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.
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.
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.