Gingrich’s Apology Fails to Mullify Critics
Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich has apologized, albeit weakly, for his remarks characterizing Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a “racist”. While maintaining his criticism of Sotomayor’s views, Gingrich conceded that it was inappropriate to attack Sotomayor personally with such an inflammatory epithet.
Of course, the scions of the left-leaning blogosphere are loathe to give up their latest excuse to hate Gingrich and hate conservatives generally, so they are condemning Gingrich’s apology as insufficient. (Anything short of complete ideological surrender and forfeiture of all future privileges of speaking out publicly with any view that liberals disagree with is usually insufficient to the self-appointed arbiters of political correctness in the left-leaning blogosphere. Dissent itself is dispositive proof of evil, in their eyes. Not so long ago, the left used to claim that “dissent is patriotic” and the faux moderates used to champion accountability. But all that has changed now. But I digress.) The exchange, however, highlights a rank hypocrisy in Gingrich’s critics here. For while Gingrich is backing away from his inflammatory charge, many of the same people feigning outrage themselves have a record for making (or at least endorsing) over-the-top charges and mischaracterizations of the views of Gingrich and other conservatives.
And they don’t ever apologize for their excesses, nor do they ever call each other out for them. “No enemies on the left” remains the mandatory code of the leftist and faux moderate blogosphere.
Gingrich is today showing a kind of class that seems all but completely lacking in his ideological opponents.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Please show where, exactly, Gingrich apologized.
“My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.
With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).”
No apology whatsoever. Just an admission that he shouldn’t have used the word “racist.”
It’s probably more accurate to say that he retracted the comment rather than that he apologized for it, jesse, but that was still the correct thing to do and he should be given credit (though he won’t by his critics.)
This is good for the Republican Party. A key “at-large” voice (though not an office with the party) has pulled back from his initial strong rhetoric. To me it implies that Gingrich recognized that it was just he and Limbaugh that far out from “the pack”. He’s been pulled back. That suggest the “cooler heads” approach may be started to take hold with the party and the “party at-large).
I don’t expect Limbaugh to retract, modify or whatever…that would be bad for ratings and “listenership”. I’m comfotable with the reality that Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann and Maddow etc are media figures/media phenomena and not political ones. (Granted its not a “bright line distinction” but its a distinction nonetheless
Yes, it is important to remember that the “Limbaugh is the Republican leader” meme was one consciously chosen by the Obama White House and promoted by the left-wing blogosphere, not by conservatives themselves. I mean, sure, they can cherry-pick some statements by Republican leaders honoring Limbaugh, but the notion that every word he says is speaking for all Republicans is a total fabrication done for a willfully dishonest purpose of trying to cement a permanent and totally unaccountable one-party dominance for Democrats by tainting and marginalizing all Republicans.
Gingrich’s retraction is the kind of thing that has the potential to challenge the campaign of fauxrage that is the primary means by which the dominant crop of blogosphere liberals tries to perpetually change the subject to avoid any criticism of Democrats and keep the glare permanently on conservatives, but, of course, that is why they are so quick to spin it away as meaningless and then….wait for it….change the subject back to bashing Republicans again.
Looking at Memeorandum, today seems to be one of those rare days driven by fauxrage from conservatives in the blogosphere, with the “Obama’s Muslim roots” BS ruling the top level. This is equally stupid as the liberals’ varieties, its just that those left-dominated days seem to VASTLY outnumber the right-dominated days.
And while the faux moderate sites are quick to criticize such conservative excesses, they almost always give liberals’ much more common incivilities and misrepresentations a pass. It is very annoying.
Listening to Rush at about 12:30PM today, Limbaugh was a bit bemused by the support [albeit lukewarm] of T. Donohue, head of the Catholic League, because her rulings dealing with abortion have been more favorable than not to the Pro-Life positions. While Rush no-commented [in itself, meaningful] I wondered how long it would be before the Dems would claim Rush supported Sotomayor’s appointment.
The Senate’s wackiest female, according to Rush at 1:45 PM, a zany smut-novelist named Babs Boxer, opined on MSNBC that Rush now supports Sotomayor. However, Rush in putting down the zany vertically and mentally challenged CA Senator, did not categorically deny that Sotomayor might not be better on Roe v. Wade than the inscrutable Souter. As Donohue has already done.
Sotomayor would be the sixth Roman Catholic SCOTUS justice out of the Divine Nine.
Veeeerrry Interesting…..
How much of that is a function of the relative sizes of the rightosphere v the leftosphere?
I could easily point to talk radio and note the the vast majority of talk radio is right wing dominated fauxrage (I do like that term). Does that mean the right wing talk radio is more outrage driven and less honest than left wing talk radio or does it simply mean that there is far more right wing talk radio? From what I have seen and heard I would say that both phenomena are much more products of relative size than relative honesty.
Gingrich’s pseudo retraction is better than nothing and hopefully C3 is correct in his analysis.
What I have seen of her record (some of it linked in earlier discussion) would indicate the answer is neither. He is still throwing bombs, but that is politics and to be expected. It is worthy of argument, not outrage.