Posted on 01/19/2012 6:45:21 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
It’s about damn time a repub candidate understand that the msm will never be fair and treat them as dimrat activists.
When a repub runs for president he has multiple opponants with the press being the most vocal.
When a dimrat runs, he has one opponant, the repub.
Go Newt. Maybe time to renew an old slogan, Give em hell Newt!
I read on hillbuzz that Marianne was Newt’s lover when he was married to his first wife. How does she now try to portray herself as some paragon of virtue?
That's the bottom line. McCain ran a campaign where he refused to say anything mean about Obama, and lost heavily. We need a candidate who is not afraid to fight, and is willing to rip the opponent's throat out.
Another defining moment for Gingrich was when he told a gay activist that if gay marriage is the only thing he cared about, that he should vote for Obama, but if he cared about the economy and national security, then vote for Newt.
You didn't f with John Gotti and you don't f with Newt.
Zoned out liberal reporters (and reporterettes) who who have gotten spoiled, who like to let it (their liberalism) all hang out.....Be careful doing this around Grandpa Newt
someone has to be the institutional memory: Newt had to resign over his affair with Callista. Republicans demanded that. memba?
I must admit, that was one big can of ass-whupp Newt opened on that punk........Beautiful!
My memory of that time was, that the Republicans were timid, and terrified of the Clinton administration’s “politics of personal destruction”.
Drag some mud through the trailer park, and the GOP weenies ran for the exits. And became what are now, the RINO establishment.
Gingrich was the first major target of media Saul Alinsky tactics, in coordination with democrats.
That was when the GOP needed to push back forcefully. The GOP did not push back forcefully. The GOP collapsed in cowardice, and left Speaker Gingrich to the wolves.
20 years later now, Gingrich finally in yesterday’s debate, took it back to the media in spectacular fashion:
(same link from upthread) - the entire debate (watching right now) in which Gingrich lets loose first question the accumulated frustration of 20 years watching the media destroy America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-fU-knxT0U
This was a debate of presidential candidates. The first question should be something that is relevant to everybody inside and outside the debate room, e.g., the economy, national defense, and so on. Not what an ex-wife said about her marriage.
Sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Shouldn't ALL the questions be relevant to the candidates and their personal policy issues rather than focusing on one's ex-wife?
It was clearly apparent that the audience didn't agree with your first statement either......
Maybe the same would go for you about common sense. Newt is addressing his past by placing himself in the center of the target zone, but that is just not quite good enough for you. With the problems we are facing in this country, we need a person to LEAD us not by what is accused by some person who has elevated her position in life now as a tramp, but by how he can handle adversity and tough moments.
If we are to break the strangle hold the media has on the dissemination of information, it is not by the likes of Santorum and especially Mitt that it will be effected. Once that one hurdle is cleared, then we have a snowball's chance in hell of getting out of our current state. The others will just exacerbate it while nibbling at the edges.
He CANNOT, by definition. If it were otherwise, all the candidates, from the center (conservatives, constitutionalists, small government types) to the left (progressives, liberals, marxists, communists, obamunists) [ed note: That IS the extent of the political spectrum], would study, take lessons, hypnosis, or whatever it takes, to acquire the skill. Mitt would have to give up his contorted booby trap of "views" that, in his mind, fit together, such that in his world, it makes perfect sense to, as governor create Romneycare, and then as president, promise to eliminate zer0care.
News flash!!! King (Queen) has just checked into the local hospital for emergency hemorrhoid surgery.
When a dimrat runs...
CNN leads off with the National anthem for a repub debate; would they ever do so for a dim debate?
I like that little CNN dig at the start, with a positive note for the New England Patriots winning. Just trying to tip the scale in every way they can, by rooting for a football team in one of the candidates territory.
Was Paul REALLY an OB/GYN for a 30 year "period"? [yes, he said that]
To those who can’t get youtube, here is another link:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/newt-gingrich-attacks-john-king-asking-abo
The transcript doesn’t do it justice, but here is the exchange:
KING: Your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview to The Washington Post and this story has now gone viral in the Internet. In it, she says that you came to her in 1999 at a time when you were having an affair, she says you asked her sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to respond to that?
GINGRICH: No, but I will. I think the destructive, vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.
KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?
GINGRICH: Let me finish.
KING: Please.
GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.
My two daughters, my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am, frankly, astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.
KING: As you noted Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network As you also know, it is the subject of conversation on the campaign. I get your point, I take your point...
GINGRICH: John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it.
“He seems to do very well with women....GO NEWT”
Really? How many women do you know who were supportive when they found out their husband was cheating? And wanted them to allow it within their marriage? This logic (?) is beyond understanding. Whether or not Newt has repented, this entire discussion will bring back flashbacks of anger, not support. Pretending otherwise is foolish.
It’s sad because out of this whole country, Newt’s the best we’ve got?......who has a chance to send obammy back to Chicago.........
But if Newt can win the presidency, I’m behind him.......we have to take this country back from the left.
That was great.
I think most of us are tired of conservative politicians seeking the approval of a group that is constantly kicking them in the nuts.
Time to kick back.
Here’s how every question should be answered:
“I’m glad you asked that question - let me preface my answer with the understanding that the media, including yourself, the questioner, has an agenda to destroy any viable opposition to democRats, and has no intention whatsoever to vet any democRat candidate, and, to the contrary, will do whatever they can to cover up for them...
now, to answer your question...”
PS. . . Just for a moment, take women out of the equation here. . .do not forget the adult male offspring who have been affected by infidelity in their parents marriage. It’s not just women who will be opposed to a candidate on that emotional level. The kids will not pull the lever for a cheater. Too close to home. .
“Really? How many women do you know who were supportive when they found out their husband was cheating? And wanted them to allow it within their marriage? This logic (?) is beyond understanding. Whether or not Newt has repented, this entire discussion will bring back flashbacks of anger, not support. Pretending otherwise is foolish.”
The average womwen voters are smarter and better educated than memebers of the press and they recognize and understand a “smear” campaign when they see one. The foolish ones are the ones that allow the press to set the terms of the debate, and, allow themselves to be lead around like sheep being lead to slaughter.
The real pretenders are those who take gossip and run with it as if it is “NEWS”. And, even worse, they are gullible and stupid enough to believe it to be objective and factual. So goes our press...sadly..!
The victims of these pretenders are those who listen to and swallow this nonsense as real news. Sadly these are usually most illeterate and uninformed in our society. And, what’s even scarier, is they can and do vote.
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.