Donate Today!
Posted on 11/15/2011 8:44:26 AM PST by teddyballgame1
Rahm isn’t running for national office so why should they mention him? The news isn’t going to say “but so and so did it too”. Heck, the people making harassment claims are not credible & would never stand up in court but they didn’t say “but Clinton did it too” even though everyone knew he was guilty. The press isn’t going to spare conservatives anything.
Anyone who thought this wasn’t going to happen to Newt is fooling themselves. It’s not even a question of how well a candidate can handle it, it’s what the media can make the public (at this point the primary voters) believe. If Cain can be brought down by innuendo and suspect women, people better hope Newt can somehow make it through all they’re going to throw at him. Cain’s “bimbo” problem isn’t even credible, Newt’s have been played out in public.
This is exactly how we’re going to end up with Romney. It’s exactly why he doesn’t care about being 2nd or 3rd or whatever. Because after we eat our own by believing everything the media throws at us and we’ve effectively weeded out the conservatives ON OUR OWN, Romney will be the only one standing.
Cindie
Does anyone really believe they paid $300K for a history lesson?
Why would I defend it?
Exactly right! The tell us who (in their eyes) is the weakest link, destroy them, and destroy our trust in them ... all while ignoring the real weakest link until that one wins the nomination. And the uneducated voter falls for it every time.
So I surmise that it is OK for GoreLick and Raines to make millions upon millions running the company into the ground but it is not OK to make 300k and tell them they are running the company into the ground.
You really need to take the time to differentiate.
Ain’t one time I ever said anything about the Cain accusers other than they were golddiggers and non-credible.
You’re the only one between us giving anonymous sources gospel status.
-—”Defend Newt’s lobbying for Fannie/Freddie....waiting.waiting...waiting...”-—
Prove your false accusation that he was a lobbyist for Fannie/Freddie.
waiting.....waiting....waiting.........
Sorry, you just don't understand.
No where did I say they should mention Evil Emmanuel "now".
Politico DID report on the Chicago mayor's race, and they DIDN'T bring up Evil's involvement at that time, yet they DO for Gingrich.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the candidate is running for "national office".
But why would you expect them to? We all know Politico is very biased. Do they pay as much attention to local races as they do to national ones? Did any news sources in Chicago talk about it. We know our side is going to be raked over the coals. Of course it’s not fair but honestly, we haven’t been paying close attention for a while now. We’ve let the left control the media, the educational system and a good portion of the courts. We’re starting to catch on with the media but we still don’t have that kind of clout. It’s going to be much harder to make headway with education. The unions control the curriculum and there’s even less of a chance in colleges because liberals own the vetting process. It will take decades to undo what they’ve quietly done (for decades) to the courts. It’s not fair but life never is.
Cindie
Getting to this thread late but that was my first reaction as well...and this considering it’s Political does generally give a “caution” light before reading.
Oh yea!....I do believe no matter where any have their favored candidate.. all will be interested to see how Newt fights the battles ahead others have already traveled....and yes he most assuredly will take some punches in this. May the victor win in the end!
Your premise is flawed on so many levels, but realize that to give Freddie Mac suggestions required hours and hours of studying the situation. That’s why Newt gave the advice he gave, and it didn’t meet with what the scammers at Freddie wanted to hear so they ignored his advice. You are trying to make this sound like a check was written and no real work was done.
Maybe you want to keep up with the story. Newt said he was hired "for his advice as a historian". This, of course, makes no sense. Then Newt, at the debate, claimed that he told Freddy "This is a bubble, this is insane, this is impossible". Freddy came back and said this is not what Gingrich was hired for and that Gingrich never warned them about a "bubble". Now today, when Gingrich was asked if he warned Freddy about a "bubble" he stated that he couldn't remember.
I know a check, a very large check, was written and cashed by Newt. It's also obvious it was to protect Freddy's interests. It wasn't for a history lesson. I don't claim Newt engaged in any illegal lobbying, only that he was used by Freddy because of his political connections, not because of his knowledge of history.
Well, if you want to be completely accurate, the check was made out to a consulting company Newt opened and was cahsed by that firm, IIRC. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it.
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.