The left-wing blogs, and even some parts of the mainstream media, are pushing the story today that Newt Gingrich told gays to vote for Obama.
It started with an account by someone identified as a gay Iowan Democrat, as related at the Iowa Caucuses blog of the Des Moines Register, which made no mention of context and simply related as follows:
Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa here today that he should vote for President Obama.
“I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an adjunct professor of writing at William Penn University.”
Gawker was typically over the top, Newt Gingrich Tells Gay People to Just Vote for Obama:
Blabbering corpuscle Newt Gingrich told a gay man in Iowa yesterday that he’d rather have gay people just vote for Barack Obama than show the gay community any support.
Joe Gandleman at the mislabeled Moderate Voice:
And this time Gingrich show he hasn’t run out of political poison to throw into the proverial well: he told a gay Iowan asking him a basic, boilerplate question that most politicians would respond to in policy terms to go vote for Barack Obama.
But it’s all a lie. Gingrich never said he wanted gays to vote for Obama, or that he did not want to “engage gay Americans.”
The video finally was released, and the question to Gingrich was “on this one specific issue” of gay marriage.
All Gingrich said was that if the single most important and determinative issue to a gay person was implementing gay marriage, then that person would be disappointed in Newt and probably should vote for Obama. Newt made clear that if gay marriage was not the determinative issue, then the person should consider Newt (here’s a link in case the embed doesn’t load)
No fact checking so far at the Iowa Cauces blog, which has not updated the story so far. (Added: It now added a link to the video, but no correction to its story.)
CBS accompanies the video (at the link above) with this misleading description:
Newt Gingrich agreed Tuesday with a Iowan voter who identified himself as gay that he should support President Obama again in 2012. (Dec. 21)(/CBS News)
H/t HotAir the link to the video.
Update: More at Gay Patriot.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
[…] SHOCKER: Shock – Completely misleading story about Newt saying gays should vote for Obama. […]
It’s amazing how much I can lower my expectations of the mainstream media and still give them too much credit. I expect this kind of downright deception for any left-leaning blog or any editorial in any newspaper. But the headline on CBS? Amazing.
Granted, Gingrich should have known better. By now he should realize (as should any of the GOP candidates) that anything he says about something as volatile as gay marriage (the most polarizng, emotionally-laden issue of the decade) will be spun in any way possible to make him look bigoted and “intolerant”.
But still, this is just disgusting. I am certainly no fan of Gingrich, but if the conservative media attempts to use this slander in their ongoing attacks on him, they will have lost all respectability. But my guess is they won’t.
“The most polarising emotionally -laden issue of the decade” ?
So far the decade is only young. My guess is that it is low down on peoles minds -one that they wil deal with when they come to it. Iowans dealt with it by throwing out the judges involved ()that they were able to in 2010.
So in effect here you are usurping the voted opinion of Iowans.
All in all it is part of the big Legislative vs Courts battle .
I am a resident of Iowa and I voted not to retain those three supreme court justices. I’m not usurping anyone. What I meant was, this is not an issue that most people are dispassionate about and it is not an issue where many are in the middle (although, I actually am. I’m not entirely opposed to gay marriage per se, but I don’t think it should be imposed by the courts). Furthermore, it is an issue (like so many social issues), where people on both sides speak more from their hearts than from their heads.
As to the decade comment, I’m sorry if it was unclear. I mean, the most polarizing emotionally laden issue in the past decade. Really since the aftermath of 9/11 and the beginning of the War on Terror.
Thank s for the reply. An Iowan ! I read Bill Bryson’s 1989 book on Iowa & thought it nasty. I got a bit of time or mid western towns.
I don’t care about gays myself but I am off to read about The Siouxs.
isn’t gay marriage already legal in IA? It’s no longer an issue, why does the guy care?
Because it’s a gotcha question, duh…
Because the federal government has no interaction with or recognition of marriages in general. DOMA my friend, DOMA.
And really, the headline could just as easily read “Gingrich Tells Democrat Iowan to Vote for Obama”.
But … officially … *** wink, wink *** Obama does not support gay marriage.
Aren’t the homo Dems cute?
Cuter than the homo Republicans! How would you feel seeing Lindsey Graham’s puddin’ eyes looking up at you under a men’s room stall at Reagan National?
I think given the question, Newt’s answer was to-the-point. Sorry, I’m not supportive of gay marriage and won’t be adopting a weasel-position on it, so….
The public needs to make up its mind what it wants. It either wants straight-shooting leaders, or it wants leadership that consistently finds a way to pander to every special interest group. You can’t have both, they are mutually exclusive groups.
“Gingrich Refuses to Pander to Single Issue Voter, Says Barack Obama is the Pro Gay Marriage Candidate”
Would be the mainstream media headline in Bearded Spock World.
When I saw New York Daily News’ article on this I was outraged because it was titled “Newt Tells Gay Voter; I Don’t Need Your Vote”, suggesting he doesn’t want any vote that comes from a homosexual. When I found a transcript of the actual conversation, I was outraged at NYDN. He told the man exactly what he should have, if this is your most important issue, I’m simply not your candidate. That’s not saying he doesn’t need or even want the guys vote, it’s just Newt’s position.
I disagree with Newt’s position on the matter, but because it’s not my main issue, I’d still vote for him.
Consider an imaginary event – Newt Gingrich is driving down the road past an orphanage. He notices that the orphanage is on fire. He calls 911 and then runs into the orphanage to see if he can help. There are 300 orphans inside and Newt begins hauling them out, one by one. He brings out 299 orphans, but sadly, one orphan was asleep in a back room, went unnoticed, and perished in the fire.
Local news report: “Gingrich A Hero!”
Left wing blogs: “Gingrich Lets Orphan Die!”
If this person were actually a “liberal,” he would be applauding Newt’s answer — which was respectful, refreshingly honest and non-pandering. This brief exchange and its aftermath highlights both the insipid illiberal narrowmindedness of the Left and the vicious corruption of the media. I often now think that no news at all — a desolated media landscape — would be better for America than what he now have.
This story was on the front page of sfgate this morning. Of course. Newt is getting the Palin treatment.
[…] Some Republican blogs are defending Gingrich and noting that he was responding specifically to a question about gay […]
I think most people would agree that the issue of merit with respect to deviant behaviors, including homosexual behavior, is one of tolerance and normalization. Since homosexual behavior is deviant with respect to the natural order, there is no legitimate reason to normalize it. However, the enlightened order would dictate that we respect individual dignity, and that consensual behaviors which are not known to be strictly harmful to society and humanity should be tolerated.
Actually, homosexuality is not a deviation from the natural order. Many species of animals practice it, homo sapiens included, of course.
It is more accurate to say homosexuality deviates from historical social norms.
Actually, homosexuality is not a deviation from the natural order. Many species of animals practice it
Uh, yeah. Tellya what, let me know when some anthropologist discovers a species in which two homosexual animals produce offspring.
It’s hardly the only animal behavior that many humans find abhorrent – many animals also practice cannibalism and infanticide, naturally, in the wild. Homosexual behavior is common in animals. A fact is a fact. Deal with it.
It’s hardly the only animal behavior that many humans find abhorrent – many animals also practice cannibalism and infanticide, naturally, in the wild. Homosexual behavior is common in animals. A fact is a fact. Deal with it.
Lest I be tarred with Dan Savage’s Rick Santorum Google-brush, I won’t suggest a host of other practices of animals that humans (at present) don’t imitate. But you wrote “homosexuality is not a deviation from the natural order” and suggested that same-sex practices of non-humans proves your case.
My response was focused on the reality that it does not make sense for a human to be born without the desire to reproduce, which it obviously cannot if it (for whatever reason) desires sex (not intercourse) with others who cannot produce offspring. Regardless of the modern revolutions that allow humans to mate without procreating, the “natural order” is an inborn desire to propagate the species, even if one decides to somehow prevent that event.
Not possessing the urge to do so doesn’t make you a bad person, but one cannot credibly say that it is “natural.”
If someone is a single-issue voter with the issue of gay marriage, then he or she should rty to convince Dick Cheney to run for president.
Offhand, I can’t think of any other politician at that level who has come out in support of gay marriage.
[…] agree on every issue. Newt is making a comment about one-issue voters. As William A. Jacobson put it: All Gingrich said was that if the single most important and determinative issue to a gay person […]
[…] then that person would be disappointed in Newt and probably should vote for Obama.” – William Jacobson, Legal Insurrection, “Shock — Completely misleading story about Newt sa…“Tom Sorensen is just another abusive unhinged democrat. “Don’t look for the media to […]
This is just the beginning, folks. The MSM is cranking up the smear machine, and it’s just getting warm.
I swear, I would gladly break my hand punching a tube with a lying MSMer on the screen if I could be assured s/he could feel it.
gingrich’s mistake here was, rather than just saying, “if that is your single issue, then i’m not your candidate.” he threw in the flippant “then vote for obama.” besides the fact that obama has never voiced support for equal marriage rights, telling someone to vote for the other guy is, certainly, dismissive. the story has been blown out of proportion but i can’t blame gay citizens for being a little taken aback. ‘my way or the highway’ is not what i want from my next president.
i can’t blame gay citizens for being a little taken aback.
Shullbit. This had nothing to do with “gay citizens,” it had to do with whether Newt could be coaxed into saying something that could be labeled “homophobic.” That’s what the lesbian mother/puppeteer was doing to Michele Bachmann earlier this month, sending her frightened youngster to whisper an insult to the Congresswoman. Bachmann similarly took it in stride, remained calm and friendly, and didn’t retaliate. Nevertheless, the MSM deemed her the loser of some imaginary battle between her and a cowardly adult woman using her child as a human shield.
Watch the video again. The gay guy wasn’t going to quit questioning Gingrich until he got some sort of viral sound byte out of it, and Newt gave him the bare minimum. Newt was cordial and looked him dead in the eye the whole while. If you or anyone else is “taken aback,” it’s because you were hoping to be. Grow up!
If you are gay, you should vote for Obama. Anytime you need the federal government to pay lip service to your cause, or you need the federal government to take money from someone else to give to you, you should vote for the Democrat. Every single time. There’s nothing new here.
If, on the other hand, you are a hard working, self-supporting, American who thinks that the federal government should limit itself to those things enumerated in the Constitution…things like defense of the country and interstate squabbles, then you should vote for the Republican. See? Nothing new here.
Weren’t liberals supposed to be brilliant at nuance?
Thank you Professor for providing the video so independent voters like me can see the evidence for ourselves without relying on the leftist media.
I do support gay marriage, not at the federal level but if a state wants it fine, I have no issue with MA having gay marriage, just as I would have no issue with UT banning it. As long as a person as an individual is not discrimated against for being gay, then I don’t have a problem with it.
On the overall issue of gay marriage, I have many gay friends, many of them are in partnerships, most of them support civil unions, and I would agree with them.
In all honesty though, I will not be voting on social issues this year, it will on fiscal issues, and as for this comment by Newt, I love how the media twists his words, what they said he said is not actually what he said.
If he’s the nominee, I’ll have no problem voting for him even while I strongly disagree with him on social issues.
ABO, that includes a potted plant, and Newt.
And btw you lame media, Barry Soetero is also against Gay Marriage, why the hell won’t you bring that up?
Why don’t the repubs just answer:
“I have the same position on gay marriage as Barry, I don’t support it.”
“All Gingrich said was that if the single most important and determinative issue to a gay person was implementing gay marriage, then that person would be disappointed in Newt and probably should vote for Obama.”
What a bizarre statement, especially from a Republican, the party of “family”. What is more important to any of us – gay or straight – than our families? Your paraphrase is telling. You’re saying: “If you don’t mind your spouse treated as if he/she is a roommate, or being denied parental rights and privileges, or seeing your kids deprived of benefits that the children of heterosexual couples are entitled to, then sure, vote for Newt!”
Don’t you just love it when a bigot tries to explain why his comments are not borne of bigotry and instead he just digs the hole deeper and deeper.
What an offensive man you are.
Do you really think this twaddle convinces anyone?
What about the kiddies? I presume these kids have a biological parent of the other sex.
It is a child’s right to know its biological parents & upheld in all western countries.
Sperm & ova still makes babies. Babies grow up & demand reparations .
This is the part that always makes me laugh: failure to adhere 100% to your views means bigotry. There is, apparently, absolutely no way that any other view than yours can possibly have any validity, so clearly anybody that disagrees is a bigot or a homophobe.
Do you ever indulge in any self-reflection? Do you realize not only what a buffoon this makes you look like, but how completely unconvincing it is for anybody that is interested in discussing the topic?
Pathetic.
@L.N. Smithee, re: “Not possessing the urge to do [procreate] so doesn’t make you a bad person, but one cannot credibly say that it is “natural.”
It is a scientific question. The error you make is in limiting what constitutes ‘natural’ to procreation. It is not so limited. Besides, animals that practice homosexuality also successfully procreate, and so, they have both the urge to procreate and an as yet undetermined motivation for homosexual behavior.
I’m very sorry if I’ve made you fear your dog while you sleep.
Henry !#!#**!
Humping a leg i& licking genitals is not sex. Ask Bill.
It is a scientific question. The error you make is in limiting what constitutes ‘natural’ to procreation. It is not so limited. Besides, animals that practice homosexuality also successfully procreate, and so, they have both the urge to procreate and an as yet undetermined motivation for homosexual behavior.
I’m very sorry if I’ve made you fear your dog while you sleep.
It must be nice to be able to transform the meaning of common words to fit your personal opinion. For example, when you say “homosexuality is not a deviation from the natural order,” you’ve got your own personal definitions for “homosexuality” (to include animals that actually DO procreate), “deviation” (to refer to a practice that is eschewed by over ninety percent of humans and probably more non-humans) and “natural” (to include activities that are against, y’know, nature).
BTW, I think that dog remark just about sums up what you’re about.
lol
I’m about defending science here, not homosexuality. It is always a problem when people confuse scientific criteria with critieria based on their subjective cultural and/or religious beliefs.
Bottom line: if it happens in nature without human influence, it is natural.