Posted on 01/29/2012 2:56:54 PM PST by CedarDave
As I stated above I don't quite know what to make of Mark's remarks about Drudge. Maybe just defending a good friend or, as others have hinted, damning using faint praise. The roar of conservatives here and on other sites was loud Thursday as it was the culmination of several days of increasing Newt bashing on Drudge. Mark didn't have to say what he said; Drudge readers were already abandoning it in droves, shocked at what had been a standout site for dispersing information about libs and statists and what they were planning. FR got some stories from Drudge and Drudge got tips from FR.
I doubt Mark thought about Caesar and Marc Anthony when he wrote the lines - more likely just concerned about a friend. But by speaking out as he did he put himself in the line of fire from conservatives and tarnished his own image. Mark will recover; I'm not worried about that -- his credentials are solid and he has defended Newt because like Newt, Mark was in the center of the Reagan revolution, knows the facts and can rebut the charges of Romney's supporters. As for Drudge, it will take some time for conservatives to forget and him to repair his deviation to self destruction.
The only good thing I see with Romney as a candidate is that true Christians will now see, the LDS corp is a blasphemous den of vipers, and their Jesus is not the Jesus who went to Mt. Calvary to die for our sins. Even though they try to say he is, while stripping him of his divinity I might.
Levin has been the most even-handed in all of this, so when he raises a flag about Romney, I am interested in his reasoning
I deleted Drudge from my bookmarks. I will not be giving him anymore hits.
Jim, maybe you can make an announcement to Freeperland. Maybe we can have hourly "Hot topics" announcements from Drudge. We can list direct links to what is trending there. Then, we wouldn't be tempted to go to Drudge, knowing there is a single post we can review for hot topics or breaking news 1st seen on Drudge. Thanks.
“Why Mark so forcefully chose to come to Drudge’s defense is unknown.”
I think they are personal friends.
Romney is a charlatan in the mold of Obama.
We -- the voting public --are playing by the rules and quietly expecting that our candidates are doing the same. And Mitt Romney is playing us for fools.
I offer in evidence Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and Matt Drudge.
First, Michael Savage. I have been a frequent listener due to the fact that he's on drive time in my market. He's entertaining sometimes, but I don't follow his politics. But I digress.
For a solid year Michael Savage had shown nothing but disdain for Romney, occasionally mentioning the dinner he had with Romney and going on a sociable tangent (social for Savage) calling Romney a "nice man," but someone Savage could not support. The hook.
Then what happens?
Newt Gingrich surges in Iowa by December 4, 2011. December 12, 2011 Michael Savage announces on his radio show that he will personally pay Newt Gingrich $1 million dollars to leave the race.
Drudge headlines the Savage story. (When was the last time you saw a Michael Savage rant headline Drudge? Yeah. I didn't think so.)
Romney smears Gingrich in Iowa with wall-to-wall negative campaign adds. Does the "conservative media" take Romney to task? Nope. Romney torpedoes Gingrich's lead in Iowa.
But Gingrich comes back with a spectacular win in South Carolina. Some claim the Romney camp was caught flat-footed, expecting that they had so thoroughly damaged Gingrich in the early running he would no longer be a serious contender. That conveniently-timed Marianne Gingrich interview could have simply come from sloppy egoists at ABC. But there was that siren at Drudge. The only thing that saved Gingrich was Gingrich himself.
That was January 21, 2011.
January 23, 2011. Ann Coulter makes an ass out of herself on the O'Reilly Factor. She DEFENDS John King and ATTACKS Newt Gingrich! Gee Ann. I guess we all have the right to be an ass sometimes, but why?
Comes now Florida. Gingrich, coming off a spectacular win in South Carolina is suddenly back in contention in the state where Romney planned to put him, finally, in the dust.
And we all know what happened with Matt Drudge. He ran opinion as if it were news. He ran stories that were lies. And he ran with them very quickly.
It is stunning, really, to see this ethical collapse of people who profit from us by calling themselves the "conservative" media. If Savage's big mouth and ego are any indication, the Romney campaign has been working them for a least a year.
Ever notice how Romney just doesn't speak for himself? That should tell you something, Michael, Ann, Matt.
The big three, Rush, Sean and Mark are not in this for the money. Money is good, but no matter how you hear what Rush says, he is fighting for the heart and soul of this country. Mark Levin is a good, kind decent man, and your suggestion that he looks at this as a “game” shows your mental acumen. I’ve seen your impotent ramblings on this forum before. What exactly, are YOU doing to save this country?
And I would be LESS disgusted - but still disgusted - with Romney if at least he were consistent in his attacks. Does anyone believe that Romney would go after Obama anywhere near as viciously as he has attacked Gingrich, both politically and personally? Would there be Romney ads attacking Obama’s admitted cocaine use? Or his radical ties? Or his lies to the electorate?
Of course not. Romney has, and will, run as fast as the can to the microphones to declare that there is nothing to any challenges to Obama’s eligibility for office as well. It's more likely that Romney would actually endorse Obama during the general election, whether or not Romney is the nominee, than for Romney to attack Obama as he has Gingrich. (Yes, endorse. After all, didn't McCain say before the election that we had “nothing to fear” from an Obama presidency?) And if any PAC attacked Obama in such a way, Romney would denounce the PAC as well.
The message is clear: the Republican establishment disdains the conservatives in its own party more than it opposes Obama’s policies. Gingrich is not perfect, but look at how low Obama has set the bar.
How can we NOT be “hard” on Drudge?
I saw it myself. A DOZEN hit-pieces on Newt at the SAME TIME. Not a negative word about Willard, week after week.
Maybe Levin should open his eyes take a look at the behavior of someone he calls a “friend.”
Don’t forget Glenn “I hate the establishment” Beck, who was positively giddy after the last debate. He is totally in the tank for Romney, even though he has tried to convince his listeners that he was for Bachmann, then Santorum. Riiiight.
No one who hates the establishment and big GOP players, as much as Beck has claimed he does, whoops it up over Mitt. Please. How stupid does he think we are? What a fraud!
“I think you’re so busy thinking about what you’re voting against — Obama — that you fail to consider what you’re voting FOR. The fact that it’s depraved evil in the case of Romney is enough, but in case one needs more reason to reject him with complete justification, the fact that Romney would FRUSTRATE and HARM limited government conservatism within the party more than Obama, should make it crystal clear that any vote for Romney would be a BAD choice in every way.”
I see your point, and there is merit in that reasoning. I have also considered that, since actually having Obama in office would galvanize our party even more, and perhaps accelerate us to our ultimate goal, should it still be attainable, rather than subjecting us to the slow bleed from our own candidate that takes us ever farther away. You can now take your face from your palm. :-)
This reminds me of the “conservatives” in Canada who insisted that we hold our collective noses and vote for Stephen Harper for Prime Minister, even though he had taken liberal positions on abortion, stimulus spending, Quebec nationalism and a host of other issues. Harper was victorious, but what have we gained? There is very little to distinguish his reign from that of the previous 13 years of Liberal government. But the cost has been a complete watering down of what it means to be a Conservative in Canada. Conservative in Canada now means pro-abortion, pro-government health care monopoly, silence on homosexual marriage, status quo on high taxes, Keynesian stimulus spending. Harper is considered, by the media, to be an “extreme right wing” politician. Just imagine what kind of leader will succeed him, when the Conservative Party decides it needs someone “more centrist” as its future leader.
in the same way, the support for Romney by formerly conservative bastions such as National Review, has significantly lowered the threshold of what it means to be an acceptable “conservative” Presidential candidate. From this point forward, any candidate to the right of Romney will be considered a right-wing nut.
GODSPEED NEWT GINGRICH. "
AMEN and AMEN!!
Coulter's just in lust with Mitt. Maybe Drudge is too.
VERY WELL SAID. If, God forbid, Romney got the White House, the Republican party would be as much the party of government oppression as the Democrat party, but the Republican party would be MUCH MORE HATED because so many people would feel betrayed by the GOP because they wanted the GOP to be an antidote to Democrats. And then, the Democrat that would come after him would make Obama look like John Birch -- the same way Obama made Clinton look palatable, and the same way Jerry Brown (after Schwarzenegger, here in California) made Gray Davis look palatable.
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.