Newt Gingrich Commits the Heinous Crime of Being Mundanely Rational
In response to the video above Charles Johnson writes:
Newt apparently hates gays so much he’ll even pass up their votes. For a career politician like Gingrich, that’svery revealing.
Johnson is just one of the many voices to Newt’s left who have picked-up the video as a damning piece of evidence that proves Gingrich’s bigotry has misled him to political ground far outside not only the political mainstream, but basic human decency. I’m not about to jump on a soap box and wax lyrical about the slings and arrows Newt’s unfairly had to endure — but I’ve gotta confess that, on first blush and after repeated viewings, I can’t understand why people are surprised or offended by the above.
Newt’s argument is that if your litmus test is support for gay marriage, he’s not going to get your vote, and that is that. Now, if you happen to care about gay marriage, but you care just as much or more about a litany of other issues (for example: “a better future for the country at large” — a wedge issue if ever there was one), then Newt’s your guy. But if the only thing that matters is marriage equality, then Newt’s not going to lie to you and pretend you’ll find yourself comfortable sitting at his table. He recommends you vote for Obama (who, for the record, is technically in agreement with the former Speaker when it comes to the definition of marriage).
What’s the big deal here? What’s the difference between this and Obama saying that, if your only issue is the outlawing of all forms of abortion, or the mandating of teacher-led prayer in public schools, you’re simply not going to be able to find a way to support him? I mean, it’s hard for me to imagine Barack Obama ever accepting the reality that it’s possible for two people to disagree — and for there not to be a mutually acceptable middle ground for them to arrive at after much earnest back-and-forth and various round-tables and reciprocating acts of genuflection. But if he did, would anyone care?
Wouldn’t it be worse if a politician was such a cipher that he tried to weasel his way into assuring you that his 100%-opposite position was actually quite amenable to your own?