Bookmark and Share
Printer Friendly

SC Winner Newt Gingrich: A Closer Look

David Streeter — January 23, 2012 – 2:06 pm | Domestic Policy | Election 2012 | Foreign Policy | GOP Hypocrisies | GOP Presidential Candidates 2012 | Israel | Reproductive Rights | Separation of Church & State | Women's Issues Comments (2) Add a comment

On Saturday night, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) pulled off an upset victory over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary. Gingrich’s rise back to the top tier of the Republican field means that GOP primary voters have elevated yet another candidate whose positions and behavior stand in direct opposition the values of most American Jews.

When it comes to domestic policies that are supported by most American Jews, Gingrich stands on the opposite side of the spectrum. Gingrich:

* Stands with anti-choice extremists seeking to restrict a woman’s right to choose;

* Sides with those seeking to tear down the separation of church and state— including his opposition to constructing Cordoba House, suggesting that we should take a religious freedom approach similar to that of Saudi Arabia—and using the Islamic faith as a straw man.

* Touts his radical plans to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform package—the Affordable Care Act—despite having supported its key provision.

* Denies climate change and frequently attacks environmental protection efforts—even after supporting them;

* Declared that he would ignore Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with;

* Opposes equal rights for all and believes “[T]here is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us.”

In addition, Gingrich has repeatedly used Israel as a partisan wedge issue, and he appears to have adopted far-right policies towards Israel that place him at odds with the democratically-elected government of Israel. Gingrich:

* Urged both houses of Congress to condemn the President for articulating the vision of a two state solution based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps as a starting point for negotiations—a formula that has been the basis of talks for decades, through both Republican and Democratic administrations; and

* Delegitimized the Palestinians as an “invented people”—a position that is against U.S. and Israeli policies.

Further, his reputation as a rhetorical loose cannon has been uniquely concerning to the American Jewish community. Gingrich:

* Wrongfully declared that the United States is run by an “anti-Jewish” elite; and

* Invokes and disrespects the Holocaust to attack his political opponents, including Obama.

Equally as concerning as his policy positions and his behavior, Gingrich has also pandered to the fringes of the Republican Party by floating a “major role” for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in a potential Gingrich Administration and hinting that Representative Allen West  (R-FL)—with his own history of offensive behavior—would be an acceptable running mate.

Given his record, the vast majority of American Jews know that Gingrich simply will fight against the values and policies they support. 


The Obnoxious American | January 23, 2012 – 4:24 pm

This is more liberal hackery posing as Jewish thought.  By the numbers:

1) He’s not anti-choice and he’s hardly extreme.  He’s pro-life.  There is a difference.  It’s not that he wants women bound, barefoot and in the kitchen, it’s that he truly believes that the act of abortion is the killing of a life.  So too do many Jews and in fact orthodox Jews are commonly pro-life. 

Note that while personally I agree that abortion is quite obviously the taking of a life, I believe this issue is complex enough that the government shouldn’t be involved. 

2) Am I to understand that you would support the 9/11 mosque?  I mean seriously, it’s one thing to support it in theory, it’s another to support the building of a mosque down the block from the world trade center by the “Cordoba Initiative” of all things. 

3) Most Americans want Obamacare repealed, so this position is hardly radical or extreme.  It is Obamacare itself that is radical and the Supreme Court will likely find it unconstitutional in coming months.

4) That the NJDC would use the term “denier” in any other context than the Holocaust, cheapens the word, cheapens the suffering of actual victims of Holocaust deniers, and totally discredits the NJDC as representing Jewish views. 

Furthermore, it is absurd in the extreme and insulting to the rest of us Jews (and non-Jews alike) to suggest that simply because one might question a theory, whose scientific basis is questionable to say the least, that this is akin to anything like what those who deny the existence of the plain factual history of the Holocaust.

You should be ashamed. 

5) Is taking him well out of context - I don’t particularly agree in criminalizing judicial malfeasance, but there is something wrong with our judicial branch where in certain cases, laws are created.  Creation of laws is the domain of the legislature, end of story, and Gingrich is correct in identifying a bona-fide, and bi-partisan, constitutional concern.

6) Aside from the fact that most Democrats including Barack Obama are to some degree against Gay Marriage as well, to cast the question of whether marriage, an invention of God, not government, should be manipulated by the laws of man as an equal rights issue is absurd. 

7 and 8) Gingrich is correct on both counts.  Obviously the truth hurts, but care to dispute what he said factually?  What’s that, you can’t?

9 and 10) Heresay, and you’re guilty of the same thing when you use the term Climate denier.

Neil Aronoff | January 27, 2012 – 3:49 pm

One of the best ways to guarantee an Obama victory is to have republicans nominate Newt.  How many of you remember 1964 and Barry Goldwater?

Add a Comment
Note: This form does not support AOL's browser. If you are currently using AOL's browser, please use a major browser, such as Firefox, Safari, Chrome, or Internet Explorer.