Let’s demystify Newt’s ethic charges
. . . . # 12 explains it all.
Thanks, hm.
Posted on 01/25/2012 4:25:27 PM PST by Vendome
the media play the role of the Democrat’s subordinate facilitators in
the Delphi Technique;
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html
“The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.
At this point, the audience is generally broken up into “discussion—or ‘breakout’—groups” of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator.
Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints.”
Good work, Vendome!
Thanks for the ping to this excellent information.
What fine?
Two words:
“Saul Alinsky”.
That’s what it was then. That’s what it is now.
Total baloney.
You signed up today to ask about a non-existent “fine”?
Who are you, and how much does Mitt Romney pay you?
That’s right.
A couple of democrat party operatives just coincidentally overheard a conference call by Republicans, and leaked the ... recording (coincidentally they were recording) which was happening on cell phones but it somehow turned up on a police scanner?
Right.
Didn’t they end up prosecuted for wiretapping for that?
Trying to remember how that turned out.
Let’s demystify Newt’s ethic charges
. . . . # 12 explains it all.
Thanks, hm.
For reference (thank you!)
From the article:Only one minor charge of dubious construction was admitted to. “Engaging in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives”.“…The Subcommittee and the Special Counsel recommend that the appropriate sanction should be reprimand and a payment reimbursing the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000”.(Source: House Report 105 page 94 “para’s #2 and #6) (If you want to read the final House report you can find it here in PDF it’s only 137 pages
Ultimately, the answer to your question is, "Because the net effect of the ethics' campaign against Newt was a successful 'borking'.". . . and the reason for that, ultimately, is the fact that an "objective" journalist and a "liberal" politician differ only in the hat that they are wearing and not at all in their politics.. . . and the reason for that is that under the wire service journalism paradigm, journalists all hype each other and journalism as an entity - there is no ideological competition, editorial page opinion ghettos notwithstanding, permitted in the "borg" of journalism. Journalism is ultimately all about the self interest of journalists - and "liberal" politicians have no principle superior to that of going along and getting along with journalism (Republicans, OTOH, at least occasionally stand up for the targets of journalism's exploitation).
In sum, by associating himself with the borking of Gingrich Mitt Romney has set himself up for a withering counterattack. He had better hope that no reporter ever dares to ask Gingrich about those charges in a televised debate. Gingrich could point out the obvious facts you have brought out, and ask the reporter precisely why he or she has not reported that Romney is associating himself with bogus charges.
Vendome did the work, I merely did an htnl drag and paste, lifting highlights from the excellent summary of the lengthy article (and extra data Vendome had at the ready) done by Vendome. Any credit is due to Vendome, not my simple copying.
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.