After Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson made complete fools of themselves pushing their latest Drudge-coordinated right-wing feakout of the day, who better to bring on Fox to weigh in for more race baiting then the race baiter-in-chief, Newt
October 3, 2012

After Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson made complete fools of themselves pushing their latest Drudge-coordinated right-wing feakout of the day, who better to bring on Fox to weigh in for more race baiting then the race baiter-in-chief, Newt Gingrich.

Here are a few reminders of just who Greta Van Susteren and her producers at Fox believe the viewers should be hearing from when it comes to race relations in America:

Can You Hear The Dog Whistle? Gingrich Doubles Down On His "Obama Is A Food Stamp President" By Invoking Detroit

Newt's Dog Whistle: Obama is 'Not a Real President'

Gingrich and Hannity Dish About President Obama's 'Uppity Nature'

Al Sharpton Blasts Newt Gingrich for Saying Poor Kids Have No Work Habits

Transcript via:

VAN SUSTEREN: Now, will this newly surfaced complete video have any possible impact on the presidential race? Former presidential candidate and speaker of the House Newt Gingrich joins us.

Good evening, sir.


VAN SUSTEREN: I'm curious whether or not you think that this tape, now the complete tape -- and part of it was on the public domain -- will have any impact whatsoever on the race.

GINGRICH: Oh, I think it has some impact. It's a little bit like Joe Biden the other week saying, They want to put you back in chains. It's a reminder of the depth of dishonesty, the appeals to racism, the factual falsehoods that are at the heart of the modern left.

By the way, what Senator -- then Senator Obama said was just factually false. New Orleans got far more money than New York City, and New Orleans got a great deal of money that he was not matched by the Stafford Act. The process of the federal government taking care of the people of New Orleans, in fact, was far larger because of the problem was much larger. You had an entire city that was a disaster, as opposed to the immediate crisis of 9/11 and the World Trade Center.

But factual inaccuracies are at the heart of the modern left. If they have to rely on the facts, they will lose every time. So they just routinely engage in demagoguery, which, by the way, the vice president did again today, talking about the middle class.

All of this is the same stuff. It's all a consistent pattern of fundamental dishonesty and appeals to race in ways that, frankly, the press ought to be making totally discredited.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, I actually have a slightly different view of it. I think that if this were the year 2000, 2008, it might have a greater impact. But you know, we've had a chance now, three-and-a-half years of a President Obama administration. You either love it, you hate it or you're indifferent. I mean, now he has a record.

And Back in 2007, I think that we put him under the microscope, as we should any candidate, and particularly him because we knew so little about him. He didn't -- he wasn't in the public eye for a long time.

Now, though, I would expect that people are making decisions, Are you better off than you were three-and-a-half years ago? Is the world safer? Do you think we're going in the right direction? You know, those types of questions. I think his record has a far greater impact than what he said in 2007, but I could be wrong.

GINGRICH: Oh, sure. No, no. I agree with you. I don't think this particular speech is definitive, but it's a reminder -- notice on Benghazi, for example, you have the same pattern of dishonesty in the Obama White House that you had in the speech you just showed from 2007.

The amazing thing is the degree to which the elite media desperately tries to avoid all of this and tries to -- they didn't cover it in 2007. They don't want to cover it in 2012. And yet you've just seen literally over the last two-and-a-half weeks, a pattern of breath-taking dishonesty.

You talked about the record. Well, take a look at the actual facts that are coming out about when we learned things in Libya and what this administration has said to us, and it's a record that is filled with fundamental, basic dishonesty.

VAN SUSTEREN: In that speech -- and actually, I sat through the whole speech tonight. I went through this whole 2007 speech, quite lengthy, and it's now on line. He talks about -- you know, about poverty. He talks about the inner city. And when you hear it, you think that -- you know, that poverty's such a huge problem in this country for so many people, whether you're the one who's enduring it or you're the one who's paying for it. It is a crisis in this country. And he talks about -- you know, about how important it is.

Yet you know, in this race, you hear nothing about the inner cities. You hear nothing about whether -- I mean, anybody who's had -- you know, (INAUDIBLE) incredible poverty, whether that person's life has changed at all in the last three-and-a-half years -- I mean, I don't see any of it!

GINGRICH: Well, in fact, it's worse than that. If you take -- if you assume for a minute that his desires to help people were real, then he is a total, abject failure. A hundred percent of the American people are paying more for gasoline today. Gasoline's the highest price it's ever been. That hurts everybody, but particularly hurts the poor.

The unemployment rate particularly hurts minorities and particularly hurts younger minority members. So his failure economically hurts everybody. The degree to which he's piling up debt, which will absorb tax money which could have gone to schools, could have gone to health care, could have gone to other things, now it's just going to pay interest on the debt. That hurts everybody.

In many ways, it's almost sad to go back and look at that speech and realize the degree to which he has failed to achieve any of the goals that he implied were his goals back in 2007.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, he did say that he was going to get health care. That he did do, whether you like it or not. I mean, at least he did achieve that. But one of the things that he said -- you speak about the debt -- is what he said -- and he was rather sarcastic about other politicians in this speech. And what he said, in part, he said, "Don't worry about trillions of dollars in debt, someone else will pay." And he was being sarcastic about politicians who run up debts, who have no concern about the debt -- his sarcasm.

Now if you fast-forward to now, in just the last year -- last year, he's added $1.3 trillion to the debt, and nobody is over here -- you know, he's not in Washington working on it. The Capitol Hill isn't working on it. We're just running up the debt. We have no idea with sequestration or with the tax cuts -- so it sort of makes a mockery out of the whole process.

I mean, this is -- this is what he promised in 2007 as a candidate. I mean, he thought it was important then.

GINGRICH: Well, look, I also think there's a deeper part of this, which is that this was a candidate who on the one hand said he wanted to bring us together and then gave speeches like this, that are clearly divisive. I mean, there's no way you can listen to this speech and not hear it as a deliberately divisive speech that pits Americans against each other, and does so largely with racial innuendoes that are very, very clear when you hear the speech.

Can you help us out?

For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.