A response to Eugene Robinson’s 16 December 2011 Washington Post article:
“Has Gingrich ever heard an idea he didn’t like?” Link: http://wapo.st/u88hLe
Mr. Robinson you make Obama proud. I am certainly not enamored with Newt, but you trash him for being shallow, yet this article contains 8 major points of your disagreement with Gingrich that are equal to or shallower than that of which you accuse him. Moreover, my main point is not to defend Newt, but to expose your detrimental leftist bias tainted with cutesy personal denigration. A point-by-point review:
1. It is far from intellectual promiscuity to call into account those, who like sweat shop proprietors, care little for the employees who are the backbone of their company and provide the profit. Romney may have acted in that fashion like a corporate raider profiting questionably from buying & breaking up a company. That has occurred quite often and it is only ethical to call that practice into question. Especially if it is a response to a disingenuous accusation such as Romney leveled against Gingrich concerning the consulting fees earned from Freddie Mac, etc.
2. Since when has earning fees from providing a legitimate service rendered become unethical? And when did a service provider’s opinion about a client make a difference in regard to fulfilling a contract obligation to a client? If that is unethical or hypocritical, then attorneys should not represent people accused of crimes because quite often the evidence is substantial that the attorney believes the accused is guilty. Or should employees quit much needed jobs just because they are critical of something within the employer’s company? Should politicians accept contributions from donors they are secretly critical of? They do it all the time. Should Eugene Robinson quit the Washington Post because it also prints articles that hold a view opposite to his? I am quite certain that Mr. Robinson is critical of these conservative articles clamoring for dominance over his own. Gingrich was hired to provide a consulting service and fulfilled his contract and was paid for offering knowledgeable advice. That is the free enterprise system at work – nothing unethical. In addition, it speaks honorably of Newt to say that he wasn’t afraid to point out flaws he saw in Freddie Mac. Others might be cowardly in order to retain income. They would place the god of money on the throne instead of responsibility and honor.
3. Republicans are not establish in a business mode of “bankrupting companies and laying off employees” . That is pure Leftist deceptive propaganda. Republicans are pro-business for the sake of establishing healthy enterprise unburdened with excess government regulation and taxation so that millions of Americans can hold jobs necessary for quality family life.
4. Gingrich advising protesters to “get a job, right after you take a bath.” Is based on a reality out on the street that needs tough love and an exposing of the truth. Moreover, Newt simply and boldly expressed what most responsible people were thinking. It is only the liberals that want to make lame excuses for unsanitary protesting anarchists and unethically inflate this into a class warfare scenario.
5. If Lean Six Sigma can save Americans $ 500 Billion per year, why not give it a chance instead of belittling the idea just because you didn’t think of it yourself or simply because leftists must always refute the opposition no matter how sound the concept.
6. So what if Gingrich’s claim that “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior” is a concern about Obama? Many commentator, pundits, and even Mr. Robinson quotes others in the course of their endeavors. Just because one doesn’t always cite original and creative phrases doesn’t constitute wrong-doing or irresponsibility.
7. Get real Mr. Robinson. Newt’s “Second Life” 10 year prediction in 2007 still has six years to play out. You are stretching this one reprehensibly.
8. Newt’s claim about Palestinians being an “invented people” displays a bold willingness to expose the truth that too many are afraid to voice because of capitulation to Islamic coercion. It is true that there were no true Palestinian people and when Israel returned to that area which had been their ancestral home long before the Arabs occupied the land when Israel was taken off to captivity, the Arabs and Israelis coexisted peacefully and cooperated in reclaiming thousands of acres of unusable swamp land for productive farming and habitats. However, the Islamic leadership could not tolerate peaceful coexistence with Israel and stirred up fabricated animosity which built a wall of separation between the two ethnic populations forever ruining any chance of peace. Israel could have been an effective integrated state, but the Muslims would not allow it. Moreover, Newt’s claim in no way precludes establishing a separate Palestinian State. He just wants all parties to finally address the truth so long hidden in smokescreens.
Jerry Clifford, the Word Guru
I need and desire constructive comments of any kind, for they are a necessary educational and enlightenment process. Please visit the comment section at the bottom of this page and follow the guidelines for legitimate response or Please contact me by email: