View Full Version : Gingrich owns CNN stooge and media at SC GOP Debate.
Bubblehead1980
01-20-12, 01:24 PM
This is why Newt needs to beat the empty suit known as Romney, he is a fighter(with mostly right ideas) and could just own Barry in the fall debates/Enjoy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-gnWKiM4Y8
Here's an idea if the media can't report the news don't buy the products of their sponsers, it's going to be the battle of the almighty dollar you may not know it you vote every day with your hard earned dollars. You can start by not supportting companies that got wavours from Obama care, theres 1200 of them.
Good Lord, not the "Elite Media" dodge again. The GOP coservative right certainly has enough overly loud, overly self-righteous blowhards (Limbaugh, et al) dominating the airwaves that the tired dodge Newt trotted out last night was almost pathetic. If Newt, or anyone else, GOP or Dem, can't take questions this early in the campaign about their problems/pecadiloes, they should just drop out now. They created the situations they are now forced to explain/defend. Be big boys/girls and show you can take responsibilty for you life. Newt should better show he can "own" responsibity for himself than pathetically trying to "own" someone else...
BTW, the sniping, criticism, and general mudslinging the GOP candidates are doing amongst themselves is serving to do nothing more than write the "playbook" for the Dems and Obama in the real campaign. There is nothing more disgusting than seeing a candidate, of either party, dragging an opponent through the mud and then being forced to drop out of the race, suddenly turn around and give their "support" to the very person they tried to defile. As Doc Holliday said to Wyatt Earp in the film "Tombstone"; "There appears to be no end to the depth of my hypocrisy"...
mookiemookie
01-20-12, 03:08 PM
While he makes a decent enough point about the media tabloid stuff being poisonous to having a real debate, I still think you would have no problems cheering if the same question was asked of a Democrat.
But then there's always the fact that the guy came to prominence by dragging the Clintons' sex lives into public. Not so fun when it's done to you, is it, Newty? Still, he's right. It's not really an appropriate debate question and shame on CNN for leading with it, or including it at all.
Dem or GOP, makes no difference to me...
There's the old saying "As you sow, so shall you reap"; Newt, who, as you point out, deighted in dragging Clinton through the mud, is now "feeling the "pain". I really believe anything a candidate has in his past actions that reflect on his/her judgement, morals, ethics, etc. is fair game. It is also said the purpose of journalism is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable; Newt and quite a few other politcians of all stripes deserve to be afflicted and we, the voting public deserve to know what a candidates true self is behind the smarmy smile, the flag waving, and the "God Bless America!" (patriotism, after all, is "the last refuge of the scoundrel") whoope-cushion ejaculations...
Tribesman
01-20-12, 03:34 PM
Good Lord, not the "Elite Media" dodge again.
How many candidates has Bubbles got through so far?
One minute its the media ignoring them thats the problem, the next its media focusing on them that is the problem ...the candidate then tanks and he is off on the next one with the same refrain.
AVGWarhawk
01-20-12, 03:56 PM
I still think you would have no problems cheering if the same question was asked of a Democrat.
This would never happen on CNN or affectionately known as the Clinton New Network!
Takeda Shingen
01-20-12, 04:19 PM
Imagine, if you would, this being transposed to a Democratic primary debate. Imagine if the media would take the 'high ground' and not ask such a question. The usual suspects would now be frothing over how the media took a powder rather than ask the question.
It all comes down to what team you root for and who your horse is.
Obama will win the election
No. I am not a fan of Obama
The reason why I think this, is that Americans know what they have in this financial crises, but do not know what get if they set a X in one of the opponents.
Obama's next opponent, promises much, but does not dare to say what must be said and must be done
Markus
Bubblehead1980
01-20-12, 04:41 PM
REALLY, it is no one's business about his personal life as far as relationships etc to go.I was uh a kid when the Clinton thing was going on but as an adult, I don't care if Clinton was a chubby chaser who got a blowjob who cheated on his wife(I mean have you seen Hillary? lol), Clinton's problem is he lied to the public and under oath and barely avoided getting removed from office.Yea Newt was being a hyprocrite and he suffered for it, he lost the speakership, his reputation was shattered etc, talk about being humbled. Like he has said, 10+ years ago he was a different person.Some people do change, he's been married since and has had no issues, all his personal issues are the PAST.Perhaps he finally found the person he should be with? The question was highly inappropriate at all, but especially for the first question when there are so many important issues to discuss.
This garbage is not important, Newt Gingrich is an intelligent, articulate candidate with mostly great ideas and intentions.Gingrich is not a puppet so the "establishment" dislikes him, media hates him because he does not take their crap and they are liberal, they know he would slaughter obama in debates.They want Romney because he is an empty suit who won't call obama out on his bull.
To the poster who claimed the GOP gripes about the elite media is crap.Are you kidding? The networks are clearly biased in addition to CNN and MSNBC is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic party. Fox News is the alternative.Their actual new is fairly mostly, their commentators, yes they tend to be conservative or right leaning but they are the alternative and guess what? They continue to destroy their competition because fair minded viewers ignore the propaganda coming form other networks.Like Newt said, people are tired of the media covering for obama.
Tribes, you sad little troll.Yes, I was for Cain, hes gone and disappointed me with his behavior.I have always liked Newt but figured he was finished, I am for Ron Paul mostly but he is not going to win and Newt is great alternative.Romney will cause us to lose and get obama reelected, so yes I am for Gingrich.Mostly, I want to see Gingrich own obama in the debates with logic , reality, and policies that will work, versus failed left wing tactics of race baiting, class warfare, and disingenuous talk about the people, fairness, middle class, blah blah blah.
The question was highly inappropriate at all, but especially for the first question.
Bubblehead1980
01-20-12, 04:43 PM
Imagine, if you would, this being transposed to a Democratic primary debate. Imagine if the media would take the 'high ground' and not ask such a question. The usual suspects would now be frothing over how the media took a powder rather than ask the question.
It all comes down to what team you root for and who your horse is.
No this question would not be appropriate for a Democrat either.I was a kid when the Clinton thing was going on but as an adult(as I mentioned in other post) I don't think it is anyone's business what he did with his marriage etc Clinton lied and nearly lost the Presidency over it, that is the big issue. Newt did some shady things and he paid for it and believe he learned. The question was crap, regardless of who is on the stage.
REALLY, it is no one's business about his personal life as far as relationships etc .
Americans are very Bunga-phobic.:haha:
Tchocky
01-20-12, 04:49 PM
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=191295
soopaman2
01-20-12, 05:43 PM
Newt is no fool, and he is no wuss.
But he has more baggage than the princess in Spaceballs.
I have to agree with mookie, if someone asked that of Obama (if Obama was an adulterer) you would be cheering the question, and denouncing the rebuttal.
Newt would be great if he didn't attack Clinton so hard back in the day, for the same stuff he did all his life. Multiple times, to multiple wives.
Pot? Hi this is Kettle.
Blind Partisanship sure is fun.
Tribesman
01-20-12, 05:49 PM
Tchocky, did you just kick him in the nuts when he was already down?:up:
To the poster who claimed the GOP gripes about the elite media is crap.Are you kidding?
Wow:rotfl2:
Tribes, you sad little troll.Yes, I was for Cain, hes gone and disappointed me with his behavior
Bubbles you are the sad one, again and again you show just how scewed your views are, and to make it even worse you keep going on in the same narrow ideological vein despite being a complete newcomer to the world of bull that is politics.(maybe it is your complete lack of knowledge and experience that explains that)
Fox News is the alternative......
Bloody hell:88)
Isn't it funny that it was the "conservative" media that really went to town on its trashing of Cain, where were you then complaining about Fox then?
Where were you complaining about the republican machine and "their" media trashing McCains personal life in the primaries...oh yeah primary school wasn't it.
OK more up to date as you might have been in big school by then, look at them trashing Kerrys private life.
You really are in a bubble Bubbles.
the_tyrant
01-20-12, 06:31 PM
You know, I have this feeling that Charles Taylor would be an improvement over the current politicians
After all, his slogan was "he killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will still vote for him"
At least he has balls
Takeda Shingen
01-20-12, 06:50 PM
To the poster who claimed the GOP gripes about the elite media is crap.Are you kidding? The networks are clearly biased in addition to CNN and MSNBC is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic party. Fox News is the alternative.Their actual new is fairly mostly, their commentators, yes they tend to be conservative or right leaning but they are the alternative and guess what? They continue to destroy their competition because fair minded viewers ignore the propaganda coming form other networks.Like Newt said, people are tired of the media covering for obama.
And if you watch those networks, you'd believe that everybody was either a hardcore D or a hardcore R, as those networks (Fox and MSNBC in particular) cater to only those voters. None of them speak to the majority of American voters--the moderates and independents who decide the outcome every election, although they are very happy to tell you what the moderates and independents are thinking and who they are leaning toward. Of course, I am now going to turn around and do exactly the same thing for the sake of discussion. :haha:
I disagree with your assesement of Gingrich/Romney. While I do agree with you in that Romney would not beat Obama, I do not see Gingrich as the stronger candidate in the general election. Gingrich polls well within the 'Fox NEWS demographic', but has significant problems with moderates and independents. Romney, by contrast, fares much better among these groups. That is the group that must be courted as, let's face it, the Fox and MSNBC crowds are voting for their D's and R's no matter who runs.
So when gas hits 5 dollars a gallon who will the networks blame??????????? Mittens ??????? Newt ????????? millionaires and billionaires ?????????? when you are out in your yard on your hands and knees looking for worms too eat, who will you blame ?????????????
Takeda Shingen
01-20-12, 07:20 PM
So when gas hits 5 dollars a gallon who will the networks blame??????????? Mittens ??????? Newt ????????? millionaires and billionaires ?????????? when you are out in your yard on your hands and knees looking for worms too eat, who will you blame ?????????????
http://www.think-aboutit.com/images/rep2.gif
The Reptilians, of course. :yep:
Or was that.....
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/www.ign.com/9109/2011/08/Argonian_Skyrim-600x441.jpg
Yeah, I like that one better.
mookiemookie
01-20-12, 07:29 PM
So when gas hits 5 dollars a gallon who will the networks blame??????????? Mittens ??????? Newt ????????? millionaires and billionaires ?????????? when you are out in your yard on your hands and knees looking for worms too eat, who will you blame ?????????????
It's funny to see that the hardcore partisans on both sides have this apocalyptic imagery in their words when they talk about the other side. I don't think this was always the case. Politics has become a life or death battle for survival for some people. The other side is the enemy, they can't just be beaten in an election, they need to be shamed, discredited, destroyed professionally and personally, imprisoned, killed.
It must be terrible living your life in fear of the other side being elected to the point where you're talking like yubba here.
http://www.surfersam.com/funny-pictures/funny-pictures-worms-for-sale.jpg
CaptainHaplo
01-20-12, 10:18 PM
I disagree with your assesement of Gingrich/Romney. While I do agree with you in that Romney would not beat Obama, I do not see Gingrich as the stronger candidate in the general election. Gingrich polls well within the 'Fox NEWS demographic', but has significant problems with moderates and independents. Romney, by contrast, fares much better among these groups. That is the group that must be courted as, let's face it, the Fox and MSNBC crowds are voting for their D's and R's no matter who runs.
Takeda - you make a good point, but one that misses a few important realities. Its necessary to say that Romney gets more independant voters RIGHT NOW than Gingrich would - but we have what - 10 months roughly before the election? If you have watched the SC battle closely, you see how much can change in 1 week - so how much can change in 7 or 8 months once a nominee for "team r" has been locked in?
Gingrich knows how to pull the "reagan democrats" - the so called blue dog dems, and the independants. Look at his stance on immigration for example - which is much less "hard right" than Romney or Santorum. He chooses his battles carefully, and has learned a LOT about when to hold the line on which issues require it to keep the base happy.
Seriously - if Gingrich wins - I would almost bet that Barack refuses to debate him. There is no way Obama can win a debate against Gingrich - all a debate will do is give Newt more opportunities to solidify the "silent majority" - the center right independants of this country - that are the key to getting elected. If you think the center right can look at Obama and Newt and choose Obama after the last 4 years, then your definition of where the center is - has to be incorrect.
This is the key - voters don't like Obama - they want a change of direction and he won't even offer it - "team r" does - and in the end "team r" is much closer to the general electorate than Obama is.
Takeda Shingen
01-21-12, 12:08 AM
Takeda - you make a good point, but one that misses a few important realities. Its necessary to say that Romney gets more independant voters RIGHT NOW than Gingrich would - but we have what - 10 months roughly before the election? If you have watched the SC battle closely, you see how much can change in 1 week - so how much can change in 7 or 8 months once a nominee for "team r" has been locked in?
Gingrich knows how to pull the "reagan democrats" - the so called blue dog dems, and the independants. Look at his stance on immigration for example - which is much less "hard right" than Romney or Santorum. He chooses his battles carefully, and has learned a LOT about when to hold the line on which issues require it to keep the base happy.
Seriously - if Gingrich wins - I would almost bet that Barack refuses to debate him. There is no way Obama can win a debate against Gingrich - all a debate will do is give Newt more opportunities to solidify the "silent majority" - the center right independants of this country - that are the key to getting elected. If you think the center right can look at Obama and Newt and choose Obama after the last 4 years, then your definition of where the center is - has to be incorrect.
This is the key - voters don't like Obama - they want a change of direction and he won't even offer it - "team r" does - and in the end "team r" is much closer to the general electorate than Obama is.
I would debate the amount of change that the Republican field brings to this election cycle, but that would take us pretty far off topic. In terms of Gingrich and the general election, I would counter by stating the obvious--Gingrich polls very poorly among four key demographics: independents, moderates, women and minorities. A Gingrich ticket virtually guarantees those four groups to be in Obama's camp. And before you say that these groups traditionally break for the Democratic candidates, I'll point out that the last succesful Republican candidate for the office, George W. Bush, held majorities or near-majorities with all of these groups.
Sure, Gingrich can attempt to clarify his views and set the record straight, but you and I both know that this is not his strong suit. He may be a debater, but he is certainly not a 'face' guy. Charisma has never been and will never be a strength for him. It is a strength for Romney. It is a strength for Obama. It was also a strength for Bush. In the end, this sort of thing makes a candidate a great deal more durable. They can bounce back by flashing the smile and turning on the charm. As such, it renders Gingrich a bit of a 'glass canon'; perpetually one misspeak away from going down in flames.
It's funny to see that the hardcore partisans on both sides have this apocalyptic imagery in their words when they talk about the other side. I don't think this was always the case. Politics has become a life or death battle for survival for some people. The other side is the enemy, they can't just be beaten in an election, they need to be shamed, discredited, destroyed professionally and personally, imprisoned, killed.
It must be terrible living your life in fear of the other side being elected to the point where you're talking like yubba here.
Has it always been that way in the States, or is it just that the loudest voices are more easy to hear in the background noise of the internet?
It scares me that some people think that way, if I'm honest. I mean, no matter who you vote for they're still going to shaft you. They're politicians, it's what they do.
Takeda Shingen
01-21-12, 06:55 AM
Has it always been that way in the States, or is it just that the loudest voices are more easy to hear in the background noise of the internet?
It scares me that some people think that way, if I'm honest. I mean, no matter who you vote for they're still going to shaft you. They're politicians, it's what they do.
Really it has always been there, at least for those on the fringes. The far right and the far left have always viewed each election as a life-or-death matter and dub it 'the most important election of our time'. What has changed in the past 15 years or so is the advent of political entertainment. A very lucrative industry has sprung up around the pairing of these two ends of the spectrum, and the fireworks from said pairing is ratings dynamite. As such, both Fox NEWS and MSNBC are making out like bandits and have become disproportionally dominant in the sphere of media. The effect is that we have now given the smallest two groups within politics the loudest mouthpieces. It is only natural that politics seems more 'extreme' in our modern era.
soopaman2
01-21-12, 06:59 AM
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/20/gingrich-cancels-event-after-few-show-up/?mod=google_news_blog
No one there, looks bad for the cameras doesn't it.
So cancel it, and hope no one reports it. Then when they do spin it and say you were going to a childrens hospital next anyways...
So how much of you actually buy that?
WSJ is a pretty conservative paper. To be eaten by your own is not a good omen.
The chosen ones want Mittens, he is more controllable, and predictable.
Type941
01-21-12, 11:51 AM
The question is about his hypocritical view. He is for the sanctity of marriage yet his own record on that is quite patchy. So it's completely fine to question him on that, given that how he made it his campaign to preach certain conservative values. Newt gets offended - big deal - as polician he should take it on the chin; instead he goes all righteous on CNN (a cable news channel I don't like but that's beside the point).
CaptainHaplo
01-21-12, 12:39 PM
The question is about his hypocritical view. He is for the sanctity of marriage yet his own record on that is quite patchy. So it's completely fine to question him on that, given that how he made it his campaign to preach certain conservative values. Newt gets offended - big deal - as polician he should take it on the chin; instead he goes all righteous on CNN (a cable news channel I don't like but that's beside the point).
Your spouting fallacies. His "sactity of marriage" is about homosexuality - and he doesn't have any "patchy" record of soliciting gay sex in a bathroom or any other such activity. What your trying to do is tie that stance in to his personal act of adultery that ended in a divorce over a decade ago. He has admitted his error and asked for forgiveness.
There is a huge difference between a personal moral failing which one recognizes, admits and repents of - compared to a demand that everyone else change their morals and that society accepts an arrangement that has been rejected for the history of that society.
Trying to equate them is true hypocrasy.
Of course - your next arguement will be over him pursuing Clinton regarding the Lewinski scandal..... Again - not going to fly. The issue with Clinton was not that he was committing adultery - I thought Lewinski was cute and I'd have done her - it was his lying to both the American people and his perjury (lying under oath) that was at issue. Not the adultery itself.
Had he pushed for impeachment due to adultery - that would be one thing - but when the President swears to tell the truth - and doesnt - in a legal proceeding - then the actions of the Congress was both right and appropriate.
So many want to confuse the issues to make Newt look bad. Adultery is not a crime - perjury is. Simple as that.
Newt has his issues - if you want to beat on him - do it on one of the real issues, not some trumped up "moralistic" charge. Especially when its meant to turn off evangelicals - who should be responding with "who are you - or I - to judge another man's private life? That is not our role".
soopaman2
01-21-12, 01:57 PM
In all fairness Mr. Haplo. He RIPPED Clinton for unproven accusations. Yet Participated multiple times in the same behavior he condemned.
That alone is why I find him repulsive. The bad thing about a long career us that SOME people remember the crap you pulled in the past.
It is a bad thing, he has alot of sense, but very little morals.
Bubblehead1980
01-21-12, 02:37 PM
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=191295
Completely different issue, big difference between some guy cheating on his hag of a wife and a nutjob like santorum bringing a dead baby home to play.Old news though.
mookiemookie
01-21-12, 02:38 PM
Of course - your next arguement will be over him pursuing Clinton regarding the Lewinski scandal..... Again - not going to fly. The issue with Clinton was not that he was committing adultery - I thought Lewinski was cute and I'd have done her - it was his lying to both the American people and his perjury (lying under oath) that was at issue. Not the adultery itself.
Oh that's bull and you know it. It was a sordid sex scandal that the GOP used to try and bring down Clinton... the "politics of personal destruction" in his words. The perjury was the icing on the cake and was huge for the GOP because it gave the whole case the veneer of legitimacy. You're getting your cause an effect mixed up - there would have been no perjury if they never went after him with the sex scandal in the first place. For one to honestly believe it was about perjury, they're either a hopeless partisan or have some very big blinders on. It's usually the former.
Make no mistake, Newt is as hypocritical as they come. Drag the Clintons' sex lives out into public and get all huffy when the same is done to him.
Just to prove his hypocrisy:
December 1994: Gingrich was making a congratulatory speech to House Republicans for their victory in the midterms. He said, "I want to ask all of you to join me in -- (pauses) -- I'm trying to think. It's a little difficult to say. In thanking the person who has endured more from the media and more from the process than anybody should have to for me to be here, my wife Marianne." Callista Bisek, who was a House staffer at the time was probably a little uncomfortable as Gingrich introduced his wife since, at that point, Newty Newt had been boning Callista for a year already.
Especially when its meant to turn off evangelicals - who should be responding with "who are you - or I - to judge another man's private life? That is not our role".
Pssh, they're the ones who made "family values" a campaign plank. Don't be surprised when it's used against them.
CaptainHaplo
01-21-12, 06:32 PM
Again - there is a huge difference between adultery - which is a failing many men face - and the expectation that society will set aside definition of what a family is...
I don't condone his actions, I do think they speak to what WAS his moral character (is it now - can you say?). However - to refuse to acknowledge a personal, human failing and its difference with the expectation to turn a fundamental building block of society on its head, demonstrates more than "blinders". It shows someone has their head in the sand....
Tribesman
01-22-12, 04:13 AM
Completely different issue, big difference between some guy cheating on his hag of a wife and a nutjob like santorum bringing a dead baby home to play.Old news though.
So far gone its almost unbelievable:doh:
@Haplo
Again - there is a huge difference between adultery - which is a failing many men face - and the expectation that society will set aside definition of what a family is...
Which definition?
There are many, there have always been many, each definiton has been changed and adapted over the centuries and undoubtably will also be in the future.
At a guess I am thinking your definition of family is the one of "nuclear family" with the "social convention" qualification being "marriage" under one of terms for "marriage" you also ageree to the specific defintion of.
Which, leaving aside the relative newness of that particular definition of "family", illustrates very well how that line of thought you are pursuing doesn't hold water.
why don't you people start looking at politicians in professional sense and not as your future wife or role model for kindergarten kids.
I would trust person who does not try to represent himself as some holly mr perfect.....or lyer....not necessary though.
J
Professional integrity first sex life ....who cares as long as its not a crime.
CaptainHaplo
01-22-12, 09:37 AM
This is a great opinion piece - laughed like crazy over it! Good points provided with humor!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/?intcmp=obnetwork
Takeda Shingen
01-22-12, 10:12 AM
This is a great opinion piece - laughed like crazy over it! Good points provided with humor!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/?intcmp=obnetwork
Well, then accordiing to the logic of the article, this should be our president:
http://cnnlarrykinglive.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/blog-larry-king-picture.jpg
Married 8 times. Mostly to younger women.
mookiemookie
01-22-12, 10:17 AM
You could also make the point that publicly crying crocodile tears over your first wife while you're secretly nailing your mistress is textbook psychopathic behavior.
Takeda Shingen
01-22-12, 10:26 AM
You could also make the point that publicly crying crocodile tears over your first wife while you're secretly nailing your mistress is textbook psychopathic behavior.
No, no mookie. You're missing it all. He's magnetic. He has that Harrison Ford older man appeal. It's not the wealth and power that they are attracted to. No, it is Gingrich's amiable personality and overall good looks. He has a moral obligation to share this magnetism with the world, banging whoever and whenever in the process.
mookiemookie
01-22-12, 10:53 AM
No, no mookie. You're missing it all. He's magnetic. He has that Harrison Ford older man appeal. It's not the wealth and power that they are attracted to. No, it is Gingrich's amiable personality and overall good looks. He has a moral obligation to share this magnetism with the world, banging whoever and whenever in the process.
Ah, so that's what the author meant by his mistresses being "so moved by his emotional energy and intellect". And here I was chalking it up to them being after money and power...silly me! It's all so clear now. So not being able to keep it in his pants is a good thing for the country! Thanks, Fox News!
Sexual dissatisfaction can lead to unbalanced behavior therefore you need really old president that doesn't look to impress any chicks or satisfied one.
Virgin from birth might do as well....preferably born of virgin.:haha:
Betonov
01-22-12, 11:14 AM
Our parlamentary elections two months ago (and the ones 3 years ago) were marked by mostly drilling into candidates personal lives. Cheap tabloid topics. The problem is those idiots actually went trough with the circus. I was just waiting for someone to stick it in the media's face that there's something more important like the economy maybe...
Hypocrite or not, honest or just trying to change a topic that might hurt his ratings, he was right.
Hottentot
01-22-12, 11:48 AM
I was just waiting for someone to stick it in the media's face that there's something more important like the economy maybe...
We have a presidential candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paavo_Lipponen) who has started boycotting major newspapers because they haven't "treated him with proper respect". Partly he has done so on basis of what you describe. On the other, he has done so because the media has pointed out some questinable projects in his past regarding Nord Stream.
Reasons may in some cases be good and in some cases bad, but the end results are the same: he has become a laughing stock and even his own party's supporters have said they aren't voting him anymore. When you are going against major media outlets (that, no matter what they say publicly, will in the end support each other), you have to be careful and do it with skill and style. He had neither and it destroyed his campaign, which wasn't impressive to begin with.
Takeda Shingen
01-22-12, 11:59 AM
Glad to hear that it isn't only in America where our politicians whine about the media.
Betonov
01-22-12, 12:04 PM
Glad to hear that it isn't only in America where our politicians whine about the media.
It's the opposite here. Our politicians kiss the medias behind. Like a stupid high school girl giggling when some old perv asks her what color underpants she's wearing
Hottentot
01-22-12, 12:19 PM
Glad to hear that it isn't only in America where our politicians whine about the media.
Most of ours know how to play with the media without looking like their stooges. Some don't, and then the small minority like Mr. Jumper Princess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halla-aho) starts throwing fits at them.
The criticism towards media has increased with the support of the True Finns increasing, with their supporters calling it "Witch Hunt" against their favorite party whenever something negative is being reported about them. Then again, they get a lot of negative attention and only very little positive, so some of that criticism is actually founded.
Its sad but its sort of
http://runesoup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Shoaling-1.jpg
People often vote for generally liked figures while media creates or destroy the image.
Sailor Steve
01-22-12, 12:35 PM
This whole 'Newt vs Bill' thing sounds to me like special pleading from the hard right. "Lying, cheating, adultery and immorality are fine as long as it's our guy that's doing it." I find this game especially odd coming from people claiming to be devout Christians, who are supposed to be part of a Kingdom, and not a worldly government.
The whole Monica thing was a blatant attempt by Republicans to get Clinton, just as the whole Ollie thing was a blatant attempt by Democrats to get Reagan. Deny it all you want, you're playing partisan politics, and you're part of what's wrong with this country.
Morality, for me anyway, isn't a part of why I support or don't support a candidate. I didn't like Clinton for my own reasons. Monica wasn't one of them. The people who slam Clinton for his "perjury" already hated him long before that, and were looking for a reason, just as the people who hate Bush for Iraq already hated him and were looking for a reason. I'm not talking about people like me, who disagreed with the decision but supported it because I didn't have all the facts. Now that more facts are in, I still disagree, but it wasn't my decision to make. I'm talking about the people who actively hate the person, calling him names and condemning him every chance they get.
Gingrich is a hypocrite, pure and simple. If that doesn't bother you then admit it and still support him. Just don't try to tell the rest of us that there is a difference between the adulterer you like and the adulterer you hate.
CaptainHaplo
01-22-12, 03:53 PM
Steve,
I don't hate Clinton. Actually, he wasn't that bad of a president. I actually would put him better than Bush 1 at the least. I don't have an issue with the adultery with Clinton. That is between him and his wife and his maker - not any of my business.
My issue with Clinton was always the perjury issue. Getting on national TV and lying to the American people. Those I think were unacceptable behavior from our President.
Newt didn't lie to the American people about it. He lied to his wife - and that is between him and her. When you lie to US the people, its between you and US the people. If you can't see the difference, then so be it.
Gingrich is a hypocrite, pure and simple. If that doesn't bother you then admit it and still support him. Just don't try to tell the rest of us that there is a difference between the adulterer you like and the adulterer you hate.
He may be a hypocrite in your view, but that is a matter of opinion. One could argue he "was" a hypocrite in the mid 1990's over the scandal. Ok, lets pretend your right (though I do see a distinction). Your saying your suprised "a devout Christian" can see a path to accept his repentance? Really? We are all imperfect, and he has done what both his own Catholicism and modern Protestantism requires - he has admitted his error, both publicly and privately, he has requested forgiveness for it, and has demonstrated in the last 11+ years to have faced his own moral demons and, with the grace of God - defeated them. Thats right - 11+ years of monogamous marriage to Callista - and you can bet that she has kept an eye out for infidelity!
The "devout Christian" thing to do is not to beat someone over the head for sins committed in the past that have been claimed, repented of, and learned from. Our Lord and Savior does it for us, we fail if we don't do it for others. If you don't get that, then you don't understand the message of Christ at all.
Steve,
My issue with Clinton was always the perjury issue. Getting on national TV and lying to the American people. Those I think were unacceptable behavior from our President.
.
Don't you think there was a reason for that?
His thoughts might had been that it was necessary due to political culture.
At the end he got screwed over the lies anyways.
(American politics is a like canaval to me...so i'm just curious)
Takeda Shingen
01-22-12, 04:24 PM
Don't you think there was a reason for that?
His thoughts might had been that it was necessary due to political culture.
At the end he got screwed over the lies anyways.
(American politics is a like canaval to me...so i'm just curious)
I always figured that he was trying to save his marriage. "Uh....no, no. I...I didn't do that. No. Well......yeah okay, fine. Yeah.....I did." Frankly, I probably would have done the same thing. It's only human. At the same time, the chances of Hillary leaving were nil. Power, wealth and all that.
mookiemookie
01-22-12, 04:45 PM
At the same time, the chances of Hillary leaving were nil. Power, wealth and all that.
Maybe it was just like our Fox News commenter said and she was "so moved by his emotional energy and intellect."
Takeda Shingen
01-22-12, 04:53 PM
Maybe it was just like our Fox News commenter said and she was "so moved by his emotional energy and intellect."
No. Democrats have no individual emotions or intellect. They only obey a collective hive mentality in their mission to destroy American freedom, eliminate the military, surrender to our enemies, root out and kill the wealthy, prohibit heterosexual marriage, outlaw Christianity and consume the flesh of aborted fetuses. The only explanation is that Hillary was Bill's thrall.
I always figured that he was trying to save his marriage. "Uh....no, no. I...I didn't do that. No. Well......yeah okay, fine. Yeah.....I did." Frankly, I probably would have done the same thing. It's only human. At the same time, the chances of Hillary leaving were nil. Power, wealth and all that.
I remember the TV spectacle with Clinton-felt sorry for the guy.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.