Granted, one might wonder why one would choose Newt Gingrich and Michael Moore to highlight a growing problem in the public arena – two men with entirely different political ideologies – it is not the differences, per se, rather the similarities certain personalities display in order to remain on that national stage that forces the comparison.
In a spate of recent articles, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, on the one hand takes the opportunity to criticize Sarah Palin for her “controversial” use of language, and lectures Governor Palin on thinking prior to speaking (Rawstory.com) Gingrich was referring to the video responses Sarah Palin made to those, including prominent Democrats and the media in general, over her use of the phrase “blood libel”, which has been parsed ad naseum. Palin, Gingrich concludes is controversial but continues to be a “phenomenon”. Palin, for all her perceived faults, chief amongst them is the beltway’s insistence that her lack of ivy league rhetoric, and her plain speaking, straight forward, “what you see is what you get” approach, is, when compared to Gingrich, far more relevant in the current political arena. The remarks make sense in the grander scheme of what plays in Washington, pretty much stays in Washington, not unlike the former Speaker and his constant aspirations to the Oval Office, which have yet to materialize. Stepping outside the Beltway, and away from the rank and file of the (this is becoming a tiresome moniker) “mainstream media”, one finds that Palin’s remarks were viewed in a different light by the general populace, or those who would put Newt in the White House. (Despite the poll commissioned by the Washington Post and ABC News that compares Obama’s, the News Media and Sara Palin’s response to the Tucson Shooting – which in and of itself, put’s Palin on a par with both, regardless of the results, leaving Gingrich left with nothing but comments.)
In the poll, one finds the general public grading the response as follows: President Obama: 78%, the News Media: 53% and Sarah Palin 30% approval. The poll and marginal’s are available here: at langerresearch.com. Gingrich goes a step further, in praising Obama’s speech in Tucson (which one can agree was an astounding speech, (including Sarah Palin: note to Newt) regardless of detractors who felt the atmosphere, audience etc., were not in keeping with a memorial service), Gingrich, again refers to the poll, noting he was amongst the majority of Republicans’ who felt the President did well with his speech. What this brought to Gingrich were several articles and blog posts which highlighted Gingrich casting aspersions on Palin in his lecture and his magnanimous gesture of giving praise to the President. In other words, Gingrich was on playing to the choir in both instances and received the reward of “national press”.
Over in cableland, Michael Moore (remember him?), appearing on MSNBC’s, Rachael Maddow, decided it was high time he weigh in on gun ownership (Goes to Martin Luther King Day.) – According to Mr. Moore, anyone who owns a gun is a racist. He draws this conclusion by noting that when someone is a crime victim, it is not “freckle faced Jimmy” committing the crime. Now, such a broad and ridiculous statement from Moore is nothing new, however, it is the fact that he uses such a truly unbelievable statement in order to gain “attention” while everyone else is “in the limelight” so to speak, even Newt Gingrich, that he had to say something, anything. A reasonable person, even one who is not familiar with a gun, will know that Hispanics own guns, African-American’s own guns, Asians own guns, and yes average white men and women own guns (and Bibles!), making Moore’s remark about as relevant as – Newt Gingrich’s remarks on Palin, her use of a term that has been “beaten to death” by the media. Moore’s statement, in itself is racist, suggesting that only those who are not “freckled faced Jimmy” may be committing crimes. Additionally, the Tucson shooter was one deranged “Freckled Faced Jimmy” – go figure.
It is time for the political discourse to move forward and for those in the quasi-public eye, to try another tactic. Perhaps NBC or ABC or any one of the networks that runs reality television shows, could produce a series similar to Survivor (but placed within the safe confines of Washington, New York or Los Angeles), pitting left against right in a series that would pit a Moore against a Gingrich in a race for airtime; along with a slew of other “quasi notable and or relevant blowhards” that have become part and parcel of America’s airwaves.
Michael Moore with Rachel Maddow
A note: Although more than a few posts have been made on the subject regarding Palin and the “beating”(for lack of another word) she has taken over a situation that she clearly had no part in whatsoever, the fact that two weeks later, those who so heavily vested in themselves (from the right) and ideologically challenged (from the left), feel the need to continue the drumbeat, only servers to highlight how relevant Ms. Palin has truly become in general, in this opinion, one is compelled, to write on last treatment on this particular subject, due to the inability of those who seek the limelight to, in plain words, “zip it”. Of note, those who have not been so ridiculous: (GOP 2012 assumed potential candidates) Huckabee defended Palin even though she is considered as a serious rival for the 2012 GOP nomination (CNN), while a statement from Mitt Romney on Palin, is, (in a granted, brief search), nowhere to be found . Both Huckabee and Romney stand with Palin as the “frontrunners” and are viewed as those most likely to run and gain the GOP 2012 Presidential nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment