I obviously didn’t watch the actual interview, so I can’t say what Gingrich was inflecting. I do of course see the difference in quotes, but don’t see why you think they are important. The Washington Times seems to have removed a verbal tick; CNN trasncript doesn’t. But I don’t see how Gingrich stumbling on his words itself changes the meaning.
In fact, without hearing the actual interview, I would have preferred to use the CNN transcript over the Washington Times one to make my point, because it sounds MORE snarky when it looks like gingrich stopped to go back and insert “cleverly”.
The Washington Times isn’t one of the papers were generally have to worry about. And I presumed that they had heard the interview, and the reporter was conveying his opinion of how Gingrich said what he said.
Clearly, you took a different interpretation of what he said, and I can’t judge between them, as I didn’t hear it myself.
But yes, the entirety of the statement did suggest to me that Gingrich was being dismissive of Santorum’s resurgence — especially since it goes along with other suggestions by the campaign that Santorum isn’t really doing all that well.
No Charles, I wasn't the one who interpreted from something I hadn't even heard or quoted correctly. I actually heard Newt's interview on two occasions and went to the trouble of providing you with my comments and the supporting exact transcript. You, on the other hand, are the one who “interprets” things you didn't even hear!
Newt didn't “stumble” as you put it; he paused and repeated himself for emphasis. It's a common technique amongst debaters and he was actually paying Santorum a compliment.
As to your protest that you; “can't judge between them” (the actual quote and the misquote) ...sure you can; in fact you DO in the very next paragraph; when you opine: “the entirety of the statement did suggest to me that Gingrich was being dismissive of Santorum’s resurgence.”
When you consider that Newt's response was to Crowley's question as to whether he should “drop out;” as Santorum’s top aide had recently suggested, perhaps Newt would have been within his rights to be a little angry in his response. In fact, he wasn't and he complimented Rick's strategy in his reply; which you now try to characterize as both “snarky” and “dismissive.”
Charles you seem to be a person whose statements and opinions are often self contradictory and misleading at best. That reminds me very much of a certain particular candidate whom most of us here abhor and you probably secretly admire.