Posted on 12/21/2011 11:24:21 AM PST by OneVike
Politico claims that Gingrich sides with Obama on payroll tax, but he just emailed Rush and said he stands by the Republicans in the House.
So why do conservatives ever give credibility to anything Politico writes?
Just because their news section leans liberal does not make their Newt’s quotes false. It is impossible that they simply made up the quotes.
Newt's a bit like a buddy who sometimes buys you a beer and sometimes doesn't.
Obama is like a street thug who sometimes lets you pass by and sometimes beats the crap out of you and steals your wallet.
The choice seems clear to me.
Just wondering, are you a WWE fan?
Just because their news section leans liberal does not make their Newt’s quotes false. It is impossible that they simply made up the quotes.No suggestion here that the quotes aren't accurate. They just don't support the headline or the false premise.
Ditto.
(I can’t seem to find the quote where Newt says to “give in”. Quote, unquote. So unless Newt said “give in” the WSJ IS lying.)
You are exactly right. In the article Newt said very clearly that he favored the one year extension and not the DemocRATS kicking the can down the road lousy 2 month extension.
Gingrich tells House Republicans to fold and the Newtbots go into denial mode — right on queue.
What is "impossible" is that a FReeper can be truly that naive concerning the media. What is much more possible is that you're just a Perry hack on the attack.
That's the kind of guy (or girl) I'm looking for. Someone who will call the MSM on their lies right away. Not apologize for something he didn't say.
GINGRICH and RUSH basically very smart people by nature.
MSM basically very stupid people by nature.
Nuff said.
I don’t know. I believe the argument has moved from “the quotes are false” to “the quotes are fine, and they don’t say anything like what the story claims”.
I would disagree with both arguments, although I’m willing to be persuaded that the 2nd is true. I do believe that if he wanted to say the House should “stand firm”, Newt knows how to use those words, or other words like it, and his actual quote doesn’t sound ANYTHING like it. He could have used the word “but” if he wanted to “President’s are powerful, BUT the House should do that right thing.”
Using the word “And” suggests that the following clause is a response to the predicate; the predicate being the president has the upper hand, so the response being don’t fight this fight now.
If nothing else, Gingrich worded his response in a way that invited misinterpretation, as can be seen from the 4 or 5 articles that came out that all suggested he was telling them to give in.
Later articles based on his e-mail suggest otherwise — good for Gingrich to act quickly, although I am not convinced he is “clarifying” rather than “backtracking”.
I'd better go with another nuff said about now :^)
Nuff said.
LOLOLOL. I hear you.
The “Facts don’t matter,” crowd.
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.