[maine-iac7]

You post: “For those who don’t know, Republicans strongly supported action against Gingrich by the House Ethics Committee.”

And for “those of you who don’t know” - New was exonerated of these trumped up charges - even the one he THOUGHT he may have violated.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html

Why are you posting this hit piece without including the results?

Is is total dishonestly or just ignorance. On second thought, you had to dig for this - and in so doing, the facts that he was cleared had to have popped up.

Newt was throwing monkey wrenches in the Socialists forward march - he set them back years. of course, this probe took year and effectively put Newt out of Washington. Worked once, huh? Going for a second time?

and many republicans suffered with ‘nose out of joint’ syndrome, plus he was a thorn in the side of the Establishment Republicans.

Hmmm - are you getting paid for shilling for someone?

[fightinJAG]

You mean like some republicans today can;t stand him - and for the same reasons? He's a real danger to their power.

Since you believe this apparently, how do you then think that Gingrich will be able to accomplish any of his agenda?

I don't find Gingrich a danger to establishment Republicans at all. He IS the ultimate establishment Republican, except that he is undisciplined and egomaniacal. Therefore, he clashes with some in his own party -- not necessarily over policy views -- but because of his erratic political behavior.

IOW, if, as you believe, Gingrich is a threat to Republicans in power, it's not because he's such a great conservative and they're not. It's because, as he did as Speaker, he's likely to govern in such a way that he loses the support of conservatives.

[fightinJAG]

And for “those of you who don’t know” - New was exonerated of these trumped up charges

Everyone knows this and those who don't are not paying attention.

It's not the poster's responsibility to provide extensive rebuttal to every article, especially of facts well-known to the forum. If a person on the thread wants to restate known facts or add context, by all means, that's what the thread is for.

I often add additional facts or rebuttal to a thread. So I instead (laughably) try to call down the poster for not posting those facts or rebuttal in the first place?

Of course, it's possible to go through every post on a thread and claim it is incomplete or unfair because it didn't include this, that or the other.

Do you really think freepers are such doofuses that they need the poster to explain to them the full factual context of every article or that they simply accept the conclusions of every article that is posted? I don't.