During MSNBC's pre-debate show on Monday night, Salon's Joan Walsh had some choice words about Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Of all the valid reasons to criticize the frontrunning pair, she of course chose intellectually cheap, trite, and prejudiced talking points. Could this limousine liberal sink any lower?
We have a really interesting case study in the Republican Party in these two candidates because Mitt is the candidate of vulture capitalism that hollowed out the middle class and represented and enriched the top one percent. But Newt is the face of the politics of resentment and racism and angry white male rage that let guys like Mitt do that to the economy.
Earlier this month, Michelle Obama was miffed about being depicted as an 'angry black woman' -- how is this any different? I thought liberals were the ones who didn't readily categorize people into pernicious stereotypes, or something?
Yesterday, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) defended Newt Gingrich's comments about President Obama as the "food-stamp president":
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) on Monday defended Newt Gingrich for referring to President Barack Obama as the “food stamp president,” disputing critics who have blasted the former speaker’s comments as racially charged.
“There is no race code. It’s a fact. Since President Obama has been in the Oval Office, you ‘ve seen a 41 percent increase in the food stamp recipients in the United States of America,” West said on Fox News. “We have a president that’s making more American victims rather than victors.”
He added, “We also have a 16 percent increase in Americans on the poverty roll — 6.4 million more Americans are on poverty since President Obama took office.”
But, why take Allen West seriously -- he must have Stockholm Syndrome, right?