Posted on 01/29/2012 10:23:25 AM PST by Sioux-san
It would be perverse to suggest the recent Matt Drudge-delivered blitzkrieg against Newt Gingrich was anything but a massive, coordinated propaganda campaign to incinerate his candidacy to cinders and ash. Of course, it would also be unfair to insinuate Newt is anything but the father of many of his own current struggles. But, be that as it may, it is hard to see how such a scorched earth policy against a lively and talented Republican with vast leadership experience helps the GOP or harms Obama.
Such propaganda campaigns are not unknown in politics, but are rare in healthy democracies. That such a firebombing maneuver is being waged within the GOP against a viable member in order to transparently benefit Mitt Romney—the most progressive candidate—cannot possibly bode well for the future state of the party or of our union as a whole.
Jacques Ellul wrote one of the great modern works on Propaganda, tapping deeply into the psyche of the masters of political mischaracterization and mass manipulation. He observed one added aspect to the traditional dark arts of the propagandist – making the goal of propaganda the moving adherents towards a mystical ideology and false religion. According to Ellul, the purpose of propaganda is to exhaust man’s freedom, and so to make him directable in all his words, thoughts and deeds. The subject of modern propaganda is the topic of this essay.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Really now. The House impeached Clinton. It was Spector a play actor Republican that saved Clinton when he uttered the words 'Scottish law'. The Senate refused to hold a 'trial' and show the American public the goods on Clinton. Newt's personal life had nothing to do with the Senate's unwillingness to perform its Constitutional duty.
And from the 'gossip' I have been reading and news stories since it does not sound like Newt was the only one in the House with personal problems. WHY did Paxton leave?
That’s pretty lame though. Clinton didn’t get impeached (and almost convicted) over sex, even loopy perverted sex. He got impeached about telling lies under oath about it. Newt wasn’t ever in such a circumstance.
What saved Clinton was the constitutional provision that you need two thirds of the Senate to vote for conviction in order to convict. He was never close to that. Spectre’s disingenuous vote meant Clinton didn’t get a majority for conviction, but the difference between not getting a 50% majority for conviction and not getting a 2/3rds majority is moot.
Spectre converted to Republican to run for office because it made it easier, and converted to Democrat later. I didn’t care for him, but Pennsylvania voters elected him many times.
I find with amusement that this season, a purported Catholic is working on his third wife, and the purported Mormon has only 1.
Not much of a Mormon with only 1 wife.
I find many people in DC and out have affairs, even some of my close friends.
That doesn’t mean I have to vote for them.
It really is hard to convict someone if the 'Senate' court refused to present the evidence, notwithstanding the Constitutional provisions. Why is Newt held to a higher standard than disingenuous play actor Spectre? The visceral hate for this guy is rather curious because it sure is not only about adultery.
He got the third wife — THEN joined the Catholic Church, which although being an extreme stickler about marriages, apparently didn’t say he had to walk out on her as a condition of being there.
The 'subject' is not about requiring you to vote for anyone. It is the misrepresentation about the facts that occurred. Double standards sure do keep appearing when it comes to Newt.
I don’t hate Newt. In fact, I rather like him. I don’t see him as presidential, I find the notion that he is an outsider as laughable.
I see Romney as having an edge based on having been a governor. Hey, is the governor’s job of Georgia open? Perhaps there is time for Newt to buff up his management resume?
My understanding is that Newt resigned, based on his affair being revealed during the impeachment of Clinton. I recall thinking that Newt did the right thing, and I hoped that Clinton would follow his example.
I recall that another Speaker resigned for the same reason soon after.
Newt’s edge is that he seems, based on evaluation of what he’s done, to be the most daring challenger to Barack Obama. That’s what it is going to boil down to. Hard knuckles will be necessary. Other candidates might theoretically be able to put a better finesse on the presidency once there. But one has to get there, first.
I think the higher standard is because of the higher office. Newt is running for President. Spectre is dead.
Why are you whipping a dead dog?
He didn’t — because sex was never the issue. It was telling lies about sex, under oath.
You try to revive that pack of dogs and it’ll get whipped back. You’re being rather disingenuous, pal.
You rather like him.... Geeze, What part of the Romney campaign of deceit do you play.
What deceit? Romney has management experience. Newt has demonstrated he has trouble balancing his checkbook.
Not to mention zipper problems.
IF Romney wins the nomination the liberals are going to clean his 1% bain clock. Not even Romney is able to explain why his business created jobs. He claims his business was just like Obama bailing out the auto industry.
Why do you think the liberal set in motion 'occupy wall street'? Fiscal conservatives do not want to have the discussion either, they bashed Newt over the head before he could help Romney defend himself. You think Newt's lack of management experience haunts him more than Romney appealing in this economy to those independents?
Anybody, like Mitt Romney, who has such power and money behind them, will not be a candidate of conscience...but rather, that conscience, will be beholden to others. That's a very dangerous person to vote for because their words are idle and without meaning. Barack Obama may harbor principles that are entirely contrary to mine, but at least he has principles. Mitt Romney has none. He always was, and always will be, the quintessential political chameleon.
Who is behind Newt?
I understand that a couple of billionaires bought him a few years ago.
By contrast, Romney inherited a lot of money, and gave it away.
Open your eyes my friend and watch the campaigns. If you can’t see what’s going, then there’s nothing I can say that will help you.
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.