Thursday, December 08, 2011
Liberals and conservatives both seem obsessed with the behavior of "the 1 percent," but there the similarity ends. Liberals seek to change the ways of the richest 1 percent, while many conservatives focus on the bottom 1 percent. The latter was on display as Republican Newt Gingrich proposed having poor young people clean their schools. He described them as "children in housing projects." You know who that is.
When Gingrich told the Occupy Wall Street folks to "take a bath," he was only partly right. Most everyone has to take a bath after listening to Newt.
On the other side of the tracks, Gingrich went a-courting to the door of Donald Trump, a sometimes Republican adept at using the party as his personal promotion office. Early this year, Trump launched a pretend quest for the presidency as he was negotiating a contract with NBC for the next season of "Celebrity Apprentice." Trump demanded that President Obama produce his birth certificate as proof that he was born in this country and briefly zoomed to the top of the Republican field.
Gingrich is famous for his three trips to the altar and two trips to the divorce courts. Of greater national import, he served as the nastiest speaker of the House in memory.
Newt's hypocrisy is legendary. The government-sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac apparently paid the Gingrich Group over $1.6 million to look after its interests in Washington. Newt's job included selling skeptical conservatives on the wisdom of keeping implicit government guarantees for Freddie's mortgages. (Freddie and its sister Fannie Mae have since collapsed into the arms of the taxpayers.) Nonetheless, Gingrich recently called for putting Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat, in jail for dealing with "a lobbyist who was close to Freddie Mac."
Despite these inconsistencies, Newt now leads the Republican pack among likely caucus attendees in Iowa. So let's treat his kids-as-janitors plan with the respect it deserves.
Of course, the comment raised a ruckus, and Newt had to explain. "I do not suggest children up to 14, 15 years of age do heavy janitorial work," he said. They'd be more suited to light maintenance.
"How many of you earned some money doing something by the time you were 10 years old?" Gingrich asked journalists in New York. "Baby-sitting. Cutting grass. Raise your hand."
My hand would have stayed by my side. I did both those things, but baby-sitting didn't start until the more responsible age of 14, and I cut the grass (my parents') for free. Would Newt hire a 9-year-old baby sitter?
Gingrich further explained that he just wanted to help poor kids learn to be responsible wage-earners, living as they do among few working adults, or so he assumes. One flaw in this thinking is that there would be fewer adult role models with jobs if children replaced janitors. Another is that if having students clean their schools is good for character-building, why shouldn't upper-middle-class kids be doing the same? The third is that schoolwork is already work.
Gingrich can't lose. If he doesn't get the Republican nomination, he would still have cranked up his perceived influence and perhaps his speaking fees -- currently, he says, $60,000 a shot. If he gets the Republican nomination and loses the election, same deal only bigger.
Newt is about to star in a presidential debate run by none other than The Donald. (Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have sent their regrets.) After the janitor flare-up, Gingrich met with Trump, who immediately agreed to offer 10 part-time paid "apprenticeships" for poor children. Did two publicity machines ever mesh so seamlessly?
COPYRIGHT 2011 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
See Other Political Commentary.
See Other Commentaries by Froma Harrop.
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.
To learn more about our methodology, click here.