The left is the party of giving a man a fish so that he will vote for them, the right is the party of teaching him how to fish so that he can be a productive member of society.

    • #18
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:03 am
  19. Profile photo of Franco Member

    I watched the clip and I’m reminded again why I can’t watch these shows. A moderator/journalist frames the question to include every left-wing assumption, the Republican heel is allowed to talk only as long as he’s basically bashing R’s and not blaming Dems.

    Notice the placating tone Newt begins with, why, he sounds like a ‘reasonable’ Republican, so he can talk for several seconds uninterrupted. But the moment he starts to call Democrats into account, Cokie Roberts takes shill offense, and interrupts.

    Newt was just starting to make a crucial point, but has been derailed by Cokie’s screeching – better reserved for incidents of frotturism on the subway.

    Then the Democrat policy-wonk gets to re-write history, fillibuster and blame Republicans. Oh and don’t forget, there is a chyron below explaining the leftist bumper-sticker assumptions defining the lefts premise. This is more often a statement than a question.

    INCOME GAP WIDENING – Inequality reaches new high

    Newt is simply the bad guy who is doomed to fail and/or look bad. It’s theater – it’s professional wrestling. They should all wear masks. It’s wheelbarrow full of baloney.

    • #19
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:04 am
  20. Profile photo of Michael S Member

    Brilliant, Blake. Let’s end every attack ad with some variation of “Democrats don’t care about ….” Just rub it in. Sadly, long and lofty speeches on the virtues of entrepreurial capitalism won’t cut it for voters who typically have an attention span barely the length of a 140 character tweet. We own the moral high ground. Let’s take it. #democratsdontcare

    • #20
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:08 am
  21. Profile photo of Franco Member

    Here’s the formula for these WWE bouts disguised as ‘news’ and ‘punditry’:

    Moderator with Democrat assumptions/beliefs/talking points. Complete with supporting cyrons below

    Another supposedly non-partisan journalist (Cokie Roberts) yeah, riiiiiight….

    A Democrat crusader (Robert Reich) 

    Sometimes there will be another (supposedly) Republican shill (Bloomberg, Daivd Brooks, Frum, Colin Powell etc) to further confound, interrupt, talk down or derail the lone conservative. 

    I also agree that Newt should have taken on the premise, but he’s on the payroll. 

    • #21
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:14 am
  22. Profile photo of robberberen Inactive

    I love the part of this clip where Reich says: “We Democrats need to take a hard look in the mirror, and admit that we’ve been wrong on the issue of poverty.”

    Oh wait.

    Reich didn’t say that. Because Reich understand that saying that gets you nothing and gives away everything.

    Newt, on the other hand, stepped right in that pile of dog doo.

    I generally love Newt’s pugnacious refusal to accept the premise of the question. Not sure why he didn’t do that here. This was amateur hour stuff I’d expect from a RINO like Rob *wink*

    • #22
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:19 am
  23. Profile photo of Nick Stuart Thatcher

    Gingrich gets in good licks from time to time. But frombthe moment he was on the couch with Nancy Pelosi talking environment he was dead to me. Like a cockroach, it’s not what he hauls off and eats, it’s what he falls into and ruins.

    • #23
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:23 am
  24. Profile photo of Franco Member

    Here’s a quick look at the growing inequality in journalism salaries. Most journalists are making less than minimun wage, many are homeless sleeping on couches in NYC, interning at networks and newspapers and trying to pay off their massive student loans.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR (CNN) : She just signed for $2 million/year for three years to become the highest-paid field correspondent in TV news

    TOM BROKAW (NBC): Reportedly earns over $1 million a year

    KATIE COURIC (NBC): Reportedly earns over $1 million a year

    SAM DONALDSON (ABC): Reportedly earns $2 million a year

    BRYANT GUMBEL (NBC): Reportedly earns well over $1 million a year

    PETER JENNINGS (ABC): Reportedly earns several million dollars a year

    TED KOPPEL (ABC): Reportedly earns $6 million a year

    DAN RATHER (CBS): Reportedly earns $5 million a year on a contract that runs to 2000

    DIANE SAWYER (ABC): According to USA Today , her annual salary is $7 million a year

    BARBARA WALTERS: Reportedly has a base salary range of $4 million with additional fees for her specials that add up to an annual salary in the $7 to $8 million range.

    Cokie Roberts will give a speech of screech on a panel for $20,000.

    • #24
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:25 am
  25. Profile photo of Z in MT Member

    Blake nailed it above.

    Newt should have said, “There is nothing wrong with inequality when it is earned. Look, nobody faults Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos for their wealth. Yet, when wealth is gained by manipulating politics such as with Gov. McAuliffe or my friend Haley Barbour, when poverty is perpetuated by sclerotic, indifferent bureaucracies, that…that is the problem.”

    • #25
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:26 am
  26. Profile photo of Z in MT Member

    This list must be 15 years old.

    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR (CNN) : She just signed for $2 million/year for three years to become the highest-paid field correspondent in TV news

    TOM BROKAW (NBC): Reportedly earns over $1 million a year

    KATIE COURIC (NBC): Reportedly earns over $1 million a year

    SAM DONALDSON (ABC): Reportedly earns $2 million a year

    BRYANT GUMBEL (NBC): Reportedly earns well over $1 million a year

    PETER JENNINGS (ABC): Reportedly earns several million dollars a year

    TED KOPPEL (ABC): Reportedly earns $6 million a year

    DAN RATHER (CBS): Reportedly earns $5 million a year on a contract that runs to 2000

    DIANE SAWYER (ABC): According to USA Today , her annual salary is $7 million a year

    BARBARA WALTERS: Reportedly has a base salary range of $4 million with additional fees for her specials that add up to an annual salary in the $7 to $8 million range.

    Cokie Roberts will give a speech of screech on a panel for $20,000.

    • #26
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:28 am
  27. Profile photo of Bob Thompson Member

    It’s hard to fix stupid. Look at Detroit. Even now, as I read reports on that city’s condition, it is difficult to see that the local population that supported the policies that bankrupted the city has an ounce of understanding of its causes. And there were no Republicans anywhere near, if I recall correctly. And a generation has passed since New York City was bankrupt and it seems they have a hankering for ‘them good old days’. Newt surely has a good understanding of this but sometimes lets his posture go weak-kneed. 

    • #27
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:29 am
  28. Profile photo of Franco Member

    Z

    Yeah it is, sorry. It’s much worse now I’m sure. 

    • #28
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:31 am
  29. Profile photo of Crow's Nest Member
    Blake: He doesn’t back down? Newt began that conversation by saying Republicans have been indifferent to poverty.

    Great. 

    So he starts by surrendering the moral high ground, and then tries to point out that Democrats’ policies are bad. Sorry, Newt. The argument’s already over. You lost. That’s precisely the rhetorical strategy that led Republicans into the wilderness.

    Shorter Gingrich: “I recognize that conservatives like myself are mean and unfeeling. But the nice guys’ policies don’t work, so please vote for me.” And yet we don’t win elections. It’s a mystery.

    Firing on all cylinders here. My sentiments exactly.

    • #29
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:35 am
  30. Profile photo of Bob Thompson Member

    Oh, and income inequality can exist without poverty so they are not necessarily connected. Poverty is more connected to decisions like reproduction without a thought about what the responsibilities of that are. And 2 parent households(one man and one woman), whether both work or not, do much better a rearing children who do not end up in poverty.

    • #30
    • January 2, 2014 at 9:35 am
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3