Full disclosure: I actually like Newt Gingrich and he seems to be reasonable to me, though at times he misses the message.
Discussion: One of the things that Mr. Gingrich says is that Obama is attacking America's faith. I really see no evidence to the fact. As far as I know, Mr. Obama goes to church, has not tried to end religion. The one thing he HAS done is force churches who run PUBLIC charities to provide birth control, while maintaining that, if there is a charity of just Roman Catholics (and no atheists, just this denomination), run by Roman Catholics, and members of the Roman Catholic faith only, then the church does not have to provide it. His legislation, found in his landmark healthcare act, provides contraception coverage to women working in all organizations, so it doesn't specifically target "religion" per se. The rationale behind this that, if there are members of your organization that does not belong to your faith, it there for a public organization and can be regulated. This is the lesser of two objections to his speech.
The next point Mr. Gingrich says is that you must defeat Obama to ensure that we keep freedom alive. I disagree with this statement on a basic ground: THis is the sort of polarized rhetoric in Washington that appeals to "We who cannot think." This hyper-polarization of "unpatriotism, unAmericanism," and so forth, must be stopped. It not only does the person in question a disservice, but it also does us a great disservice. It distracts from the issues that candidates stand for, and diverts our attention from a "fundamental disagreement of principle" (As Mr. Gingrich himself is fond of saying) to now a fight for our survival, making Obama seem like he is going to wreck the country and become a dictator. This is not just to single out Mr. Gingrich. President Obama is equally guilty of such rhetoric, and it gets us nowhere, making discussions about the important issues of our times devolve into a childish game of "He said, she said." It is ridiculous and demeaning to the American people that this happens.
One of the most important things I tell people is to go to the source. Period. So, here is the source. Maybe you'll draw a different conclusion from me in this regard.
This is the source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:
Mutanatia
Hi - I've posted a response this question, which can be found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://rainstorm5.blog.com/2012/06/26/on-the-birth-control-mandate/
I will also post a link to it in the group's FB forum
thanks,
Jill
The second comment, where Gingrich is quoted as (paraphrased) as stating that Obama must be defeated in order to save the country, is one I agree with for a plethora of reasons. I've got a character-limit here, so I'll try to keep this brief --
ReplyDelete1. Obama's agenda is the conversion of this country to Socialism, all of his actions and statements to date have proven this to me.
2. While Obama seems willing to enforce foreign policy issues, (e.g., get Bin Laden, etc), his stance on Israel is quite frankly scary, especially for Israel. His domestic policies are essentially one bailout after another and Congress has unanimously rejected his budget proposals several times now (both Dems & Repubs rejected them, not just one side)
3. He's pandering too much and pitting races and classes against each other (I can post quotes of Obama's "African-Americans for Obama commercial as well as other soundbites where he's openly calling for class warfare against the wealthy)
4. Obama had a unique opportunity to bring this country together in ways never before seen. He could have become the "bridge" that finally united black and white people (and everyone else, too) but instead he declares "if I had a son, he would be like Trayvon [Martin]." He is burning the very bridge that those who voted for him hoped he would create.
He is a bad president, and I have many, many valid reasons for saying so. These are just a few. Romney is only slightly better and if he wins, he will be watched like a hawk.
The only thing I am objecting to is that Gingrich is NOT doing exactly what YOU are doing in that clip; rather he is doing the opposite. You are explaining point-by-point why you think what you think (Almost said "Feel." Dave would kill me for that xD). Gingrich is just going "He's taking away out freedom." And elaborates on what it means to have freedom taken away. There is no evidence, no thought-out conclusions; rather, it is designed to be a soundbite. I do not like it when any politician, regardless of political orientation does that.
ReplyDeleteNow, here's the fun stuff, where I get to be a bit of a professor ;)
1) Can you list a few of his actions or statements that support this? I don't particularly agree with this statement, but maybe show me a few good quotes and you'll win me over :)
2) How do we know Obama isn't turning to Israel behind closed doors and saying, "Relax, election year; I'll come back to your side after re-election," much the same way he did to Putin. Which was very bizarre I must add...
3) Can you point me to something given, in context, to what it was he was saying? You point to the Obama ad, which is a good one (on Dave's blog at http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2012/06/24/focused-on-the-5/ ). It took me a while to get the subtext though--this does not make it wrong, of course! Anything else besides that?
4) How would Obama behave, do you think, in order to be a "Bridge?" In other words, how would you have liked to see Obama handle the Martin incident?