Skip to comments.In Breitbart’s Last Column, Did He Endorse Newt Gingrich?
Posted on 03/05/2012 9:46:59 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Deceased conservative media icon Andrew Breitbarts posthumously released article outlines a leftist play heralding radical Saul Alinsky that Obama participated in. But for as much as the crux of the article is centered on Barack Obamas affiliation with Alinsky-styled radicalism, does he also endorse Newt Gingrich at its conclusion?
When Andrew Breitbart announced at CPAC this year that he would be vetting Obama with a new set of tapes that would confirm his radical roots, he planted an eagerness in the conservative movement that currently waits with bated breath to see if these videos live up to the hype that Breitbart gave them. Today, with the release of Breitbarts posthumous column on Obama and his participation in a leftist play about Saul Alinsky, conservatives are taking note of the opening salvo in what should prove to be a much-needed revisionism of Obamas political past.
Easily overlooked, however, are the two paragraphs devoted to accrediting Newt Gingrich and his recent performance in 2012 election primaries as the true first shot at reopening the issue of Obamas radicalism.
In his piece, The Vetting, Part 1: Baracks Love Song To Alinsky, he has this to say about the former Speaker: The reason Newt Gingrich surged in the Republican primary contest in January is that he was attempting to do the press job by finding out who the current occupant of the White House actually is. Millions also want to know, but the mainstream media is clearly not planning to vet the President anytime soon. Quite the opposite.
Breitbarts admiration of Gingrich is clear enough in this quotation, singling him out as the only Republican Presidential candidate willing to broach the subject of Obamas radical tendencies. But even more poignant is how Breitbart ends his article: If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newts strategy into a nomination, well have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real Baraka Obama, not the manufactured one the media prefers.
Clearly Breitbart is stopping short of anything approaching an official endorsement in keeping with his promise at CPAC to support whomever is chosen to run against Obama in election 2012. It is interesting, however, that Breitbart decides to characterize the Republican nominee as an imperfect but well-known Republican. Pundits will be quick to say that that characterization could apply to any of the remaining GOP candidates. But it cannot be dismissed that Newt and only Newt was referenced in Breitbarts last column.
I don’t think this is his final “vetting.”
That is the definitive statement. Anything else is just speculation. Had Breitbart wished to endorse a candidate he would have done so in very clear language.
Let’s do an SAT type question.
Which two of the following do not fit:
A: Andrew Breitbart
B: Sarah Palin
C: Newt Gingrich
D: Mitt Romney
E: Rick Santorum
Agreed. Andrew had no problem with saying what was on his mind.
Really? The implication is clear to me who it is of the three candidates that already posesses (in spades) the only
“strategy” Breitbart points to, lauds, wants and recommends.
If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newts strategy into a nomination, well have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real Baraka.....
Just D, Einstein.
Some Santorum supporters, like CC, do not have the brain power to deal with nuances and even clear implications. They are sort of sad that way.
Santorum in clerical collar and seen whining now against DRUDGE, is NOT a strategy Andrew would be seen recommending.
Brietbart was pointedly speaking of *strategy”, not who can squeal the loudest.
chuckle, chuckle, snort.
Palin and Romney. The rest are males.
TOUCHE. Good one.
If you keep that up, I’m going to have to back down on my claim that all Santorum supporters are humorless!
Mentioning “satan,” in a 2008 speech makes one some kind of nut, but gathering around the séance table to divine the hidden endorsement of Breitbart is a perfectly rational act.
Oh, speaking of Drudge. Do you think it’s any coincidence that Breitbart’s plan was to open up a competitor to Drudge Report after the Drudge report shredded Newt openly and obviously for months?
Dear God, I miss Andrew Breitbart.
Yes, nuance for sure, and sometimes it’s also clear that even the *obvious” whizzes right over the cranial region, causing some exposure for other regions.
Puts one in mind of Sarah’s non-endorsement endorsement of Newt.
Hidden in plain sight.
Though credit where it is due: Joe 6 Pack did make a funny......a talent Ive yet to see in CC or AC or Naps or even Rick himself....
Why wouldn’t one brilliant, masterful, hero warrior be for the only other brilliant, masterful warrior?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.