While all political candidates catch flak for dumb campaign statements, a few comments coming from Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich may have set a new record. He's been smacked not only by national media for those statements, but even on Capitol Hill the other day, too.

So what's the topic of Gingrich's questionable quotes? Food stamps (known of late as "SNAP" - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). He's constantly used that subject in campaign addresses, sometimes even with racial overtones, and usually in attack on the president. 

Gingrich's last use of the topic is definitely coming back to haunt him, though. 

Two weeks ago, he said in a TV interview “(Obama's) failed economic policies have forced more Americans to apply for food stamps than any president in history.”

That comment inspired a congressman from Illinois to delve a little deeper, and Rep. Gutierrez himself was surprised by the findings. 

(posted on youtube by RepLuisGutierrez)

That's right, people; not only is Gingrich dead wrong in his accusations of Obama being a "food stamp president," but it was his party's Oval Office predecessors that far surpassed the current rates of food stamps, too. 
I'm glad Rep. Gutierrez dug up this info to set the record straight. (I'm also very glad he included his observation that "hunger is color-blind." In a twitter message last month, Newt said "I will tell black people to demand work instead of welfare.") 

This whole Newt-ified topic sort of makes me wonder what our state accommodated food-stamp-wise under Bush. Currently, South Carolina ranks 10th highest of all states in the country in percentage of population reliant on SNAP (as of last November, 870,438 Palmetto State people were in the program - 18.8 percent of the total state population).   And even though our unemployment rate is declining, the number of South Carolinians who are receiving this type of help is growing. 

Of course, that could be because the only jobs Gov. Nikki Haley is getting here are those that don't pay a livable wage. Maybe if she (and other Republicans in the state) would lay off their Marxist Economics theories (not to mention their unfounded attacks on labor unions), it wouldn't be so bad. 

In a CNN interview this morning, Mitt Romney said, "I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there."

And that's even if Jim DeMint defends you, too.

Everybody else, please note:

In evaluation of his campaign’s platform statements, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Romney’s national budget proposals would substantially cut from programs benefiting poverty, such as Medicaid, food stamps and SCHIP.

A Citizens for Tax Justice analysis found Romney’s income tax proposals would result in 40-percent cuts from the tax obligations of wealthy Americans.

A majority of U.S. households that earn less than $50,000 annually and that claim children as tax deductions would have a tax increase under Romney’s plan, according to the Tax Policy Center.

While he’s yet to endorse any presidential candidate, this afternoon Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) came to the apparent defense of one of them.

In an interview this morning, Mitt Romney told CNN “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned with the very poor.” (See video below.)

This gaffe has since been reported by many media in criticism of the Republican presidential candidate.

DeMint, however, defended Romney’s statement later today while speaking with Roll Call.

“I know (Romney) does care about the poor,” DeMint said; “I think he was trying to make a case that they’re taken care of.”

The senator did suggest Romney “backtrack” and clarify that statement, however. 

(video posted on youtube by ThinkProgress6)

Others are not as sympathetic in evaluation of Romney’s statement, however, stating this morning’s quote only exemplifies the focus of his campaign.

“His separation of ‘the very poor’ from the category of ‘Americans’ made it pretty clear that Romney doesn’t count them as citizens of our country,” said Deborah Mortellaro, a state delegate of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

“Romney knows the very poor aren’t going to vote for him,” Mortellaro continued, “so they don’t matter very much to him.”

In evaluation of his campaign’s platform statements, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Romney’s national budget proposals would substantially cut from programs benefiting poverty, such as Medicaid, food stamps and SCHIP.

A Citizens for Tax Justice analysis found Romney’s income tax proposals would result in 40-percent cuts from the tax obligations of wealthy Americans.

A majority of U.S. households that earn less than $50,000 annually and that claim children as tax deductions would have a tax increase under Romney’s plan, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Although he endorsed Romney in his 2008 campaign, DeMint has yet to endorse any 2012 candidate for president in the 2012 race.

On the Jan. 21 date of South Carolina’s primary, however, the Romney campaign submitted a recording of DeMint’s 2008 endorsement of the former Massachusetts governor to voters by robocall.

Interesting picture going around from The Other 98%: 

For all of you falling for his "freedom" soundbites, please consider this collection from a previous post, which tells not just of the freedoms he wants to take away from you, but of his hypocrisy in general:

Ron Paul wants to remove the Incorporation Doctrine. That's the law that makes the Bill of Rights applicable to each state, meaning you'd be at risk of losing the basic liberties you now take for granted in any circumstance that doesn't reach federal jurisdiction. (And remember - he's openly against federal jurisdiction, too, as his "states' rights" argument repeatedly demonstrates.)

He swears he's no racist, but takes donations from openly racist organizations and accepts endorsements from openly racist kooks. 

He swears he'll steer the country to isolationism and withdraw our troops, but has had military contractors and even CIA agents working his campaign, and has taken big donations from military privatization proponents of the caliber of Blackwater/Xe. (Small army, big mercenary!)

He claims we don't need the Affordable Health Care Act, and that everyone can find the medical care they need without any such implementation ... but also says "you don't have a right to health care." 

He says he's no typical politician and doesn't pull any negativity against opponents in his campaign, but last October spent $2 million in attack ads. 

No American has a right to education, Paul says. 

We all know about the newsletters that carried his name, and we've all heard Ron Paul change his mind over the years about who wrote them and how much he knew about them (yes, I wrote them - no, I didn't, but I knew about their content, and you folks are just twisting it out of context - no I didn't write them, and never knew about them). Now his own staff are saying he wrote most of them, and was well aware of all content in those newsletters that issued blatantly racist statements. 

Many of his bills are worded in a very misleading style; Paul claims they're for one subject, but when you read them in full you learn his goal was very different.  He's written bills that would take surplus Social Security funds (over a billion dollars in reserves) and hand them over to Wall Street.  His HR 190, Paul said, was to keep illegal aliens from collecting Social Security. But they can't receive it to begin with; read the bill in full, and it removed laws against companies hiring illegal aliens.  Another bill of Paul's he claimed was in favor of stem cell research; that bill, however, was just for show - it didn't change any of the current terms for that research, and even reads that it restricts any further development in the field.  

That "end the fed" slogan he milks is misleading, too. He complains that our economy is ruled by this group, which is a governmental board that includes private industry. While so many applaud the concept of having greedy Wall Street executives removed from control of our economy, they fail to recognize that Paul's only goal is to remove the government from oversight. He wants those private companies - which we all know is chiefly responsible for our current economic woes - to hold the keys all by themselves. 

And as for that "states' rights" mantra, go look up the bills he wrote trying to get the federal government to remove the Occupational Safety and Health Act, restrict the Clean Air Act and Water Pollution Control Act, completely remove the Soil and Water Preservation Act, repeal Davis-Bacon, repeal Roe v. Wade (tried that one four times) ... and making them illegal on the federal level could mean no state can introduce the same on its own state level (states can't overrule the federal government, after all). 

Just read the individual subjects on his site's issues page; he's against women's rights, against individual labor rights, favors offshore drilling, wants to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and thinks millionaires should pay no taxes on their unearned income from stock sales.  

And you can read a little more of that here:
End the Fudd!

I *knew* it!

(An Onion News offering, posted on youtube by repfreedomforce)

I wonder how many South Carolinians will take this farce to be fact? After all, we're the home of Alvin Greene, Ben Frasier, and other mysterious "Democratic" candidates who, in some precinct cases in that party's 2010 primary, wound up getting more votes than the total number of registered of voters in those precincts -- but still wound up the declared winners of those primary races, as if those elections were valid. 

That's Diebold for ya!

And, yes, I know that my state of South Carolina uses Election Systems & Software voting machines, and not ones that carry the Diebold name. But ES&S bought its election systems equipment directly from Diebold in September 2009, shortly before those primary elections in June 2010. So, there - I can claim local relativity.