Mitt and Newt: Two Rich Guys Arguing Over Money


I once wrote a column called “Thank God for Rich People” and was deluged with hate mail from liberals.  That makes sense, of course, since liberals have a visceral thing when it comes to rich people.  Liberals think the world would be a better place without rich people, when logic tells you the opposite is true.  If we didn’t have rich people, we’d have a lot more poor people, since rich people pay a lot of taxes and spend a lot of money and hire a lot of people, all of which is good for everybody. I don’t expect liberals to understand this since economics, like common sense, is not one of their strong suits.  But is it asking too much to expect more from two rich Republicans running for president, both claiming to be conservatives, no less?

I’m talking about Newt and Mitt, two guys who became wealthy thanks to capitalism and the free market; two guys who now sound like socialists, or liberal Democrats, waging a kind of class warfare against each other.

It started when Romney said Gingrich should give back the $1.6-plus million he was paid by Freddie Mac, the corporation he gave advice to and which many conservatives say played a big role in causing the 2008 financial crisis.

Asked on Fox News if Gingrich should “give that money back,” Romney, said, “I sure do.”  Michael Moore would have given the same answer.  So would everybody who works at MSNBC.

When reporters confronted Gingrich with the shot by Romney, Newt fired back: “I would just say that if Governor Romney would like to give back all of the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, that I would be glad to listen to him. And I bet you $10 — not $10,000 — that he won’t take the offer.”

Does Newt understand that sometimes a CEO has to shut down companies that are failing and lay off workers; that getting rid of failure lays the groundwork for success?  That while he did indeed fire some workers,  Romney also started new companies that hired tens of thousands of new employees?

And does Romney understand that Gingrich has no obligation to give back money he legitimately earned – even from Freddie Mac?

Do either of these guys understand capitalism?

But it didn’t stop there.  Just the other day, Romney took another shot at Newt, again over money.  “He’s a wealthy man – a very wealthy man,” Mitt said of Newt. “If you have a half-a-million-dollar purchase from Tiffany’s, you’re not a middle-class American.’’

No, Gingrich isn’t a middle class American — and neither is Romney.  So what?  Is there anything more pathetic than the sight of two men of wealth going after each other because of their wealth? And why is it so damn noble to be middle class? Sorry I asked.  Romney was only doing what President Obama does every day — pandering  to the middle class because that’s where most of the votes are.

This whole thing, I’m figuring, started a few thousand years ago with that anti-rich guy verse in the New Testament, the one about how it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  This suspicion, or downright hatred, of wealth has been in our cultural DNA ever since.

As for me, I’ll vote for whichever candidate says:  I’m rich.  I like being rich.  It enables me to buy lots of stuff, even if I don’t need it.  I didn’t steal the money so back the hell off.  And admit it:  If you had a choice you’d rather be rich than middle class, too.  So who are we kidding here?  But if you still have a problem with me because I’m successful and have oodles of money, then vote for Obama – or one of the so-called conservative Republicans who attacks wealth and success just like he does.

I know, I know … I’m not holding my breath.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • 154214274

    For Gucci USA years, some of the most artistic and 

    innovative theatre companies have been putting on performances in the round. In the round means 

    that there is no ‘back’ to the stage; your audience is all around, so you have to be certain 

    that you’re always presenting an appealing visual from every side of the stage. This becomes 

    even more complicated because the design must be a good setting for the telling of a story.
    Remembering the roots of the total visibility trade show exhibit often helps first-time 

    designers with their initial conceptualization. Your information is like the plot of the play, 

    unfolding against the backdrop of your trade show displays. When you have the unit out in the 

    open, the stakes of good display practice are higher, but there’s a lot more potential reward 

    as well. Like the set designer for a major production, you must always remember that you’re 

    promoting a product or the unit itself can take over.
    Square Or Round Trade Show Display?

  • Debbie

    I am not as concerned with hearing the same thing every candidate says about the economy and jobs. Is anyone going to take on the subject ofthe terrorists crossing our borders, the Middle East matters the Obama caused,issues threatening us that are severe enough that will make jobs not matter anymore.
    Doesn’t anyone question the silence on those mystery missiles or WMD on the coast of California? Does anyone question the fact that a training mission plane went missing there and only the pilot was found -25 miles out? Please, pay attention to critical security matters as we know what the deliberate problem with the economy is and what the solution there is.What is their plan for Security?

  • Bryan Horn

    I don’t think people, in general, hate rich people because they’re rich. I personally don’t like the fact that rich people, and corporations for that matter, don’t pay their fair share of the taxes. If everyone paid the same percentage of their earned income, that would be fair. But they don’t. You wouldn’t need a 3 billion word tax law or all the junk that goes with it. Everyone pays the same, say 10% (fictious percent of course), but still the same for everyone. The person making 100 million pays 10 million, the person making 100,000 pays 10 thousand and the person making 1,000 pays 100.00. It hurts everyone equally. It’s just as hard for each of the above mentioned classes of earners to come up with their 10%, but it’s fair. And republicans,in my opinion, are greedy self-serving people who, as politicians, make laws, de-regulate and vote for anything which will boost, or at least not affect their bottom line financial structure. They don’t like Obama because he spent THEIR money trying to get us out of the pile of garbage Bush created by raping and pilaging the country for 8 years. And Obama’s supposed to fix this junk in 2 1/2 years. Are you freaking kidding me? Obama’s spent half his time in office, going around the world apologizing for Bush’s years in office which helped plunge the world into the greatest recession since the great depression. We all saw what a republican can do with 8 years in office. Don’t we owe the same time to see what a democrat can do? How much did you loose when the stock market went into the toilet? How much have you recouped? We’re on the mend but it takes time. And 2 1/2 years isn’t reasonable. It’s just a beginning.

  • Scott T. Massimin

    Bernie, You are doing, a great job!!! I am affaid our country, which i love dearly, is getting to socialistic. How many have died for this Great Nation. Keep up the great work your doing. A proud Veteran of VietNam 66/67 God Bless You. Best Regards,Scott 12/ 23/11

  • Shane

    Yes, Obama and the Left are demonizing the rich so Republicans should not aid them in this task. I don’t care if Romney or Gingrich are rich, I only care that they can beat Comrade Obama in the 2012 elections. We need to get rid of the Capitalist-hating Obama administration.

    • Bryan Horn

      The Obama administration isn’t Capitalist-hating. They just believe as i do that everyone needs to pay their fair share. And you know and I know they don’t. 800 million in tax breaks for Exxon-Mobile. What the hell is that about. Why should anyone or any company get a tax break? Pay your fair share. The same for everyone. What’s so difficult to understand?

  • Gena Taylor

    Right on again Mr Goldberg. You just make such really good common sense, which is so rare to come across these days. I wish more people in the media and in other areas of public life were as grounded in common sense as you are. It would make life a lot easier to deal with if everyone just told it straight like you so. Not trying to suck up to you, just doing as you do and saying it as I see it.

  • Tom

    First of all there is no low-income people in Congress or in the White House.They are all well off before they run for office.So don’t even go there about these guys.These two talk about money because thats all the care about. Come on Berney stop thinking we are stupid.For hundreds of years the rich used the poor to get what they want and thats just the way it is.There are more rich libs then you know Mr. Goldberg or do you.In an election year these bums pander to the middleclass and say anything to get there vote then kick them to the curb.When they get in office they know that they will become very rich when they leave. And it keeps on going for ever.You came from a poor backround didn’t you.But you havn’t looked back have you.

  • Bill Hurdle

    I agree with Mr. Goldberg on the vast majority of issues – but not on this one! It was well known that Fannie and Freddie spread money around for the explicit purpose of buying political favor. Mr. Gingrich knew full well that he was being paid to purchase his goodwill and political influence. While not illegal, it certainly doesn’t exhibit the standard of integrity that I desire in the Republican nominee. It was not the act of being hired as a “consultant” that is objectionable, it was the customer and purpose of the compensation – why would Fannie and Freddie need the consulting services of a “history professor”. I was leaning towards Gingrich, but I find the Fannie and Freddie incident much more objectionable than Romneycare. It’s the equivalent of NASA hiring Al Gore as a weather consultant – you must be kidding!

    • flataffect

      I agree. I would only add that in MA, some form of universal health care was going to be passed whether Mitt got on board or not. He didn’t originate the idea, which has been a progressive goal for more than 100 years, but he tried to direct it into a more conservative mold. I don’t think that he is really devoted to big government ideals. I know, as a fellow member of the LDS religion, that we do not believe in the dole. Nothing should be free, because it weakens character. God gave us the basic ingredients as a gift, but he required us to earn our livings by the sweat of our brows.

      One thing that hasn’t really come out about Mitt is how tenderhearted he really is, as any Christian should be.

    • Roadmaster

      This does have a bad smell to it and by now I expected Newt to make memos available proving his claim that he was giving advice contrary with what Fannie & Freddie actually did. Sounds simple enough to me…

  • gerry tache

    I believe, Newt, Mitt, Ron, Rick,Bachmann and the rest of the field ought to stop acting like spanked kids. They need to grow up and
    stop taking cheap shots at one another and conentrate their fire on the BO man. It is time for someone in the field to start acting like a grown-up, someone we can look up to.
    Unfortunately, I do not see that character
    in any of the candidates. It is a very sad state of affairs. If they continue their dog and cat fights they are going to end up handing BO another four year term. That would be a disaster for the country.

  • Lev Tannen

    Mr.Goldberg, how about a different interpretation of what Newt has said? He just said that for Mitt to ask him to return money earned from Freddie May is the same as for him to ask Mitt to return money earned by Mitt while making bad business decision. This did not apply that any of them was obliged to return any money. So Mitt was wrong with his shot at Newt and Newt was right.
    Best Wishes

    • flataffect

      How much did Mitt earn by making bad business decisions? He earned his riches with good business decisions. When his investments failed, he didn’t earn money. Government sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and bailout recipients aren’t subject to that rule.

      • Lev Tannen

        Not so simple. There exist many ways to get rich that even the most capitalist apologist will find questionable. Newt just demonstrated Mitt that personal attack is a double edge sword. But again my point was that neither Mitt nor Romney were against making money.
        On side note, I greatly respect capitalists, but think that leading the country and leading an enterprise are two different jobs that require two different set of skills.

  • Jeannette

    Bernie: I’m happpy for rich people. Thank God for rich people. For one thing, it gives hope to those who are not quite there yet something to shoot for. And as the saying goes, only in America…. So far, anyhow.

    Speaking of visceral reactions, many people vote just on that: visceral reactions. I had a negative visceral reaction to the anointed one, and boy was it right! Not that voting for somebody else did any good, but at least I have the satisfaction of saying, “Don’t look at me — I didn’t vote for him!”

    Great column, as always. Wish you’d comment to the rabble now and then. I suppose you already did, though, with the column. And the rabble responds!

    • flataffect

      We should celebrate capitalists like Mitt Romney. Capitalism is the inevitable result of freedom and private property rights. As Progressives assault and destroy our private property rights, they damage the engine that makes our economy powerful.

  • Jenna

    What’s tiring is that liberals don’t like rich people. Most of the rich people out there are liberals! Liberals are such phonies. No one is more liberal or more wealthy than Steven Spielberg, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts. Jay Z, P Diddy. Give me a break. When people think of what was originally Republicans are, today, Democrats: They go to Ivy League schools, live in urban areas, run all major business (newspapers, film, magazines, television).

    Liberals, I guess, are too stupid to realize.

    • Wil Burns

      Jenna, liberals dragged you Republicans into the 20th century scratching and screaming with your heels in the mud, fighting anything that’s progressive, everything that’s made this country great. You Republicans have never understood that the spending power of blue-collar workers, obtained through Democrats and unions, is what really made this country great. You really believe “The Good Life” was obtained from your own endeavors. You cloak your greed in religion and patriotism, railing against any form of tax, never comprehending that these programs have benefited all of us and our country.” How do you people live with yourselves!

      • Jeffreydan


        Did you copy/paste your reply to Jenna, or do you just have that tired diatribe committed to memory?

        No matter how often you try to spread the lie, democrats are not the blue-collar worker party. They are the ultra-rich, greedy, crooked, tax-dodging, ivory tower elitists they claim to hate.

        Now go insult someone else’s intelligence.

      • T.Geloso

        Unfortunately anywhere from a majority to a plurality of people on this site are like Jenna. Which shows little to nothing good about them.
        As for living with themselves, they’ve anestitized themselves to the point where the logical conclusion would be a lobotomy, since they’re realistically brain dead both emotionally and intellectually.
        But even these kinds have “rights” in this society, don’t you know….

  • Marina

    Bernie ~ One of my pet peeves when I attend my Sunday Litury. At least every other week there is a gospel relating to a rich man. I am not a religious scholar, but a true analysis of those readings are not about “rich is bad”, “poor is good.” The clergy want to “keep it simple” for their flock. Well, I have taken the time to listen and read scholars who really have studied these very deep messages in the Parables.
    The real messages from all of them is that if you don’t do the most with the gifts you are given, you have a lot of explaining. No excuses. Poverty in itself is not noble.
    Thank God for being against slackers and excuse makers. Also thank Him for the scholars who have taken the time to analyze these so called “simple” stories.

  • David R. Zukerman

    Liberals are not opposed to wealth. Certainly they have not taken vows of poverty. I think they would simply prefer that the rest of us do without, sacrificing on their behalf to keep them in the style. (The agenda of political liberals is geared to push the middle class into poverty. The libs have already succeeded in sending me into poverty, as indicated by my food stamp benefits. (Unlike the fulminating predictions of some talk show conservatives. this poor person does not vote for libs.) The radiclib mindset is described in the opening sentence in Federalist No. 57. As I seem them, radiclibs are addicted to $$$ and so they have, by their addiction, turned the economy into a vaste wasteland.

  • Drew Page

    Bernie, it is unfortunate that Romney chose to take that cheap shot at Newt, suggesting he give back the money he earned by advising Freddie Mack. It is equally unfortunate that Newt responded in kind. What Newt should have said is “Governor Romney was paid by the taxpayers of Massachusetts to do his job. I don’t see why he would have a problem with me getting paid for providing advice to what was at the time a private sector lending institution, when I was out of government office and acting as a private citizen.”

    It is unfortunate that Romney’s handlers felt it necessary to take cheap shots at Newt once his poll numbers began to surpass that of Mitt. It is also unfortunate that Fox News chose to emulate their MSM rivals by jumping on the bashing band wagon. The MSM and the liberals certainly don’t need your help in bashing these two candidates. If your intent was to provide constructive criticism, you could have sent each candidate a private letter rather than demean and ridicule them in print.

  • Fred Pasek

    Yeah, libs seem to believe that homeless winos, red cross workers, and community organizers make the best presidents because they know what it’s like to be poor. While Newt’s respinse was an off-the-cuff snap to show the hypocricy of Mitt’s assertion that he needs to give the money back, and Mitt’s claim was basically just emphasis in his attempt to link Newt with the evil Freddie and Fannie entities, it really is annoying to hear them going at this instead of talking about the growing debt.
    It’s been a bizzare primary for Republicans. You have Hannity, who would otherwise find any excuse for any Republican candidate, hammering Ron Paul over some newsletter he knows Paul didn’t write. You have Republican rocks like Krauthammer Krauthammering Newt. You’ve got guys like Levin making a case for Bachmann. And you have the voters who want anyone but Romney. At this point, all the “I like them all” mantra seems to be out the window, and the media types and politicians are throwing their weight behind their faves, and all the while, the voters aren’t listening to a thing they say.
    I said a few times that I thought Gingrich was going to take, but I have to admit that I underestimated the venom with which the Republican establishment would rail against a Gingrich nomination. They may just get their way and get Romney nominated, and lose the heart of the Tea Party by doing so. And then we’ll have Romney, who I think has little or no imagination, going against Obama, who is perfectly happy to run against someone as stiff as Mitt. Good job Repulicans.

  • Ken Besig, Israel

    I figure rich guys make more trustworthy politicians because they are used to being rich, they don’t usually envy other rich guys, and mostly they don’t need to suck up to other rich guys and beg them for money. I am not saying that rich politicians are necessarily honest or averse to bribes, it’s just that they money is usually not that big a thing to them. Look at Barack and Michele Obama, or the Clinton’s, they were not used to being well off, and all they seem to do is chase money.

  • Tracy

    Article dated July 2008
    CNN) – Former president Bill Clinton earned $10.1 million in 2007 from paid speeches, according to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate financial disclosure reports

    I hope the democrats will make an agree to not use their political office for finacial gain.

    I hope someone will ask President Obama when he is running for office (Will you deliver speaches for a fee after you are no longer in office? If yes how much do you think that fee should be?

    In fairness to all, I beleive this started with Gerald Ford.

  • Ken White

    Agreed, Mitt and Grinch are two rich guys. OK. But let’s maintain a good bit of wiggle room around this fact. They are also both pols! They’ll say anything to make political points. (Obama will too, let me count the ways, and he’s the problem, NOT Mitt or Grinch!) These two don’t automatically become socialists just because they sound approximately, remotely, distantly socialistic when they joust with each other to gain political ground. Hardly. The thesis of your (i.e., B.G.) article is flawed. But I still admire your mind. But why not stop slicing and dicing the Repub candidates and keep the pressure on the congenital liar in the White House?

  • Paul Courtney

    Wonder why conservatives have been so over-the-top enthused with the field of candidates? After all these months, these two are the best we can do (they are), and they both make this mistake? Do they think they’re gonna be more populist than Obama? Bernie doesn’t present himself as an intellectual or an economist, yet he seems to have more sense on this subject than Newt and Mitt put together. Oh the joy of settling.

  • Nancye

    From the article:

    Do either of these guys understand capitalism?

    But it didn’t stop there. Just the other day, Romney took another shot at Newt, again over money. “He’s a wealthy man – a very wealthy man,” Mitt said of Newt. “If you have a half-a-million-dollar purchase from Tiffany’s, you’re not a middle-class American.’’


    I’m not rich – unfortunately – but when is it Romney’s business WHAT Newt buys, where, when, or why?

    So Newt isn’t a middle-class American? Is Romney?

    P.S. Bernie can take O’Reilly’s place on Fox News anytime, and the sooner the better.

  • Kathie Ampela

    Capitalism has become a dirty word. Neither Romney nor Gingrich will make the argument in favor of capitalism for fear of having a group of Occupiers following them around at every speech. First amendment rights are one thing, safety and security are another. Those in favor of capitalism have just as much right to be heard as those against.

  • joedee1969
    • Ken White

      Yes. Precisely. That is what we must stay focused on…

  • EddieD_Boston

    Both candidates want to make nice with the liberal media so they foolishly say foolish things.

    One of the things that bothers me about most Repubs is they just don’t fight back. Wimps.

  • Ron Kean

    The infighting of Republicans has to stop.

    Romney is the most electable and we should start circling the wagons around him now.

    • Ken White

      Absolutely. And this would apply to O’Reilly, Goldberg, and anyone with half a brain. Stop chopping on the Repub candidates and keep the pressure on the Saul Alinsky clone in the White House, before he rains down Sharia Law on us. That’s our problem. Job one. Not the niceties, or lack of them, as the GOP candidates jockey for position. THIMK!

  • cmacrider

    Bernie said: “Does Newt understand that sometimes a CEO has to shut down companies that are failing and lay off workers; that getting rid of failure lays the groundwork for success? That while he did indeed fire some workers, Romney also started new companies that hired tens of thousands of new employees?

    And does Romney understand that Gingrich has no obligation to give back money he legitimately earned – even from Freddie Mac?”

    Bernie: I think the real question is this: Do Newt and Mitt not recognize that by partaking in this type of juvenile comments they are giving credence to the Obama class warfare agenda and thereby allowing Obama to frame the debate in the ensuing election?

    Surely the so called political strategists for the Republican party are smart enough to frame the debate as coming down to one issue “Obama’s Incompetency” That central theme relates to his performance on the national economy, America’s place in the world, and foreign affairs. If they would ensure the debate is a national referendum on Obama’s performance …. it’s in the bag for the Republicans.

  • Wil Burns

    Bernie, “Liberals think the world would be a better place without rich people, when logic tells you the opposite is true.”>>

    Bernie, That is crazy talk and you know it. Stop your kowtowing to Bill O’Reilly, you are a better man, then him!

    • ph16

      What’s crazy talk? The “Liberals think the world would be a better place without rich people” or the “when logic tells you the opposite is true.” part? In any case, the second part is absolutely right, like or lump it, we need rich people. Poor people do not provide jobs and as for the “”Liberals think the world would be a better place without rich people”, they may not say it in those exact words, but with their rhetoric you certainly get that impression as well as the one that all rich people are lazy and were born with a silver spoon in their mouths like Paris Hilton which is wrong. It also makes me think, these rich liberal democrat politicians who advocate “taxing the rich”, do they include themselves as part of the rich or do they look for loopholes to make sure they don’t pay as much. I’m not accusing any one of them let alone specific people, but I have wondered that from time to time.

      • Bob Hadley

        “Liberals think the world would be a better place without rich people”

        I take Bernie at his word that he got a lot of liberal hate mail on that column. After all, there are liberal haters. But Bernie’s liberal hate mail is certainly not representative of liberals in general.

        He builds a straw man when he says they, i.e. liberals, think the world would be a better place without rich people. Ideologues love tearing into straw men.

        As far as i can tell, most liberals (or those on the left) are not socialists. Socialists are the ones who favor eliminating the rich–unless everyone is rich.

        Most liberals are concerned with what they see as excesses of capitalism, and favor governmental corrective action–action that tends to counter only the excesses–for economic (i.e. logical) and other reasons.

        Many liberals become excessive themselves, as do many conservatives.

        Hateful invective encourages a hateful response. Many advocates (whether left,
        right or center) become accustomed to hateful invective (conditioned response?). Also, invective gets attention and is profitable.

        I understand that Bernie may have intended his statement as hyperbole. But, hyperbole is an obvious over-statement. In our overly polarized political climate, however, Bernie’s statement will simply fortify many hard-liners who don’t care about truth but who are looking for verbal weapons. Besides, Bernie used his statement as a springboard for dismissing any liberal analyses as devoid of ANY logic.

        BTW, I doubt Newt and Mitt made their statements out of conviction. Mitt was simply trying to associate Newt with Fanny and Freddie, and Newt simply came up with the first deflection that came to mind.

      • Wil Burns

        You guys and Bernie have no idea how ‘liberals’ think!

        • Will Swoboda

          Hey Will,
          Read “Intellectuals & Society” by Thomas Sowell.
          Will Swoboda

          • Wil Burns

            Uncle Tom Sowell? No thanks, he’s a short-liner.

        • ph16

          I may not, but most likely Bernie does since he was around plenty of them for 28 years at CBS and continues to have liberal friends not to mention he was once a liberal himself before the liberals took hard a left becoming more a representation of the elites than the blue collared people. Honestly, I can not think of too many people to tell how liberals or conservatives think than Bernie seeing he was in both camps.

        • Ron Kean

          I was a far left liberal for many years. I defended Carter and Clinton and voted for them. I know exactly how liberals think. I know how they feel and how they reason. I remember well.

          • Bob Hadley


            So all liberals feel and reason like you felt and reasoned when you were a liberal?

            Now that you’re a conservative, do you know how conservatives feel and reason?

            Aren’t you making a tremendous leap from the specific to the general?

        • sunnyinaz

          That’s a racist statement, Wil! “UNCLE TOM” Sowell?…THAT’S how liberals think! Just because he’s a black conservative, you don’t think he has any value. Therefore, I question whether liberals have the ability to really “think” at all.

          • Bob Hadley

            The term “racist” is so inflated it has lost its meaning. It’s much the same as saying “you bastard.”

            But I agree that calling Sowell an Uncle Tom is incendiary and crosses the line. Uncle Tom refers to a slave appeasing brutal slave masters and encouraging the appeasement by fellow slaves of brutal slave masters.

            Anyone calling someone an Uncle Tom should back up their reference by specifics. Saying “The [current] American society is racist and anyone who supports its power structure is an Uncle Tom” is woefully inadequate.

            The deficits of the current American society pale in comparison to the brutality and lack of humanity of our past slave society.

            On the other hand, saying “THAT’S how liberals think” is ignorant and bigoted. If that statement were true, then sunnyinaz would qualify as a liberal.

  • Bob Hadley

    “I once wrote a column called ‘Thank God for Rich People’ and was deluged with hate mail from liberals.”

    Bernie, You must have gotten your hate mail through something other than your “Comments” section. I just reviewed the comments to your column, “Thank God for Rich People.”

    The comments contained constructive and thoughtful discussion. There was one short comment from chet telling you to “eat s–t and die,” refering to some secret of yours and asking if you were coming on Saturday. I couldn’t tell if chet was a liberal, however.

    I’m unaware of any hateful remarks made by liberals. Maybe I missed it.

    I hope you weren’t trying to justify your position by inventing or inflating a wild-eyed response to your column. Too many from all viewpoints and beliefs do this.

    • Bernard Goldberg


      I get emails through my web site … trust me, they weren’t nice. glad you did the investigative work to go back to the column … to see if i made the whole thing up … but i was talking about “mail” … not the comments on the site.


  • CCNV

    I’d rather hear about what they are going to DO to FIX the economy; however, when I hear this crap being tossed back and forth, I think each one must suffer from ‘little man’ syndrome. And, no, I’m not talking about height.

  • DOOM161

    I plan to vote for a non-socalist. I hope one of the major party candidates meets that criteria this year.

  • Glen Stambaugh

    Those exchanges make everybody sick and diminish both parties. Sad that they think they need to use class warfare in a Republican primary. Good one Bernie.

  • joe

    Liberals hate the ‘other’ rich people. Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards , Pelosi, Gore, Clinton , Hollywood , Television , Ny Times and on and on and on ,, all Ok !… it’s the ‘other’ rich people…. did I mention Corzine ?

  • Margaret Sweet

    You fail to make the point that Obama is Rich too. How come my daily emails of columns stopped.

  • Jonathan Dietz

    Bernard Goldberg for President!

    • Ralph M. Hahn

      If Bernie fails to beat Obama, he is my #1 choice for the 2nd most powerful job in the U.S.: Bill O’Reilly’s primary substitute.
      THE No-Spin Zone!