Conservatives have had it with Gingrich
(Note: this entry was drafted on Oct. 30, before Deirdre Scozzafava’s withdrawal from the Congressional race in upstate New York and her subsequent endorsement of the Democratic candidate, which proved that the woman Gingrich had endorsed and actively promoted and said was a “conservative” was,
exactly as her conservative opponents had said, a pro-Democrat who undoubtedly would have voted with the Democrats had she been elected to the House. How could Gingrich’s stock among conservatives get any lower? Should’t he just go away? A question I’ve also asked about David Frum. And the answer in both cases is the same. They don’t have to go away. They are both now enjoy the same powerful and remunerative base, the liberal media, which gives them a soapbox from which to attack mainstream conservatives as extremists who doom the Republican Party )
I am glad to see that I am not the only person who thinks that Newt Gingrich is not a conservative (see entry, “Give up the ghost, Gingrich fans”). Cliff Kinkaid of Accuracy in Media has written a blistering report detailing Gingrich’s veerings to the left, including his joint tour with Al Sharpton, and his on-again, off-again support for manmade global warming.
- end of initial entry -
LA to Irwin Graulich, who is a supporter of Gingrich for president:
Did you know that Gingrich does a tour with Al Sharpton?
See the other information in this article.
Irwin Graulich replies:
Of course I knew it. I can’t stand Sharpton—he’s somewhat of a buffoon (but he is not stupid). However, if I were planning to run for president, and I knew he could bring me enough votes to win, I would put him in my cabinet if that’s what was necessary!! Their tour was about education.
LA replies:
Can I post this? Since I’ve had several entries on Gingrich pro and con,
this would be interesting.
Irwin Graulich replies:
Of course. And if people want to vote for me for president, I want the
job!!
LA replies:
Do you see how having anything to do with Sharpton, touring with Sharpton, legitimizing Sharpton, delegitimizes Gingrich as any kind of conservative?
Irwin Graulich replies:
No!!!!!
LA replies:
Irwin, are you aware of Sharpton’s history? Are you aware of the Tawana Brawley case? Are you aware that Brawley, backed by Sharpton, charged upstate prosecutor Steven Pagones with kidnapping her, raping her for several days, and leaving her in a garbage bag covered in feces and with racist slogans scrawled on her body? Are you aware that even after Brawley’s story was shown to be a complete fabrication, and even after Pagones won a civil suit against Sharpton years later, Sharpton still maintained that what Tawana Brawley had said about Pagones was true?
LA continues:
And are you aware of how he egged on blacks against white store owners in Harlem, talking about “white interlopers,” which led a man to set a white-owned store on fire which killed eight people?
This is from a Wall Street Journal article by Fred Siegel, 2003, in which he discusses how top Democrats including Gore had embraced Sharpton:
The press has been appropriately vigilant in examining Mr. Bush’s willingness to pander to Southern white identity politics. It would have taken no great effort for the reporters covering the Apollo debate to have walked across 125th Street from the theater to visit Freddy’s Fashion Mart, where in 1995 eight people died in a murderous rampage inspired by Mr. Sharpton.
Mr. Sharpton is best-known for the Tawana Brawley hoax, in which he insisted that a 15-year-old black girl had been abducted and raped by a band of white men practicing Irish Republican Army rituals. In fact she had made up the story to protect herself from her violent stepfather.
But at Freddy’s, Mr. Sharpton was even more malevolent. He turned a landlord-tenant dispute between the Jewish owner of Freddy’s and a black subtenant into a theater of hatred. Picketers from Mr. Sharpton’s National Action Network, sometimes joined by “the Rev.” himself, marched daily outside the store, screaming about “bloodsucking Jews” and “Jew bastards” and threatening to burn the building down.
After weeks of increasingly violent rhetoric, one of the protesters, Roland Smith, took Mr. Sharpton’s words about ousting the “white interloper” to heart. He ran into the store shouting, “It’s on!” He shot and wounded three whites and a Pakistani, whom he apparently mistook for a Jew. Then he set the fire, which killed five Hispanics, one Guyanese and one African-American—a security guard whom protesters had taunted as a “cracker lover.” Smith then fatally shot himself.
Eight people died, and so evidently did the conscience of liberal Democrats.
Furthermore, in 2008, President George W. Bush joined the Democrats in embracing Sharpton, having him to the White House, joshing around with him. See my article, “Sharpton’s legitimization consummated.”
Mr. Graulich replies:
Sharpton is a sc****g. I know all of his many horrible deeds. He was the guy who started the Crown Heights pogroms against Jews; and of course all the other things you mentioned. So the big dilemma is, should we can maintain our dignity and standards, yet lose the presidency—or we can bite the bullet sometimes and partner with some bad guys. The question is how bad are the guys with whom you partner? Of course guys like Farrakhan and David Duke are out of the question, even if you knew you would win with them.
The tough decision is just how low do you go in your compromise. Al Sharpton is about as low as I would go. I can certainly understand if you feel that I would be compromising too much with Sharpton—although he has changed quite a bit over the years.
By the way, I believe that Sharpton can be bought very easily and would become more conservative if offered a role in a Republican administration. He cares about Sharpton more than anything else.
LA replies:
What do you gain by partnering with him? What are you trying to achieve? Black support for Republicans? Blacks give over 90 percent of their votes to Democrats, and that has not changed and nothing is going to change it. So all you accomplish by partnering with Sharpton is the loss of any principled position against this white-hating black, while you gain nothing.
It’s one thing to be a whore for money. What do we call people who are whores for nothing at all? Lovers of humanity? Republicans?
Again, what do you think you’re gaining? Do you believe that if Republicans make just one more gesture toward blacks, that that will make the difference? Or perhaps the balm of at least having “tried” to win over blacks?
I say again, what are you trying to achieve?
Irwin Graulich replies:
I thought you understood my point. I was creating an imaginary scenario. I was trying to say that IF and that’s a big “if,” if partnering with Al Sharpton could almost guaranty you a win for the presidency, I would do it—just like I believe that is the reason why Gingrich went with him on that Education Tour.
I agree that I would be compromising some of my principles—but in the real world, we all have to do that at times. I did not say that going on the tour with Sharpton would guaranty a Gingrich win. I said that I believe that was the reason that Newt went—to try to get some more Democratic votes on his side—and to make Gingrich appear more moderate/centrist/even liberal. Unfortunately, that’s the game you have to play—my friend.
It comes down to—Do you want to win and get your conservative agenda through after that win, or do you want to lose and be a big principled guy!!! I prefer the former.
LA continues:
Here’s Michelle Malkin, as appalled as I was, commenting on Sharpton at the White House. She puts the event and Bush’s remarks in proper context:
President Bush spoke today at a Black History Month event and condemned a spate of high-profile, noose-hanging incidents. He is right to condemn bona fide cases of racism. He should have also condemned opportunist race-hustlers and fraudsters.
One of the noose-hanging cases in Baltimore turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by a black firefighter. A Jewish student at GWU, riding the wave of noose-related hate crime publicity, manufactured a hate attack against herself.
And, of course, the most prominent case at Columbia University remains unsolved.
Want to hear something really appalling? The biggest race-hustling fraudster of them all, Al Sharpton, was at the White House and gave President Bush his seal of approval …
In other words, Bush doing Sharpton’s work for him, arousing outrage about manufactured incidents of white racism.
As Malkin rightly concludes, “As long as the police-smearing, crime-coddling race demagogue Al Sharpton is welcome in the White House, race relations will never improve.”
Do you think Gingrich partnering with Sharpton will help race relations improve? Do you think it will reduce the violent black hatred of whites? Don’t you realize that the displays of white approval of Sharpton only empowers the black hatred of whites?
Irwin Graulich replies:
I do not think that having Sharpton in the White House would have a significant effect on race relations—but that is not the purpose of placing him there anyway. I would use him, like he would use me. Of course, I would not permit him to pull his past race baiting antics, which he has done far less over the past three years. Truthfully, he is trying to become a little more mainstream and skinny. But believe me, Sharpton cannot fool me. However, he can be used by conservatives to benefit conservatives/Republicans.
As far as race relations in general, Sharpton has very little effect on them today—and in my opinion there is virtually no problem with race relations in America today. The low-life blacks who hate whites will always hate whites no matter what—and the low life whites who hate blacks will always hate blacks no matter what. Both groups represent a small minority of Americans. Truthfully, I think this is as good as it will ever get vis a vis race—and I think it is pretty damn good.
LA writes:
Needless to say, I reject everything Mr. Graulich has said in his last comment, and in the rest of this exchange as well.
For those interested in reading more of Mr. Graulich’s views, his articles and biographical information are at Opinion Editorial.com.
Paul K. writes:
What does Mr. Graulich mean when he writes:
“The question is how bad are the guys with whom you partner? Of course guys like Farrakhan and David Duke are out of the question, even if you knew you would win with them.”
How are Farrakhan and Duke any worse than Sharpton? Their rhetoric aside, I can’t recall either of them being directly involved in the kind of shakedown operations and incitement to violence that Al Sharpton has.
Graulich also writes of Sharpton: “I would put him in my cabinet if that’s what was necessary!!” Graulich would have some trouble getting Sharpton confirmed for a cabinet post as the Rev has been very lax about paying his taxes, owing about 1.5 million until a deal was struck last year—the kind of deal hat would never be offered you or me. If the government wasn’t afraid of people Sharpton’s ilk, he’d be serving time in prison.
See this and this
Mike Berman writes:
I admire Rudy Giuliani because he refused to kiss Al Sharpton’s ring when he ran for office and did not meet with him after being elected. Mr. Giuliani’s behavior is unheard of in modern politics and it drives blacks and leftists to distraction.
Mr. Giuliani was elected and reelected with virtually no black support. Most voters consider issues such as the economy and health care. When I see which candidates “they” are voting against, I know which ones I must support. If block voting and black voting are synonymous, whites had better take notice.
LA replies:
That’s right. And if Giuliani had been like Bush/Gingrich/Graulich, the achievements of his mayoralty wouldn’t have happened.
Irwin Graulich writes:
I read some of the comments on your terrific blog and I thought I would respond:
In answer to Paul K.: if he does not see a difference between truly evil people like Farrakhan and David Duke and previously Big Al, what can I say, but Paul is a terrible judge of character. Both Farrakhan and Duke have gone to anti-American countries (ie Syria, among others), to preach their hatred against America. Both Louie and David are true, hate-filled racists, Sharpton is not.
I continue to say that Sharpton is certainly NOT one of my favorite people. However, if you see no difference between Al and the other two evil jerks, I feel sorry for you. As far as skinny Al’s personal tax situation goes, I know exactly what he did and I do not think it rises to the level that should stop him or anyone else with similar tax problems, from serving in a high position.
I think the left has got us all thinking that if a person has an illegal nanny or somehow did not pay the proper amount of taxes, that would disqualify them from serving—and that is the reason that the best people in America are not able to serve. You know, I once bought a pair of dungarees at a flea market and the woman said I did not have to pay sales tax—so I avoided it and did not pay. Perhaps that should disqualify me from higher office. This is getting ridiculous.
Of course some acts reach the level of disqualification from higher office—this one does not.
Mike Berman wrote:
I admire Rudy Giuliani because he refused to kiss Al Sharpton’s ring when he ran for office and did not meet with him after being elected. Mr. Giuliani’s behavior is unheard of in modern politics and it drives blacks and leftists to distraction.
Mr. Giuliani was elected and reelected with virtually no black support. Most voters consider issues such as the economy and health care. When I see which candidates “they” are voting against, I know which ones I must support. If block voting and black voting are synonymous, whites had better take notice.
Oy ya yoi Mike, what the heck are you talking about? We were discussing the presidency, not the mayoral position in New York City. Of course Rudy did not need Al Sharpton to win the mayor’s race. However, Rudy certainly needed guys like Sharpton to win the nomination for president—which is why he did not win it. You made my case for me. Thank you.
Larry Auster wrote:
And if Giuliani had been like Bush/Gingrich/Graulich, the achievements of his mayoralty wouldn’t have happened.
You missed my point. I never said that you should act like Bush did to Sharpton once you win the office. You use Sharpton to win the election and to get your agenda through. Beyond that, you keep him on a very short leash. That’s the strategy.
Clem P. writes:
Irwing Graulich wrote:
“Both Louie and David are true, hate-filled racists, Sharpton is not.”
Lord have mercy!
I’m sorry what are we talking about? What does that mean?
To me that is just a ludicrous statement. Not only by adopting the race rhetoric of the left but it shows the true schizophrenic nature of and Marxist indoctrination of race relations and race discussion in this country.
Sharpton is not what? Give me a break.
Mike Berman writes:
Irwin Graulich wrote:
“Oy ya yoi Mike, what the heck are you talking about? We were discussing the presidency, not the mayoral position in New York City. Of course Rudy did not need Al Sharpton to win the mayor’s race. However, Rudy certainly needed guys like Sharpton to win the nomination for president—which is why he did not win it. You made my case for me. Thank you.”
Let me get this straight. New York’s population is 35% white (mostly liberal) and the US population is 74% white (mostly Republican) but Al Sharpton’s endorsement is required for a candidate’s success on the national level and not in New York. What’s wrong with this picture?
LA replies:
The U.S. population is more like 65 percent white.
Also, just to be clear: While Mr. Graulich, whom I’ve known and corresponded with for several years, has conservative views on various issues, and most people would certainly think of him as a conservative, he does not call himself a conservative, at least the last time we discussed it.
Mike Berman replies:
“The U.S. population is more like 65 percent white.”
Yes, I’m certain you’re right. I went to Wikipedia to confirm the stat but that site can be notoriously unreliable. This is the sentence which confused me near the top of the article:
White Americans make up 74% of the total population per the 2006 American Community Survey (ACS).[2
But further down, this appears:
The non-Hispanic White percentage (68 in 2006)[13] tends to decrease every year
Josh F. writes:
It seems to me that if Gingrich needs Al Sharpton to win the presidency then Al Sharpton would WANT Gingrich to win. But no one would suggest that Al’s desire for a Gingrich presidency lies in the fact that Gingrich would make things more traditionally conservative. So Gingrich’s stand that he can’t win without Sharpton is nothing more than simply concession to radical racialized liberalism.
Gintas writes:
If Sharpton were neccesary to winning the Presidency, then the Presidency would be a booby prize. Here’s a test: is there anyone with whom Irwin Graulich would have Gingrich not ally, knowingly foregoing the Presidency? He might say so-and-so, but if really faced with the test, I suspect the Ring of Power would win. After all, he’s already admitted he’d work with Sharpton, and he hasn’t even faced the temptation.
LA replies:
I have to agree that Irwin sounds as though he’s into the idea of dealing with enemies for the sake of dealing with enemies, not because his side will actually get anything out of it, but because it strikes him as the realistic, grownup thing to do.
November 4
Irwin Graulich replies to his critics:
To Clem P.:
Clem, my friend. The Sharpton of 2009 is not a hate filled racist. He is a huckster who knows how to inflame a situation to promote Al Sharpton. I do not believe he is anti-white like Farrakhan; he is just pro-black uber allis—even uber morality. Like most people on the left, they see the battle in America not between good and evil, but between rich and poor, black and white, male and female.
However, he is a huckster who is smart and can be bought. Imagine if he could influence blacks and other minorities to vote for conservative candidates. That is my agenda. Again, keep Al on a tight leash, make him think he is important and conservatives will ultimately benefit.
By the way, Pat Buchanan is much less moral and much more of a despicable character than Sharpton. So the right has its Al Sharpton’s—only much, much worse!!
Mike Berman said:
“Let me get this straight. New York’s population is 35% white (mostly liberal) and the US population is 74% white (mostly Republican) but Al Sharpton’s endorsement is required for a candidate’s success on the national level and not in New York. What’s wrong with this picture?”
Al Sharpton does not deliver an overwhelming number of voters in New York. Nationwide, he does. He would help deliver a lot of Democrats and some independents (black and white). Republicans need all the help they can get to win the presidency in 2012. Therefore, my point is that I would certainly sleep with the wolves (Sharpton) in order to win—but not with the evil enemy (Farrakhan). Let’s use our brains and not let our emotions get in the way.
Larry Auster said:
“While Mr. Graulich, whom I’ve known and corresponded with for several years, has conservative views on various issues, and most people would certainly think of him as a conservative, he does not call himself a conservative, at least the last time we discussed it.”
I consider myself a “passionate moderate” who leans to the right. Most people associate moderation and the center with a lack of passion. I think you can be passionate and be centrist—however, truthfully I am difficult to define. I get my values from Judaism so I am pro capital punishment, pro choice and anti abortion (bet you cannot figure that one out), very small government with very tight fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility for everyone, very few government handout, serious punishment for crime and quick trials, and following the founding Fathers ideals of Judeo Christian ethics. I am very liberal on personal issues for adults—allowing sexually explicit material of all kinds (no children). I also hate, and I mean hate lawyers, and would not allow a lawyer to run for any elected office. Imagine that dangerous, immoral idiot John Edwards running the country!!!!
LA replies:
Irwin wrote:
“Imagine if he could influence blacks and other minorities to vote for conservative candidates. That is my agenda.”
I think this is delusional. And in order to attain this delusion, you are eager to have Republicans ally themselves with Sharpton and thus lose any ability to stand against race hustlers. I simply couldn’t disagree with you more.
As for your overall political philosophy, it seems like an incoherent hodgepodge, governed by emotion as much as anything else. Thus, in the middle of what is supposed to be your political/moral credo, you toss in your personal hatred of lawyers.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 03, 2009 09:35 AM | Send