Gingrich owns CNN stooge and media at SC GOP Debate.

[the_tyrant]

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

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.

[yubba]

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]

Originally Posted by yubba

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 ?????????????

The Reptilians, of course.

Or was that.....



Yeah, I like that one better.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by yubba

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.

[MH]

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/0...ogle_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]

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]

Originally Posted by Type941

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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.