“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.
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.
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.
Hey Charles, regardless of ones stand on Newt, you must admit the timing of our two posts are phenomenally perfect.
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
THERE IS ZERO CHANCE WSJ MISQUOTED.
Which ones are the “bad quotes”? They all seem reasonable to me.