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 ...
If Noot says he’ll do something, you can “take it to the bank” that he’ll do the opposite. That’s his record.
Luntz has worked mostly for Democrat candidates.
Wow, that is an awful lot of conjecture on the future conduct of Newt Gingrich.
I have never said he absolutely will not “stick to his guns.”
But I’d never, like you, put my neck out and say he absolutely will, either.
I am discussing risk management. You seem to be making this a zero sum game.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this. Time will certainly tell.
>> “Why is that important to you?” <<
Because that is how you win elections. And after Cain is president, there will no longer be any significant black contingent for them. The first President descended from slaves.
>> “We have two enemies - Mitt and Barry.” <<
.
And the worst: Noot.
They were positive towards Perry?
I wouldn’t call the former employee and lawyer holding a news conference hardly nothing. Like I said it died as quickly as it started. Now what are these bloody attacks from the media against Cain you stated?
I have cited in the past, examples that would tend to be the opposite of your posted examples. Conjecture, in this case, means you ignore anything that is opposite to your beliefs without having actually talked to the man himself.
When it comes to Newt, I don’t conjecture, because really I don’t know for sure. I have beliefs & feel the odds are in my favor. The same is true w/ any of the candidates.
You seem to focus simply on what you perceive to be the negatives. Do you spend much time considering the positives for Newt? Do you just focus on the negatives of your candidate?
For me personally, I have looked at both for Newt, as I have w/ all the candidates. I was on the Cain train for quite some time. I kept the process of looking at both the positives & negatives going. It’s really the only way to come up w/ some semblance of a good decision IMHO.
Really, it’s a crap shoot w/ any of these guys. It comes down to going for the best odds. Given Newt’s openness, I tend to believe the odds are in my favor, & better than any other candidate. But that’s my opinion, not conjecture. :)
Good grief, no. And I never said that.
Obama will not have even close to the voter intensity/ turnout he had in 2008. This is precisely what the Dems can't afford to have a GOP nominee that is even the least bit kinda sorta potentially acceptable to their voters.
Just a theory to think about:
Although the Dems liked the idea of Romney at first, since then he's been successfully painted as Obama-lite. There may be some fear that, especially among the Dem elites (punditry, talking heads in the media, Wall Street/CEO types) that Romney would be a big cross-over draw. Also for your rank-n-file Democrat who is really mad at Obama, a vote for Romney (Obama-lite) could be an acceptable alternative.
Yes, OTOH, Romney could be good for Dems in that he might depress GOP turnout and lead to a third party, which likely would lead to Obama's re-election.
But, still, Dems might see it as a worse risk that he peels off Dem votes in a year where Dem turnout is going to be low anyway.
Cain, they don't want him because he might peel of votes from the black community. And that could present a long-term as well as short-term problem for the Dems. And, plus, it would just be a racially awkward campaign for the Dem establishment vis-a-viz their black voting bloc.
Then there's Newt. For many Dems, having Newt as the GOP nominee would provoke the same reaction as the GOP base would have if 15 years from now the Dems nominated Nancy Pelosi. He was absolutely hated by Dems back in the '90's.
So of the present top-tier, Newt is the guy who poses the least threat to Obama in terms of peeling off voters. And this may be all the Dems have: to try to win by keeping their voters from peeling off even a little.
I am not suggesting we choose our candidate based on who the Dems do or do not (seem to) want. But you have to think about your opponent's reasoning in order to understand the challenges ahead.
I like him and I agree that he is the anti-Obama, A real American black man that grew up poor and made a successful life for himself and his family. He is a repudiation of all of the democrats lies about minorities, racism, social justice, and all of that BS. He takes the race card and shoves it down their throats.
I also like that he is not a "career politician". I believe he would be a breath of fresh air in Washington. Instead of managing by political surveys and polls we could manage by the constitution, business and economic fundamentals and other old fashioned stuff like that.
Timber Rattler
Since Nov 2, 2011
Troll!
Yes, I look at the positives. That is why I have repeated said I will vote for Newt if he becomes the nominee. And I haven’t decided about the primaries yet.
But it’s the negatives that will cause the problems. They are the points that must be evaluated.
When asked do you think this situation is pandering or does Newt actually believe this stuff, it completely ignores the question to say, basically, “I think there is more good stuff about Newt than bad.”
That may very well be. But it doesn’t answer the question: what’s your opinion on why Newt did “x” — was he panderng to the Democrats or did he actually agree with them or what?
Talking to Noot is a waste of time; we have to go by his record, and reject him completely.
Timber Rattler is one of our best.
Posting facts about the Great Pretender is for our good.
Nope.
Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion based on incomplete information.
To the extent you are claiming that we do not have sufficent information to make an estimate of what Newt means by "reaching out to Democrats" until we "personally talk with him," your opinion is no less conjecture than mine.
And "talking to the man" doesn't always provide a sound basis for proof, either! I say "deeds, not words" when it comes to this subject.
You seem obsessed with making everything personal.
Newt is the frontrunner now. That means that Newt is the main topic of discussion. That means that if one wants to participate in the discussion of the day, it is likely to be about Newt.
I bet tomorrow Rush Limbaugh, by your reasoning, will be "obsessed with Newt." So will Hannity and all those other obsessors of the news of the day.
I can't imagine why it matters to you what I post about, or how your assumptions about my motives have anything to do with the facts of any candidate's record.
Why not engage the facts in the article or the substantive debate or move on?
You keep avoiding the main point I’m making. Newt doesn’t have a history of saying one thing & doing another. That, makes all else irrelevant. What he will do NOW is the only thing that is relevant.
I love what he says he will do now, & to me, what he says he will do, given his historical evidence for getting those things done, puts him above the others who are without the evidence of getting THESE things done.
Again, I believe the odds are better w/ Newt. Who do you believe has better odds, given no one is a SURE bet?
Are you serious? You actually think that will stomp out evil? If only it were that easy - Sharpton/Jesse will retire and the Black Panthers go into hiding and those on the spoon of care will suddenly want a better way. You are dreaming - they will demand and demand from him and be much louder than we heard them before. Remember, it’s been reported from private citizens and not the media that his church is a liberal all black church.
So what I gather from your posts - Newt is an enemy because he’s running close to Cain in some polls. That’s one reason I’m thankful I have no candidate I’m supporting now - it certainly makes me not bias except when it comes to Mitt and Huntsman.
Sarah raised the bar where it should be and no one can or has reached it. I’ve yet to see and I know I won’t - the media attack anyone like they did her and her family. Any other candidate is fine with them because she was the real deal. But that won’t stop doing what they are paid to do - they will go after the stronger candidate on our side. And it appears it’s Newt to them.
Now I’d like to hear about those bloody media attacks on Cain you speak of. You haven’t addressed it even though I asked - I want to know if I am missing something or if it’s dramatics on your part and not reality.
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.
