Mere days after the New Hampshire Union Leader chose to endorse Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney because Romney "represents the 1%," Gingrich chose to blurt this out.
“Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,” Gingrich claimed.
“They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal,” he added.
That doesn't seem like the words of someone who understands or represents the 99 percent, as the Union Leader intimated.
As for the content of what Gingrich said, we are suppose to believe that poor children who probably won't have a car when they reach driving age, who never go on family vacations because they can't afford it, or sustain themselves with free school lunches have no concept of hard work, while children who have a hand-me-down Volvos or BMWs waiting for them when they turn 16 do?
Are we suppose to believe that children who are forced to take any job they can get just to support the family have no concept of hard work while kids who will be set up with a job through political connections, or those who simply inherit everything, do?
Does the young adult who has to save money for months to afford an engagement ring have less understanding of hard work than the man who owes more money to Tiffany's than most people make in a year?
Furthermore, young people who do engage in illegal activity as a means of supporting themselves probably work harder than Newt Gingrich ever did in his life.
In other words...