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?
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.
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.