Is Gorka’s remark “Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?” so preposterous enough to be deemed ‘never before rendered in English’?

Question

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”?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.