A well deserved thrashing

[pbrauer]

Let me elaborate. Obama's drug use was not a topic because the media decided it would not be. The crap on Edwards was known as well, by a few. That it was the lowly National Enquirer that got the scoop is not because they were out in front on it. Rather, it defaulted to them becuase the lib media would not go there. Just as the same National Enquirer got Jennifer Flowers.

Maybe the libs believe all this horse**** about a balanced and fair-minded media. But libs are the only ones, and Gingrich is having a field day with the disparity.

He ain't done, btw.

Hey, I'm loving it, the longer he holds off Romney the better.

 

[liblady]

I am not a Newt Gingrich supporter, but it's incidents like this that make me almost wish I were. CNN got exactly what they deserved, and all the other liberal media outlets deserved to have gotten this too.

OUTSTANDING




The look on that moderators face is priceless.

What bs. Did Newtie forget who masterminded the ads trashing Clinton for Monica lewinsky? This was news, and king had every right to bring it up.

 

[digsbe]

Honestly I think Newt was right. That kind of question has no place being the first question asked during a presidential debate. I think candidates should thrash the media when they deserve it.

 

[cpwill]

Were either of his first two wives "adulterers".

As I understand it his second wife was - which does make it rather entertaining in a morbid sense. What - you were astonished that this guy would cheat on you?

Was Newt in two bad marriages ?

I would say that his second two marriages were "bad marriages", yes. It also makes me wonder who he's diddling now.

So JFK did a lousy job and never should have been President ?

serial adultery doesn't directly impact one's abilities as a chief executive - JFK was in favor of tax cuts and a strong interventionist foreign policy. He was also significantly overhyped, and yes, he was a moral failure of a man.

SO Bill CLinton did a lousy job and never should have been President?

Bill Clinton's great success was that he didn't really try to do much - he seemed pretty content to just Be President. I remember Rush had a great song "All I Wanna Do, Is Have Some Fun. Pick Up Some Cheerleaders And Cruise On Air-Force-One". that's pretty much bill in a nutshell.

So Newt is just all talk, and never accomplished anything of consequence while a member of the House?

what he accomplished in the House was a conservative rebellion against him. a fact that might should give current conservatives pause.

Cause he "is a despicable serial adulterer", or is it "was a despicable serial adulterer", and is there a distinction between those two ?

serial adultery is despicable. it remains despicable. for newt to pretend that instead asking him about his serial adultery is despicable is hypocrisy and the height of offensive self-righteousness. If the man had actually truly had a conversion experience and sought forgiveness from Christ Jesus as he claims, then he would have A) sought forgiveness and reconciliation with his former wife and B) demonstrated repentance and humility, neither of which were on display the other night.

 

[Ockham]

it's not out of grocery store tabloids - it's a major story from the mans' ex wife. Literally the only other person in the room who would know (and, given Newts' abilities in the realm of self-deception, perhaps the only one at all). Nor was the question a gotcha format in the theme of "how could you possibly be so rotten" etc. - the question was Would You Like To Address This. Newt was given the chance to clear the air and instead chose to engage in a fit of self-righteousness.

I can't point out how silly that opinion of yours is on the subject any better than you already have yourself. His ex-wife of how long ago? The media dredged her up how many hours before the last debate before the SC primary votes? And you seriously think leading off a debate with a "News of the World" type question is professional for CNN? Enjoy the "likes" from the liberal side of the house on this one dude.... you're going to get lots of them.

 

[liblady]

Honestly I think Newt was right. That kind of question has no place being the first question asked during a presidential debate. I think candidates should thrash the media when they deserve it.

Why not?....

 

[soccerboy22]

Why not?....

In reality it isn't THAT big of a deal, given what is going on in the country. I think it is the type of question to more or less close with.

 

[pbrauer]

Honestly I think Newt was right. That kind of question has no place being the first question asked during a presidential debate. I think candidates should thrash the media when they deserve it.

The question was topical, it was something talked about all day in the news. I am sure the interview and the allegation was on most people's minds. It had to be asked, John King did his job by giving Newt the chance to respond to the ABC interview. For most people in the audience Newt hit the ball out of the park.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

The question was topical, it was something talked about all day in the news. I am sure the interview and the allegation was on most people's minds. It had to be asked, John King did his job by giving Newt the chance to respond to the ABC interview. For most people in the audience Newt hit the ball out of the park.

Agreed to all. However, I do think CNN could have done it better. As it was, they put the ball on a Tee for the Babe Ruth of debaters. They handed Gingrich a Grand Slam.

I think it would have been more fair, and more wise, had they held off on it until mid-debate. And then, once raised, make it not a question focused so much on the infidelity, but probablyequally or more on the appearance of media bias as well. Gingrich is still going to score on it, but maybe its just a solo shot, and not the Slam. And CNN would have accomplished the purpose of getting any viewers not informed ........... informed.

 

[Top Cat]

Reporting? Yes. Asking a question in a debate the day after an interview that involves something that may not be true and certainly by most standards irrelevant and when the media had a little integrity worthy only as news for a progam like the old Inside Edition, probably not.

Oh please. Fake News would just make **** up or doctor footage. When it comes to journalistic integrity, they have NONE.

 

[Grim17]

Fortunately we all know that when it comes to sex scandals, those on the right, and their media outlets (Fake News) would never stoop to reporting on such matters or bringing them up in a debate.

Who is kidding whom here?

CONGRATULATIONS

It actually took 77 posts before a liberal threw in a Fox News attack... Can't believe you all held out that long.

Either the left has discovered anger management classes or they've up their meds.

 

[pbrauer]

CONGRATULATIONS

It actually took 77 posts before a liberal threw in a Fox News attack... Can't believe you all held out that long.

Either the left has discovered anger management classes or they've up their meds.

Alex I'll have irony for $1000!

 

[VanceMack]

Well the only source I can find on your first accusation is Stormfront....so that should tell you something.

The second one would have been a valid question if Edwards' love child had been a story when he was running. Unfortunately, it never came out until after that.

I am not saying that there's no media bias. It is biased, it will always be biased, and IMO it should be. I still would have liked Gingrich to answer the question instead of blaming other people for his failings.

But that SHOULD tell you something...shouldnt it. Obama ADMITS to using crack. One MIGHHT think there would be a story or two about it and facer facts...the media didnt attack him for it or even ask about it. Can you say the same about Bush's DUI or accusations of cocaine use?

 

[VanceMack]

Your examples are red herrings because Obama crack use wasn't a major topic of the day during the debates and Edwards infidelity wasn't known then.

Pete...I wouldnt expect you to be anything other than the lovable mindless democrat shill that you are. And again...you made the point. It is PRECISELY that it wasnt a 'story' that is the point. The media doesnt poll democrat candidates about drugs, or love babies, or affairs (come on....seriously? Clinton was tripping over allegations and the media didnt pursue it in either election).

 

[Eighty Deuce]

As I understand it his second wife was - which does make it rather entertaining in a morbid sense. What - you were astonished that this guy would cheat on you?

Newt's first two marriages were bad. He was in fact separated from this one for six years, and then they tried to reconcile. It did not work. As he was an "adulterer", as was this wife, can you show me where he was as a "serial adulterer" ? Thanks.

I would say that his second two marriages were "bad marriages", yes. It also makes me wonder who he's diddling now.

And that is an intelligent comment how ? He's 67, has owned up to all his transgressions, and yet you make a comment I would expect of a cheap liberal, which is well beneath you. Show me the last candidate for the highest office who owned up to their transgressions ? Not Edwards. Not Gore. Not Clinton. Not Hartpence. Not Teddy. Not LBJ. Not JFK. But you gotta go gutter on the one who at least was up front on it. Shame on you, as you are usually better.

serial adultery doesn't directly impact one's abilities as a chief executive - JFK was in favor of tax cuts and a strong interventionist foreign policy. He was also significantly overhyped, and yes, he was a moral failure of a man.

Do you like the phrase "serial adultery" ? Makes you look a bit silly. So please define it, and then show Newt's conforming to such. Thanks.

Bill Clinton's great success was that he didn't really try to do much - he seemed pretty content to just Be President. I remember Rush had a great song "All I Wanna Do, Is Have Some Fun. Pick Up Some Cheerleaders And Cruise On Air-Force-One". that's pretty much bill in a nutshell.

In any case, Clinton was a "serial adulterer". And a Liar. But he was a better President than many non-adulterers. So show me how Newt's past transgressions have precedent to show him unfit for the job ? Thanks.

what he accomplished in the House was a conservative rebellion against him. a fact that might should give current conservatives pause.

I would submit that he pushed his own party nearly as hard as he pushed the Dems. He was an equal opportunity enemy maker. He was cleared by the IRS, and Federal Circuit Court, of every original charge his opponents laid on him. He is guilty of telling his political opponents to **** off.

serial adultery is despicable. it remains despicable. for newt to pretend that instead asking him about his serial adultery is despicable is hypocrisy and the height of offensive self-righteousness. If the man had actually truly had a conversion experience and sought forgiveness from Christ Jesus as he claims, then he would have A) sought forgiveness and reconciliation with his former wife and B) demonstrated repentance and humility, neither of which were on display the other night.

You are right. Serial adultery is despicable. Now how about you show me where Newt was a "serial adulterer" ? So far, he's a guy in two bad marriages, where his wives were also laying the pipe of others. It sucks. Its ugly. But it is most certainly not as you have been so anal on.

IMMHO, you are better than this ........ grasshopper.

 

[rocket88]

But that SHOULD tell you something...shouldnt it. Obama ADMITS to using crack. One MIGHHT think there would be a story or two about it and facer facts...the media didnt attack him for it or even ask about it. Can you say the same about Bush's DUI or accusations of cocaine use?

He admits to using coke. I don't think he admits to the gay sexual favors part.

As I said, I don't deny any bias. I just think Newt should have had some answer that doesn't involve blaming other people. The media didn't cheat on Newt's wife. The Liberals didn't cheat on Newt's wife. The response to his non-answer shows that the bigger problem is confirmation bias. If you're a Republican, you want to blame this all on the evil media and Liberals -- what about Newt taking responsibility for his actions? But if it's "your guy," you don't want to hear that he's wrong in any way. Liberals wanted to blame Republicans for Clinton.

BTW, have you considered that CNN knew that Newt would react like he did? It made for entertaining TV which is what it's all about for them.

 

[nonpareil]

1. The "sanctity of marriage" as part of the Republican platform???

Somebody should tell the Chairman of the Republican National Committee:

“I don’t believe that judges can rewrite the Constitution and redraft what marriage is,” Priebus said during the debate. “I think…there’s a sanctity of marriage…I believe my kids and believe children should grow up with one father and a mother if possible,” he said.

He then added, “I don’t believe anybody should be denied dignity in this discussion, everyone should be loved. But at the end of the day, I believe that marriage, through the sanctity of marriage, should be between one man and one woman.”

“I was a part of that,” he said. “I was helpful to make sure that that happened…It’s an important issue because I believe marriage is a gift from God and the sanctity of marriage ought to be protected,” he told Gallagher.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/01/20/new-gop-chair-backs-ban-on-same-sex-marriage/

I don't see "sanctity" mentioned here...do you? Could it be you are applying a position to them that the Republican Party has not adopted?

And "Preserving Traditional Marriage" means what in your neck of the wood? :shock:

Frankly, I don't see anything in Newt's personal life that contradicts the Party platform. Other conservatives...whether in SC or not...can make up their own minds.

Which is why the question needed to be asked: so others can make up their minds.

2. The very fact that Romney and the other candidates DO NOT have this issue means that any question towards Newt on this issue is NOT neutral. Now, if the moderator had asked Newt...and all of the other candidates...what they think about open marriage, that could be considered neutral. But he didn't. He specifically referenced the statements from Newt's ex-wife and Newt's relationship with her. THAT is not being neutral.

That is neutral. Gingrich is the one with the issue, the issue is addressed to Gingrich.

Look, this wasn't a press conference...it was a debate. The moderator should have avoided questions that apply to only one candidate and focus on issues that are of concern to all the candidates.

No, he shouldn't. He should ask questions that reveal the contender's views and character. Interviews are where they get to whitewash and spin the news.

 

[nonpareil]

Agreed. Levin put it well last night. Obama admitted he did drugs. So let's ABC dig up his supplier, his pusher, and lets see an interview of that scumbag.

Get the supplier or "pusher" to have an interview then you're talking, in the mean time, masturbating yourself over the imaginary "pusher", while defending Gingrich when his ex-wife's interview is out there, makes you a hypocrite and childish.

 

[nonpareil]

From what I understand, they dug and planned and pleaded with her to give her side. Nobody cared to do this concerning Edwards when it was relevant.

The media failed with Edward, if they did their job the story would have been known while he ran for the nomination, not after the nomination when it's no longer relevant. It's very easy for Gingrich to avoid all these "negative" coverage, drop out.

 

[nonpareil]

I'm not claiming some vast evil conspiracy. I'm saying that I believe many knew on the campaign trail that Edwards was screwing around and said nothing but then had no problem attacking Gingrich's similiar problems.

If it was wrong for Gingrinch to slam Clinton then it's equally wrong for the media to not say anything when it was Edwards.



I don't really care what others would have said as I do not speak for them.

Instead he answered it candidly and honestly. Which is what Gingrich should have done. A simple, "We never had any discussion like that, we went through a rough divorce that she might still have tensions towards me over and that is making her say things that did not happen" or some other response would have been much more refreshing than what he did, which reminded me of what my 2 year old nephew does when he has to share his toys.

I also care less what Gingrich says.

Rumours among the press doesn't a story make, it requires substantiation, in the form of accusation from the alleged victim of sexual assault (Clinton and Cain) or the counter party as is the case here, or other form of reliable third party evidence. Edward and his mistress went to great length to hide their relationship and she wouldn't talk, but the media should still have pestered her into giving an interview so that they can "break" the story.

 

[nonpareil]

I dont know...can you point to a time in any of the dem primary debates where CNN opened with "Candidate Obama...talk to us about your crack use...is it true you were prone to sexual dalliances with your dealer in the back of state limos while you were supposed to be on the floor voting?" Or can you point to any of the obviously NUMEROUS times any of the major media outlets opened with.."Candidate Edwards...just how many other illegitmate children do you have out there?"

In which of those cases was there an interview by the dealer or the mistress coming out in the same day?

 

[Peter Grimm]

He admits to using coke. I don't think he admits to the gay sexual favors part.

As I said, I don't deny any bias. I just think Newt should have had some answer that doesn't involve blaming other people. The media didn't cheat on Newt's wife. The Liberals didn't cheat on Newt's wife. The response to his non-answer shows that the bigger problem is confirmation bias. If you're a Republican, you want to blame this all on the evil media and Liberals -- what about Newt taking responsibility for his actions? But if it's "your guy," you don't want to hear that he's wrong in any way. Liberals wanted to blame Republicans for Clinton.

BTW, have you considered that CNN knew that Newt would react like he did? It made for entertaining TV which is what it's all about for them.

Out of curiosity, why should Newt need to answer these allegations?

You can't deny that, given the crowd, the answer he gave was effective in helping him attain his ultimate goal: to gain votes.

Put another way, why should that goal have been something else?

 

[haymarket]

Out of curiosity, why should Newt need to answer these allegations?

You can't deny that, given the crowd, the answer he gave was effective in helping him attain his ultimate goal: to gain votes.

Put another way, why should that goal have been something else?

First, to attempt to put it behind him, win the nomination and then win the general election.

Second, Rachel Maddow hit it out of the park last night observing (just as you did in a way) that when a GOP'er gets his ass in a wringer, the best way to get out is to attack the media and the true believers respond like hungry lions being tossed red bloody meat.

 

[Peter Grimm]

First, to attempt to put it behind him, win the nomination and then win the general election.

Second, Rachel Maddow hit it out of the park last night observing (just as you did in a way) that when a GOP'er gets his ass in a wringer, the best way to get out is to attack the media and the true believers respond like hungry lions being tossed red bloody meat.

What do you mean "attempt to put it behind him," exactly? For him and his family, I would assume he already has.

For the sake of the electorate, I don't know that there's really anything more that he could say that we don't already know. I don't see an outcry for further disclosure from Newt out there among Republicans... mostly because this is all old news.

You're gonna already have an opinion on it, one way or the other, by now.

 

[rocket88]

Out of curiosity, why should Newt need to answer these allegations?

Out of decency to voters. Why should Obama have to show everyone his birth certificate? Or release his college transcripts? Granted, he hasn't released the transcripts, but if you think Newt shouldn't have to answer to this, then I think it's fair to leave Obama's grades 30 years ago slide.

You can't deny that, given the crowd, the answer he gave was effective in helping him attain his ultimate goal: to gain votes.

Put another way, why should that goal have been something else?

It may be effective with GOP true believers, but assuming he gets the nomination he's now guaranteed that it will come up again.