Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In his 3 August 2012 Krathammer Kolumn, Mark Halperin characterized a remark by Charles Krauthammer about Rick Gorka (Mitt Romney’s aide), “Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?”, as a “sentence never before rendered in English or any other known human language”.

To me it seems that Krauthammer simply asks why what’s taken for granted for Teresa Heinz Kerry is not taken for granted for Rick Gorka, when they used similar words in similar situations.

The only significant difference between Rick Gorka’s and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s remarks (Krauthammer says both included ‘anatomically risky suggestions’) is that one was made by a man and the other was made by a woman. Actually Hillary Clinton spurred Teresa Heinz at that time by saying ‘It’s good for you. You go girl!’

Is this (difference of sex of the speakers) the only reason why Krauthammer’s remark, “Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?”, is deemed "never before rendered in English or any other known human language"? Is it such a terrible remark for many Americans?

I find it hard to understand the delicate nuances and effects of quips in foreign languages.

Are there other ways of reading “Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?” as a “‘historic’ preposterous remark”?

share|improve this question
4  
This is a play on the phrase, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." But it is not particularly poetic in its adaptation and is, in fact, rather clunky. So he should have abandoned the approach (adapting the phrase) and just said, "If it's okay for her, why isn't it okay for me?" –  Jim Aug 4 '12 at 22:58
    
Please add a link to a webpage that shows the "sentence never before rendered in English or any other known human language" sentence. Thanks! –  jwpat7 Aug 4 '12 at 23:47
    
@JWPat. The link of the article in question is thepage.time.com/2012/08/03/krathammer-kolumn/…. The article starts with the sentence, - He describes the Romney overseas trip as a great triumph and includes a sentence never before rendered in English or any other known human language: I simply picked up this part and pasted onto my question. –  Yoichi Oishi Aug 5 '12 at 1:06
1  
Krauthammer's point (that Heinz can tell people to shove it and be called "earthy", although for the same phrase Gorka is considered rude, because Heinz is a woman and Gorka a man) is made perfectly clear. He's wrong, imo, about the reason. Heinz, unlike Gorka, was associating with a member of the same party of perhaps 90% of all reporters, so naturally she gets a break. –  Malvolio Aug 5 '12 at 5:30
    
"Never before rendered in English" reminds me of Fry & Laurie: youtube.com/watch?v=ZFD01r6ersw :) –  coleopterist Aug 5 '12 at 5:50

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

The phrase “Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?” appeared in an op-ed article by Charles Krauthammer, apparently printed in The Washington Post newspaper on 2 August 2012. Mark Halperin’s tweet-length comment on that article calls Krauthammer’s phrase “a sentence never before rendered in English or any other known human language”.

Halperin’s remark probably is true, but only because no previous circumstances have called for a comparison like Krauthammer’s of Gorka and T. H. Kerry. Few if any Americans will regard Halperin’s judgement of the phrase as weighty or significant, which is just as well because Halperin probably intended to be amusing rather than weighty or significant. Neither of the phrases quoted above is significant, terrible, or historic; both appear to be true, nearly indisputable, not controversial, and not of lasting interest.

The Washington Post’s online article about Gorka’s advice to major-media reporters (in Pilsudski Square in Warsaw) quotes him as saying “Kiss my [posterior]. This is a holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect.” Obviously Gorka did not really say posterior in brackets. Unfortunately the video accompanying the Post’s online article has been censored and I don't know what he actually said. Note, the referent for This in the Gorka quote probably is Pilsudski Square, not his posterior.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1 for "This in the Gorka quote probably is ... not his posterior" –  user16269 Aug 5 '12 at 5:54

There's nothing particularly historic about the remark. I think the author was just being tongue-in-cheek about how silly the phrase was.

It is a bit preposterous. You don't often hear the phrase "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", let alone rephrased as a question. It just sounds bizarre; nobody would say that normally. You also don't call people "The Heinz" or "The Gorka", so that makes it even more goofy.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.