[fightinJAG]

Yesterday, I read in the WSJ editorial that they were prepared to spend the next months explaining what Romney “really meant” in his stupid utterances (and they clearly expect this to be a pattern) and that he was better than what he said. They’re prepared to run interference for him the way the other media ran interference for the idiot Joe Biden.

Do you honestly think that this same "interference" would not need to be run on Gingrich's behalf if he became the nominee?

Wowzer.

No matter who we nominate, we are going to have to be out there defending him on the basis of "what he meant to say." That's just the way it is.

[Cboldt]

-- Do you honestly think that this same "interference" would not need to be run on Gingrich's behalf if he became the nominee? --

Do you honestly think Gingrich is as vapid and gaffe bound as Biden is? Given fair audience by the press (which won't happen), Gingrich is more likely to provide rational explanation than Romney is.

[livius]

No, Gingrich actually says what he means and is perfectly intelligible.

Romney is either saying what he means and nobody wants to believe it, or he is so poorly spoken that he never manages to say what he means and thus needs “interpretation.” This has been a constant since the beginning.