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”?