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?
politico almost always gets it wrong.
GO GINGRICH AND RUSH ROCKS!
I am listening to Rush!
or Newt is spinning trying to cover it up.
It’s difficult because I don’t trust newt or politico.
I trust Newt more than either politico or WSJ. Newt has a lot more to loose by being wrong than Politico or WSJ, so I think Newt is being truthful. Besides I read both accounts and he never even said what they said he said.
Politico is the means of Bishop Romney’s dirty tricks
against Gov. Palin, Mr. Cain, and now Mr. Gingrich.
They are his “go to flacks” for any dirt he wants thrown.
The Wall Street Journal reports quotes from Gingrich which say similar things, with a different slant. Gingrich e-mailing to say the slant is wrong is not surprising, but let’s see him explain his quotes.
Newtie is under tremendous pressure to hide his true self.
“Incumbent presidents have enormous advantages. And I think what Republicans ought to do is what’s right for America. They ought to do it calmly and pleasantly and happily,”Or are the "good quotes" real, and the "bad quotes" made up?[the senate bill is] “an absurd dereliction of duty.”
“Obama is so inept as a president, and the Congress is so dysfunctional as an institution, that we are lurching from failure to failure to failure,”
“a Senate majority leader who is totally disruptive and a president who is basically campaigner-in-chief, who has no interest in solving the problems of the American people.”
“It’s very hard for the legislative branch to outperform the president in communications,” he said. “He has all the advantages of being one person. He has all the advantages of the White House as a backdrop, and my experience is presidents routinely win.”
It is rare that you find a journalist actually manufacturing quotes. They are generally punished for that sort of thing. This isn't some fly-by-night paper.
But I guess we should take the candidate's e-mail word that the story is false, because why? If there is a video of the press conference, it should be easy to post it to prove that these words were not spoken.
ML/NJ
Politico is nothing but a gossip site. Page 6 for political junkies.
My money is on them both twisting what he told them to the point of even leaving key words out eo that he looks bad.
What does WSJ & Politico have to gain? What does Newt have to gain?
Again, Newt cannot afford to be seen supporting Obama, but the WSJ and Politico would love to make him seem closer to Obama then their favorite Republican, Romney.
I agree.
Romney probably thinks that conservatives gets all their news from Peggy Noonan and David Frum.
BTW, a more interesting argument would be that the quotes are accurate, but don’t mean what they sound like.
Is his “Republicans ought to do what’s right for America. They ought to do it calmly and pleasantly and happily” a bad quote? Or is it a quote that actually means they should fight for their 1-year extension but be nice about it?
The problem is that 2nd thing doesn’t make sense. If they are going to FIGHT against Obama and Reid, they can’t do it “calmly and pleasantly and happily,”. That wording only makes sense if Gingrich is telling them to give in.
Mr. Gingrich made it clear he favored a one-year extension of the two-percentage point payroll tax cut, which expires Jan. 1, not the two-month extension that passed the Senate with bipartisan support. He called the Senate bill “an absurd dereliction of duty.”That quote from here
“Obama is so inept as a president, and the Congress is so dysfunctional as an institution, that we are lurching from failure to failure to failure,” Mr. Gingrich said.
Hey Charles, regardless of ones stand on Newt, you must admit the timing of our two posts are phenomenally perfect.
It’s about making up headlines. National Review just did the same thing. They don’t report on what Newt actually said, they report their conclusion reached from what he said. Gingrich never said “Throw in the towel” or “Take the Senate Bill” National Review is approaching drive by media status.
Sure, Politico gets stuff wrong. But Gingrich also constantly walks stuff back.
So it’s not like someone goes “wow” here when Gingrich claims he didn’t say what someone else said he did.
My take exactly:
Just because Newt emails Rush to say he didn’t say (or mean) what he said is not enough to explain why the WSJ quoted him saying what he says he didn’t say.
Never forget: the media lies and is in the business of trying to choose the GOP candidate for their own purposes.
Except it doesn’t sound like he is supporting Obama. It just sounds like he is surrendering to the political expediency.
Nothing Gingrich said suggests he thinks Obama is right, or the Senate is right. His message, if you believe the quotes, is that we can’t win the battle, so the best thing for America would be to surrender this time.
It’s not necessarily a bad message, from a political perspective. It is what I would expect a smart political mind to come up with. It’s hardly the plain-spoken conservatism we have been fighting for. Conservatives are tired of the games, we are told.
The response here is actually very cleverly designed to avoid the real facts and issues. Note that here at FR, the pro-Gingrich forces didn’t post the article and discuss it first, instead they post the e-mail Rush exchange information, to discredit the whole idea of their BEING a story, without dealing with the quotes at all.
If the quotes are false, there will be a recorded proof. I’d love to see the full transcript. But the message in the WSJ is exactly what I would predict from Gingrich given his history (he did sit on a couch with Nancy, he did AGREE with Al Gore at a “debate”).
It’s what smart people do — they outsmart themselves.
As I allude to, the left will do all they can to make anyone who might beat Romney look bade.
With the exception of Ron Paul, the crazy homeless guy who was taken in a ship by aliens and released just before primary season started.
Yes, and it’s owned and run by Left-wingers!
My take exactly:Go back and read post #16
Just because Newt emails Rush to say he didn’t say (or mean) what he said is not enough to explain why the WSJ quoted him saying what he says he didn’t say.
I did.
Yes, certainly. It is only a bit annoying that I posted the Wall Street Journal article, but a few have attacked politico for their version; I hope nobody thinks I actually posted a Politico article. :-)
I posted the Newt email story tidbit from rush, and I am a Rick Santorum Supporter, so the pro-Gingrich thing does not fly with me.
I just knew the left and this is typically what they do. The will always divide and conquer, they do it every primary season.
I am amazed about the vast amount of conservatives that will always repeat what the left writes as if they could only report the truth.
No trust for the left from me, especially when talking about their propaganda machine the MSM.
WSJ quoted Newt himself extensively. There is NO WAY WSJ would misrepresent the story. They are the best reporting paper that still exists.
Lunch time, so I will respond to anything more after 1:00 when I return from lunch.
WSJ quoted Newt himself extensively. There is NO WAY WSJ would misrepresent the story. They are the best reporting paper that still exists.
The WSJ was specifically named as one of the news outlets that Biff Naylor, former chairman of the NRA, told the facts of Herman Cain and Sharon Bialek to. Rather than print his story, the WSJ elected to continue repeating lies about Cain.
If the WSJ would withhold a story and print a lie, what makes you think they won’t make up quotes?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2816937/posts
I disagree, the WSJ lies all the time. Especially now that they want Romney as our nominee.
If they come from the beltway, then question anything they write.
WSJ quoted Newt himself extensively. There is NO WAY WSJ would misrepresent the story. They are the best reporting paper that still exists.Then you don't know the WSJ. It's news sections are notoriously liberal. Only the editorial pages leans right. And even then it's Establishment right.
When I first read that Newt was for the payroll tax cuts, I thought this doesn’t fit.
The stupid GOP has been handed a gold plated battle cry against Obama and the dems. But what do many of them do, they side with the enemy.
It is quite simple, the payroll tax cuts is an effort to defund SS and Medicare. Once accomplished it will force seniors into a means tested welfare program, where no matter how much you have paid into SS, you will get the same benefit as a low life who paid in almost nothing.
Once Medicare is broke, seniors will be made to go into Obamacare. (AKA Medicaid on steroids)
THERE IS ZERO CHANCE WSJ MISQUOTED.
Politico competes with Mediate as to who can go the furthest left.
Which ones are the “bad quotes”? They all seem reasonable to me.
Their opinion pieces may be Romney shills. But, their reporting is just simply the best. No chance they misquoted Newt. Period.
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.
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.
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.