Boop Her Nose!
Kitty Is Too Tired to Donate
How About You?
Become a Monthly Donor
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/20/2012 6:03:02 AM PST by xzins
Chris Wallace just claimed on national TV that he looked up the word "grandiose" in the dictionary and that it is a negative word and that Gingrich misused and misapplied it to himself. In the segment, Wallace was obviously spinning against Gingrich, and in that piece he was saying the "grandiose" exchange with Santorum was Santorum's shining moment.
However, he claimed he looked the word up in a dictionary and that the word is negative in meaning.
If he actually looked it up in any dictionary, it would have had multiple meanings. In honesty, he would have had to report that. He did not, so by his own word he looked it up, saw multiple meanings and chose that which he could spin.
gran·di·ose (grnd-s, grnd-s adj.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grandiose
1. Characterized by greatness of scope or intent; grand. See Synonyms at grand.
2. Characterized by feigned or affected grandeur; pompous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French, from Italian grandioso, from grande, great, from Latin grandis.]
Glad you want government and politicians to protect you. It lets people know what your overall view is.
Thanks, though the Lady expressed it far better than me :)
The question of what connotation a word has is not as simple as some are attempting to imply. I touch upon this in another post in this thread.
I agree. Newt’s grandiosity is made for our American desire for larger than life personalities in our leaders. We love them.
I must be getting more mature, or maybe Obama has soured me on choosing grandiose over steady stewardship.
Wallace is a sniveling little rat. Pathetic. Talk about a guy who thinks HIS opinions are GRANDIOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He probaly looked it up after Newt gave him such a “bloody” nose at an earlier FAUX “debate” which it is far from being, but nothing than a Q & A session!!!
You wrote: “We need to get behind the candidate that has the momentum to put Romney away, and stand up to the news media and Obama.”
Rush (years ago): “I could sit here all day and take calls from people who are irate over what ‘the drive-by media’ are doing to destroy our conservative candidates, but we’d never get anything else done.” (paraphrased)
Rush quotes:
“Donald Trump is providing _a blueprint_ here: The way to beat Barack Obama in 2012 is to just go at him.” -Rush Limbaugh - Thursday, April 7, 2011
<>
“I’ll tell you this. Whoever in this field takes it to Obama the straightest and the hardest and the most direct, is who’s gonna win. They’re gonna have to take it to Obama. This isn’t a ‘pussy-foot around’ type of election. This is not, ‘Oh, we’ve got to worry about what they’re gonna say about us, we’ve got to worry about PR, about charges of racism.’ Somebody’s got to be willing to take it to Obama. It’s going to be about him and four more years of this stuff and we’ll see if there’s anybody in this field willing to do that.” ~ Rush Limbaugh - March 25th, 2011
HERE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2818986/posts?page=111#111
More Rush quotes:
What motivates the RINOS? (Republicans-In-Name-O nly)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/05/what_motivates_the_rinos
“.....if the RINOs don’t care that liberals win — if the RINOs’ only objective is to make sure a conservative Republican doesn’t win — it’s because the RINOs want big government, too. It’s because the RINOs don’t want government cut. It’s because the RINOs don’t want to lose power as government is shrunk. That would be the only reason. Now, they’re Republican-in-name-only, but they are still “Republicans,” and they are still losers at the ballot box if old Dean here is right. So what old Dean here is saying here is we’ve got a bunch of RINOs who would just as soon nominate somebody who is gonna lose to Obama because they want government to stay big, because they somehow profit from big government, a lot of government spending.
Who was the last person to actually cut government? Who was the last person who actually led a movement that balanced the federal budget? Who was the person that did that? (humming “Jeopardy!” theme) You’re not gonna take a guess? (interruption) That’s right, it was Mr. Newt! He was the last guy who gave us a balanced budget. Now, there are a lot of other Republicans involved — Kasich was key and a lot of others — but Gingrich was Speaker. The last time this budget was balanced, the last time there was true welfare reform, the last time government was cut, Gingrich did it. Who is number one enemy of everybody today? .......”
<>
Long Knives Out for Newt — on Both Sides of the Washington “Establishment” (ruling elites)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/05/long_knives_out_for_newt_on_both_sides_of_washington_establishment
“.....I do believe that in some cases (and I’m not prepared to name names right now) on our side they would rather Obama win than a full-throated conservative beat him, because they don’t control the conservatives. They don’t control the Tea Party; they don’t control where that victorious conservative candidate would come from. .... I know who we’re talking about here. I know who these people are, and I know that they’ve reacted this way to conservatives ever since the days of Ronaldus Magnus [Ronald Reagan]. ......
“...I know these people. I know liberals whether they’re Republicans or Democrats. I know Democrats. I know squishy when I see squishy, whether it be Republican or Democrat — and I also remember why they hated Christine O’Donnell and why they hated Sharron Angle, ‘cause they didn’t care about the movement, folks. They cared about their Senate chairmanships; they cared about getting themselves in charge of the money. ...
“...Remember, now, the establishment of both parties thinks that independent and moderates win elections. If you get them, you win the election. These people think that Gingrich is gonna scare the independents and moderates all the way back to Obama, forgetting what happened in the midterms of 2010. It’s utter paranoia. Now, the left — Mark “Maxi” Shields and his crowd — are afraid of conservative because they know it wins. This is the dichotomy. The left fears conservatism because they know it wins. The Republican establishment fears conservatism because they think it loses. So we end up pulling our hair out here trying to come up with some people on our team, in our movement to join us — and we look and we find that neither establishment, neither party establishment is with us.
We are the enemy — and, by the way, given this scenario, it also tells us that neither establishment considers Romney to be all that conservative. If Romney were thought to be a conservative, they would be trying to destroy him, too. Now, you might think this is a little simplistic. It isn’t. It is the explanation. There’s no rationality here unless you redefine rational to explain the day-to-day beliefs of different elements of the Democrat and Republican establishment. Some things they see eye-to-eye on; some things they don’t, obviously. But when it comes to conservatism, they both fear conservatives (albeit for different reasons). ....
“...They fear a landslide loss for Obama the hands of a real conservative. However, there is another hand here, and that is to certain element of the Tea Party Gingrich isn’t an archconservative. He isn’t a conservative, period. But they’re willing to overlook it, and do you know why?
Again, the answer is simple. .....[....snip....]....” [Click link to continue].
<>
Polls Show Obama in Trouble
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/05/polls_show_obama_in_trouble
“........[So] I’ll tell you, it’s enough to cause me to pull my hair out over the asininity that’s occurring on the Republican side, the absolute absurd stupidity that is on display on the Republican side. Here’s a guy with under 50% — seriously — who’s lost 30 in practically every demographic. The only place he’s above water is with the elites in academia: Actors and artistes and that bunch. Everybody has thrown in the towel. We got a story in the Boston Globe, a poll of 400 people. They’re depressed, their dilapidated, their lives are deteriorating, their home values are down. Every tradition that they have trusted, they don’t believe in anymore — and the Republican establishment [says], “Oh, gosh, I don’t know. I just hope we can hold the Senate.” It’s enough to get me to start cursing.”
I answered that in my upthread posts. Too much of a diluted field. 7 people running each with individual characteristics. Some voters like this, others like that. I wanted Palin but that didn't transpire. Romney, never. Newt, baggage, Santorum, OK but not a sparky. Paul, YGBKM. etc, etc. Cain came along and I liked what I say. But then...
So I decided I'd hold my water until something changed the game (which I knew would be winnowing the field). Now Gingrich is soaring, he has the cojones, the fire and the will. 'Nuff said.
I expect Team Obama to play every negative card in the deck. They, along with the MSM, will go for the jugular. That's why we need someone to take them on. And if you think Gingrich will be "A potential nominee who is frequently erratic and inconsistent and apologizing for past errors, many of those past errors being only a few months old", I think you're vastly mistaken. Sure, he has a lot of issues, but they've been out there for years.
I've now made my decision. Of what's left, he's the only "MAN" standing.
I agree totally with your analysis of that well-manicured pathetic weasel Wallace.
Leni
“As an English major I can tell you the word “grandiose” does have a negative connotation.
I second that. Nowadays it is the more common usage, the default, if you will. Gingrich was practicing a little verbal jiu-jitsu there, taking Santorum’s choice of word and whacking him with it, the way a martial arts practitioner would seize the energy of an attack and use it against the attacker. Takes guts and skill, normally, but if one’s opponent is much weaker, as Santorum is, well...it merely takes a bit of restraint so you only school him rather than fatally injure the pup. “
I love your way with words - what a great mental image :)
Thank you all, it is very good to be appreciated! :)
Yep. I haven't seen the exchange yet, but judging from Newt's style with words, he probably turned the definition to his advantage.
But then none of Jerry Rivers’ ex wives tried to commit criminal influence peddling because of whm they were married to. Newt’s first wife and current wife, both are supporting his nomination. Marianne fits the old towne definition of ‘guttersnipe’.
I thought you as an “English major” had already provided us with all of the right answers yourself.
Can’t fault your taste in music though :)
Have a good one, Cheer.
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.