Posted on 03/18/2008 6:34:55 PM PDT by TennTuxedo
He'd probably make a good Governor of New York. Infidelity is a job requirement.
We are willing to elect a man who we know nothing about,and this man goes to a church for Twenty Years that promotes hate.I believe his true colors are showing.You have to be an idiot to vote for this man!
Whatever anyone has to say about Newt, at least give him credit for telling it like it is. That quality is in short supply in DC where they’re all ego maniacs, power hungry, gutless, spineless, and disgustingly arrogant.
Is Newt running for President?????????
One other point, Jefferson was not married when he had his later indiscretions in life. That was frowned upon nearly as much as adultery in middle and late 18th century America.
The difference then, was that we didn’t have a blood thirsty media hell bent on exposing anyone who can help sell media advertising. And there was at least a semblance of honoring people’s privacy when it involved their private lives.
To Jefferson’s credit, most of his indiscretions we know about were in his latter years when he began removing himself as a player in the government, and retired to Monticello.
In the case of Osama Obama, one would have to be a moron to not see his pastor for the America-hating, anti-semitic radical that he is. We don’t have to have Newt to tell us that.
If you think that Gingrich was tough on Obama, you should read what Thomas Sowell wrote on NRO.
wonder what the doofus former house speaker thinks of hillary?
she waxed his clock in the mid-1990’s.
NAH....I’m just responding to the idgits on here who keep trying to bring up Newt’s personal life in an effort to minimize his statements on Obama
I drank the Newt KoolAid for over a decade. I was an idiot and lost 10 years of my life.
Well that depends. Read "Scandalmonger" by William Safire to see how the press in Jefferson's time could be unbelievably predatory, rivalling anything happening today.
Exactly, he’s hardly the paragon of virtue.
This new format, allowing you to read other poster’s responses, out of context is sometimes confusing.
But seriously, Dr. Sowell was really tough on Obama. Victor Davis Hanson, was just as forceful, he called Obama, vapid, after hearing his speech.
So Newt's not your ideal man. So what? He ain't asking you out for a date.
He's right about Obama none the less. Obama needs to explain what it was. He was afraid to condemn this racist hate monger pastor for 20 years, or did he agree with him?
The pastor is not his grandmother who he can't walk away from. And he wasn't just some character at the bar that you humor.
Wright was someone you can either attempt to change, or you walk away and find another who fits your mindset if you are a principled person.
My guess is Obama gained political clout by associating with this guy and only now is pretending that he 'does not agree." I'm willing to bet that ten years ago when he was running for local office, he and the race hustling Rev were as tight as two coats of paint.
Obama's people will try to spin this as a great speech but it really only helps with people who already support him and not with Whites and Independents that Obama must attract to win.
".. CAVUTO: Did Obama succeed today? With us now, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, author of the best seller Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works. What do you think, Newt?
GINGRICH: Look, I think it was a great speech, and I think he is a great speech maker. And I also think it was intellectually, fundamentally dishonest. To reduce a 20-year relationship with a public figure to his grandmother is just wrong. It's emotionally powerful, but it's just wrong.
The core question that Senator Obama has to answer is very simple. For 20 years he was a member of a church where he now says his pastor -- a public figure -- was saying things -- forget that they were hateful; forget that they were divisive -- they were wrong. They were fundamentally, factually wrong. And yet Senator Obama, this figure of change, never once had the courage, never once thought it was his job to sit down with this person who is so close to him he can't repudiate him, and say to him, "You know, Reverend, you know I respect you, but you're just wrong about these things. They're not true.".."
One other point, Jefferson was not married when he had his later indiscretions in life.
FYI. It is very likely that Sally Hemmings was actually Jefferson's wife's half sister. They lived, virtually, their entire lives together.
I agree, journalism of the colonial period was very pointed and it had fangs. And scandal is just part of human nature. So it inevitably a part of the colonial writings. But there was still a sense of propriety, and allegations and insults could easily lead to a duel among gentlemen if one felt his honor insulted.
But you didn’t see caravans of satellite uplinks and 24 hour coverage and talking heads like Geraldo Rivera spewing off their slanted junk. If someone wrote it, and was lucky enough to know a pressman, it might get noticed. Within a few counties anyway.
There was no contrived sense of “objectivity”. It doesn’t really make me so mad that CNN and MSNBC and the networks are slanted. What makes me mad, is they present themselves to be “objective”. You don’t have to objective, just be honest. I think that is a sharp distinction between the colonial press and the modern mainstream media.
Unfortunely there are lots of idiots in this country.
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.