Posted on 11/20/2011 4:52:34 PM PST by fightinJAG
What Mr. Gingrich understands better than any is that now it is his turn to be the GOP duck in the mainstream media shooting gallery. If anything, the compromised and unethical members of the Fourth Estate will go after him harder than they did Bachmann, Perry or Cain.
Why? Because he has dared to call them out for their liberal bias and simplistic and inane questions during the debates.
Not only is Gingrich right to take on the mainstream media but many conservatives are taking note of the tactic and are rallying to his cause. As well they should.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Yes. RINOs and the GOP-E will never be purged out of the system until we stop our "nose-holding" and voting for "lesser evils." The party poo-bahs always count on that when it comes to staying in power.
Thank you. I’d rather hear it from him and not the media’s spin or a freeper on what he said.
Well, I don’t know what he advised them, and it could be that he betrayed his conservative beginnings, but I’m not ready to proclaim that I automatically know the nature of his work like a lot of others have. In fact, I have seen it called a scandal by persons with no clue of what he actually did. Hilarious.
Do you KNOW otherwise?
What does "reach out to the Democrats" mean to Newt?
Mainly, it seems to mean pandering to them on their pet issues so as to look like a really swell bipartisan guy.
Or, if he's not pandering to Democrats, isn't the only alternate explanation that Newt actually agrees with them on several points?
Was Newt pandering to Democrats when he decided to help bring awareness to the "problem" of AGW -- or did he actually believe AGW was a problem and that the Democrats had the solution?
Was Newt pandering to Democrats when he decided to advocate for Obama's educations policies by going on an Education Tour with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan -- or did he actually believe that Obama's education policies were solutions American needed to adopt?
Those are just two of the more colorful examples. There's also immigration, the individual mandate and so on.
All we can do to try to understand what NEWT (not anyone else, including Ronald Reagan, you or me) means when he says "reach out to the Democrats" is look at how he has conducted himself and how and at what points he was agreed with the Democrat agenda.
This is a completely separate issue from the political compromises that must be made to legislate and govern.
Moreover, that last point brings up one of the central ironies of Newt's support right now: that those cheering Attact Newt the loudest are among those who expect that means Newt won't "compromise" with the Democrats at all.
“Moreover, why in Hell’s Bells would Freddie Mac hire Gingrich as a consultant in the first place?”
Why in hell’s bells would Freddie hire Frank Luntz & the host of other conservatives they did? Does Luntz have “cronies” in congress he could influence?
Fannie & Freddie didn’t become inherently bad until Clinton, Frank, Dodd & co. started working their dastardly deeds.
Of course it is not my intention to poison our own. In fact, I constantly argue against the short-sightedness that has GOP voters thinking if they support one guy they MUST KILL THE OTHERS.
We need a strong bench (so far as we can get it) and should keep every acceptable candidate viable for as long as possible. You never know when you’re frontrunner is going to stumble. It’s good to have someone breathing down the frontrunner’s neck for a while, too.
And of course I do my best to filter out specious claims and evaluate only those based actually on the facts of the candidate’s record — and there are a LOT of FACTS out there about Newt Gingrich.
I’m sure you do the same.
you’re = your
UGH.
If you're thinking of Greg Jarrett's vicious hit piece "interview" with Susan Estrich, what a joke! I wonder if the former MSNBC talking head is related to Valerie Jarrett! I'd love to see him make the same allegations face-to-face with Newt.
Cain is the only candidate left that can beat Obama.
He’ll demolish the Plantation (Democrap party)
Should have seen and heard some in the media this weekend...They were working doubly hard to move those poll numbers higher up for Mitt. But the Perry supporters should not be concerned...Perry is their default candidate if Mitt is unable to make a break through.
What?
Luntz is not a conservative or at least not known as one. And, no, Luntz does not have cronies in Congress so far as I know, nor does he have any type of political or policy influence whatsoever.
He’s a pollster.
And he’s certainly no Newt Gingrich.
If you hire a highly connected former and probably future politician as a consultant, why? Surely not anywhere near the reasons for hiring a pollster and focus group guy.
The false attacks from NRA employees would have been nothing, but for the Mediot’s blowing them out of proportion, and giving voice to obviously conflicting versions without challenge.
When you’ve talked to Newt personally & can tell us exactly what he meant, rather than your conjecture, let me know.
As stated before, Newt is usually very out front w/ what he’s doing. There’s no cloud of darkness. When he’s dealt w/ AGW, it was out in the open, not behind the scenes. He was wrong then, but we knew where he stood & he didn’t deviate for political expediency, he wasn’t even in office.
Therefore, if Newt says he will do something now, you can probably take it to the bank regardless of how you feel about his PAST positions. Really, isn’t that all that matters, what he will do NOW. Does he have a history of saying he will do one thing, & then doing the opposite? NO!
For better or worse, & sometimes it has been for the worse, he sticks to his guns. There’s no reason to believe he will deviate from that history.
Luntz is considered a conservative pollster. You didn’t know that?
>> “and it could be that he betrayed his conservative beginnings” <<
.
Noot never had any “conservative beginnings,” he went with Carter’s agenda solidly from his beginning.
I agree with you.
I don’t call it a scandal. I call it a legitimate question.
I mean: here you have an agency and its attendant congressional pals that are highly hostile to conservativism, yet they hire a conservative politician as a high-priced consultant.
Why and on what subjects?
Why did Freddie Mac hire Newt Gingrich and what was Freddie Mac hoping to accomplish through his consultancy? What problems did they want him to address and opine on? What tasks did they want him to do? Who did they want him to meet with? What did he propose to them and was it on operations, congressional relations or what? And so on.
I find it very curious and, if one is so inclined, relevant on the issue of what Gingrich’s conservative instincts actually are.
I stated two concrete examples, which you have ignored.
What is your "conjecture" based on those examples?
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.