Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt

Put that way, I tend to agree with your general observation.

However, I still come down on Gingrich as having the potential to make the more inexplicable comments. I just don’t see any explanation for a lot of what he’s done/said — which is why I don’t trust him.

Romney, he’s got a lot to learn.

In the end, when a candidate says stupid stuff, it can’t be only he and himself who are doing the explaining and defending. His supporters must chime in with “what he meant to say” or explain why it should be shrugged off.

So my general point was simply that this is necessary for all the candidates, and claiming one guy won’t need that type of support is not founded in political reality.


80 posted on 02/03/2012 9:09:26 AM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: fightinJAG
-- However, I still come down on Gingrich as having the potential to make the more inexplicable comments. I just don't see any explanation for a lot of what he's done/said -- which is why I don't trust him. --

Inexplicable, or taking a position that you don't find justifiable? I think he's offered, "can't justify it myself, except to say it was a mistake" for sharing the AGW seat with Pelosi. I haven't checked into whether or if he tried to justify the Dede endorsement (beyond "she's the most electable and is better than the DEM alternative" rationale used to justify a vote for Romney); nor have I poked into his remarks about Ryan's budget plan.

-- In the end, when a candidate says stupid stuff, it can't be only he and himself who are doing the explaining and defending. His supporters must chime in with "what he meant to say" or explain why it should be shrugged off. --

Why is that the case? I'd rather hear the explanation from "the man himself," rather than have others put words in his mouth, so the candidate can later (correctly) claim he never took the position or rationale his supporters assigned. That goes for all of the candidates.

84 posted on 02/03/2012 10:01:59 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: fightinJAG; Cboldt
However, I still come down on Gingrich as having the potential to make the more inexplicable comments. I just don’t see any explanation for a lot of what he’s done/said — which is why I don’t trust him.

A romneybot saying that about Gingrich? Romney is the most radical liberal, the only pathological liar, the most inexplicable candidate, that the left wing of the GOP has ever pushed at us.

The man literally believes that he himself is to become as God, he thinks that he and his father marched with Martin Luther King, he taught that blacks were inferior until the movie "Animal House" came out, what stopped him was, in his mind, that God changed his mind in 1978, and told Bishop Romney's Prophet, that he had reversed himself, who then passed the word on to Bishop Romney.

It is impossible for Romney to make sense for very long, off script.

Here is a Romney meltdown, skip to about 4:30 for the action to start.

86 posted on 02/03/2012 11:37:49 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson