(But I thought that was a little too glib, even for me.)

But that’s not what Newt has in mind at all; instead, as others have pointed out, he’s targeting those who are most likely to already have some experience with contributing to the general welfare, at least of their own families (if nothing else, poor children are more likely to have babysat younger relatives, fed themselves, taken on paying jobs relatively early in life, etc., etc.). Also — it’s pretty clear that Newt was not the primary caregiver for his own children, or the primary homemaker in his own home(s). If he had been, he’d know that it’s often more work to get a child to do something than to do it yourself, and that therefore you insist on the child doing it in order to drive home the principles mentioned above, and to give the child a chance at experiencing mastery, competence, and justified self-esteem, not for the sake of getting the job done.

Yup.

And Belle: we have the technology these days. The Republicans just have to remember to call clones “snow babies” (or whatever the term is) and we’re all set to start producing Bokhanovsky Twins.

That Newt & Co are the leading stories on the news is an indicator of just how uncritical the American public has become. Entertainment is far more important than substance.