“That’s a good point. Krauthammer said “It’s analysis, not advocacy”. Yeah that’s a little bite of a weasel out, but it’s true.
While Krauthammer IMHO appears to be even keeled in his “analysis”. Hume does not. His verbiage and commentary structure indicates a clear bias AGAINST Newt. “
But don’t forget that Kraut is a psychologist who used to work for the dems.
I don’t trust him at all.
He actively participated in the take-down of Herman Cain, who was our best chance for the most freedom this go-round.
But God is in control, so I guess it wasn’t to be, this time.
My position from here on out, is whoever the media hates / fears most, is who gets my support.
Newt.
Who can best articulate for the nomination, and in the general, that liberty is what makes America great?
Newt.
Color me gullible, but I believe any political analyst who wants to be taken seriously -and I believe Krauthammer does- would go out of their way to not ‘appear’ bias. Hume let’s his slip show FAR too often.
That said, I agree with a few points. Charles was contemptuous towards Cain, and he was far from alone. Many did not take Cain seriously.
Personally, I wanted to, but his constantly saying he would create a panel of experts to address every complex issue made him look pretty clueless.
I also agree with;
“My position from here on out, is whoever the media hates / fears most, is who gets my support.
Newt.
Who can best articulate for the nomination, and in the general, that liberty is what makes America great?
Newt.”