Why does Drudge seem to have a burr up his butt over Newt?

MB26

[fightinJAG]

At least you are attempting a defense of Gingrich's actual statement — bravo!

If you'll notice, my comments here today have been mostly pointed at those who, unlike you, are not and never will engage the substantive issue of what Gingrich said. They just want to dismiss any and everything that goes against their guy.

And btw, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference who wrote the “insider” article or what his background is. Gingrich said what he said, period. That is all. It's ridiculous to claim that somehow the bias or the mental state or the color of the author's trousers affects the FACT that Gingrich said what he said.

All that said, I don't think there's any excuse for how Gingrich handled his “concerns” about President Reagan's policies. And this was not a one-time thing. Gingrich also made statements on TV to this effect.

But the import of his speech is what needs to be debated here (as you did, to some extent). Obsessing over how awful it is that someone actually brought up a speech that Gingrich actually made is, as I've said, not helpful.

[muawiyah]

When discussing policy questions CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

In a worst case I am sure I can pick and chose words out of several of your posts and demonstrate all sorts of horrible things you must necessarily believe.

Add in the lead story we are all discussing and it won't look that way at all.

Ronaldus Magnus had his Ronnie Raygun moments you know ~ like when he let in 12 million Mexicans although he said "under 3 million" ~ and he should have said ZERO!

[fightinJAG]

Sure. But that just means that the context needs to be explained. Shouldn’t Newt be able to do that effectively? I would think so.

So hours of wailing went out over the fact that Ann Coulter and maybe Drudge are doing things to support the candidate they think is best for the nation. To what avail? None.

What I’m saying is skip the whine. If a story needs to be put into context, first, understand that this is part of the candidate’s JOB — it’s Job #1 in a campaign — and, if you’re going to trust this man with the presidency, I would think you’d trust him to be able to explain his views on Ronald Reagan in a compelling way.

Secondly, do the things that we the people can do. Which is what we do on FR and talk radio and Twitter every day.

All I’m saying is skip the whine. It’s counterproductive, wastes time and entails an embarrassing degree of the victim mentality.

[Caipirabob]

#54 - It would go a long way towards explaining the level of viciousness of the attacks on Gingrich beyond that we would see from the socialists.