Newt gets suckerpunched in the 'nads

[3rdnlng]

Wow. I think we have some degree of convergence. I'm a little scared here....

 

Like Cain's protestations, Newt's are stupid on their face. Of course if you ask women who knew the couple, they might tell you there was no such thing. Problem is, they weren't privvy to the nitty-gritty of a marriage. Were they there? Defending yourself by demurring the question to people who weren't present when details happened is like asking hundreds of women whether they thought Ted Bundy was a serial rapist/murderer. How is it pertinent to ask women who weren't affected? It's a red herring defense. What matters are the women that were. And you either choose to listen to what they have to say and weigh it, or you don't.

 

But it's Gingrich's utter hypocrisy that's so disgusting. He comes out and says, 'How dare you ask a personal question like that to open a presidential debate.' If a personal relationship isn't pertinent to presidential matters, the WHY THE HELL was Newt leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Why was so much tonnage spent on finding out how many times an Arkansas hick got his rocks off with a chubby intern? If it was pertinent for Clinton, it's pertinent for you, Newt!

 

But, still, it seems as though some percentage of SC and nationwide GOP voters don't care about Newt's past. As I wrote in the Cain thread at the time his doings were being revealed, people can accept celebrities who just come out and say that they screw tigers --- and in fact, they like screwing tigers. ****, look at Trump, who trades in trophy wives every 10,000 miles. People expect that of him now. It's a friggin' trademark. People watch enough (un)reality teevee that this kind of behavior is applauded! (Up to a point. Say, in Anthony Weiner's case, he might've survived if not for the pictures. Once there's pictures, you're done.) Newt, like Trump, may be one who can be brash enough to make otherwise deplorable actions his Style and a percentage of moron voting public will give him a pass and/or eat it up with spoons. But the minute Trump would denigrate someone else for getting wives of newer vintage, that's a thin red line to cross. It's OK for Trump to be a chauvinist, but not a hypocrite.

 

To the corollary, Gingrich seems to have made his trademark / elan as being a hypocrite. Some people obviously admire Angry and Bitter. It's gotten him thus far. Kind of new territory and it definitely puts this theory to the test.

 

 

The fight for Clinton to be impeached was for lying under oath. While I favor Romney for his business acumen I will mourn the loss of watching Newt debate Obama.

[Fezmid]

If a personal relationship isn't pertinent to presidential matters, the WHY THE HELL was Newt leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Why was so much tonnage spent on finding out how many times an Arkansas hick got his rocks off with a chubby intern? If it was pertinent for Clinton, it's pertinent for you, Newt!

Wasn't the impeachment for lying? Also, I'm not a huge poltiics guy, but wasn't Lewinski in essence an employee of Clinton? That makes it a little more relevant than someone having an affair in general, IMHO.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

Wasn't the impeachment for lying? Also, I'm not a huge poltiics guy, but wasn't Lewinski in essence an employee of Clinton? That makes it a little more relevant than someone having an affair in general, IMHO.

 

Gingrich said his ex was lying. If she's right, then he is lying. Hence, he's a big fat liar about marital issues. Pretty simple... and the GOP is all about character WHEN IT SUITS THEM.

[C.Biscuit97]

I don't like the guy at all and pray he isn't the President. But given how fat and ugly he is, the fact he even can sex with more than 1 woman amazes me. Good for him, no matter how ugly they are. This would be the last reason I won't vote for him.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Gingrich said his ex was lying. If she's right, then he is lying. Hence, he's a big fat liar about marital issues. Pretty simple... and the GOP is all about character WHEN IT SUITS THEM.

Guess you don't know what "while under oath" means.

[UConn James]

Yeah, I was alive in '97-'98 so I know the particulars. That was a more rhetorical question along the lines of "What was the use of it all?" I understand that there's a legal distinction b/w lying under oath and lying in front of the camera for all the world to see, and that somehow when you're in a testimony seat, there's a higher standard for truth-telling than when you're standing next to it. I was brought up to believe that a lie is a lie is a lie, no matter where you're sitting.

 

And the pretense of this weasel trivia doesn't make Newt any less slimy than the creature his first name describes. The Clinton impeachment was at its heart a personal vendetta. And now Gingrich is getting the red ass because now his own brand of poison brew is the medicine he's being forced to swallow?!!? him. I'll probably vote for him if he's the nominee, just to get BO out of there, but I won't like it and I pray it doesn't come down to him. AD can chastise me for being a lemming and part of the problem all he wants, but I'll take a son-of-a-B word who at least says he'll reduce taxes and cut spending over a guy who's passing public money out like it's !@#$ing candy (not to mention running taxpayer-bought guns to Mexican drug cartels so he can get the wheels rolling on the "Progressive" wet-dream of U.N.-style gun registration and confiscation when he's got nothing left to run for).

[Adam]

Not even paying attention to this garbage- it is as stupid as the impeachment of President Clinton. That said, the question had to be asked at the debate last night, as it is in the news.

[OCinBuffalo]

Uhhh.....

 

During my casual review of RCP...I found Newt's debate blurb last night. John King Publicly Humiliated

 

First debate I didn't watch live, dammit. That is killer TV.

 

I'm not so sure whose nads are getting rocked here anymore. If anything, the story is the whipping Newt put on CNN. I doubt anybody is going to care about anything else now.

 

Just sayin', again: you can talk all you want about the man, but you cannot deny his political skill set.

Edited January 20, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

Not to take the thread too far off the topic (of Newt's nads )

 

But I completely agree with what Hugh Hewitt wrote this AM

 

 

 

Calling Chairman Preibus

January 20, 2012

 

There are six "scheduled" debates left. If the campaign goes beyond February, there will be more proposed. CNN's John King showed again last night, as ABC and NBC did in New Hampshire, that MSM cannot be trusted to run a serious debate. Entertaining, yes, but not serious. Not even remotely 9/11 serious.

 

Not a single question about Iran which, the day before the debate, John King had told me was the one issue he guaranteed would come up because of its importance. None of the issues that lead to necessary and blistering criticisms of President Obama --the presidents hostility to Israel, the failed stimulus, Solynrda and other green failures, massive defense cuts, Boeing and the NLRB, the out-of-control EPA, the recess appointments, fast-and-furious etc etc etc-- are brought up by the legacy media because they hate to be the ones to tee up the GOP's rightful criticism of the president.

 

So strip the legacy media of the power to distort the discussion. The RNC should announce it will hold debates on the dates already selected and in the cities scheduled, but that it will invite CSPAN, not a network, to air them, that Preibus will do the intros and then turn the proceedings over to a panel of four questioners, one each selected by the four candidates from a long list of journalists/commentators/public intellectuals approved by the RNC as professional and mainstream. There may be some familiar faces from the nets like Bret Baire and Candy Crowley, Megyn Kelly and Jake Tapper, and obvious potential questioners include Rush, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett, John Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Rich Lowry, etc but no Trumps and no more MSMers in effect defending the president by steering the conversation away from the big issues and especially those on which the president has manifestly failed.

 

Then perhaps the GOP electorate can, after 17 tries, get a sustained, serious conversation about what is wrong with the country, how to fix it, and who is the best nominee to beat the president and carry the Senate while maintaining the House majority

.

 

That's what GOP voters want to know and that's not what the MSM wants them to learn.

 

 

All of the 17 debates to date ought to have been about the president and what he has done, failed to do and will do if re-elected. None of them have had that focus,

 

not one.

 

 

 

Hugh Hewitt

 

.

[GG]

Not to take the thread too far off the topic (of Newt's nads )

 

But I completely agree with what Hugh Hewitt wrote this AM

 

 

 

All of the 17 debates to date ought to have been about the president and what he has done, failed to do and will do if re-elected. None of them have had that focus,

 

not one.

 

 

 

Hugh Hewitt

 

.

 

Say what? These are the primaries. The focus should be on which candidate will be best to lead the country, which by extension is to pick a candidate to beat Obama. I don't want time wasted on targeting Obama at this point, because it's pointless and a bit ahead of time at this juncture.

[Adam]

Uhhh.....

 

During my casual review of RCP...I found Newt's debate blurb last night. John King Publicly Humiliated

 

First debate I didn't watch live, dammit. That is killer TV.

 

I'm not so sure whose nads are getting rocked here anymore. If anything, the story is the whipping Newt put on CNN. I doubt anybody is going to care about anything else now.

 

Just sayin', again: you can talk all you want about the man, but you cannot deny his political skill set.

He is the only one who is a real threat to President Obama. Ron Paul could have been, but isn't eloquent enough- and despite what people say, that matters a lot.

 

What is being done to Gingrich isn't fair, but the question was- it IS news!

[B-Man]

Say what? These are the primaries. The focus should be on which candidate will be best to lead the country, which by extension is to pick a candidate to beat Obama. I don't want time wasted on targeting Obama at this point, because it's pointless and a bit ahead of time at this juncture.

 

 

You are twisting the suggestion by only pulling out the last paragraph.

 

this one is more to the point,

 

 

 

Then perhaps the GOP electorate can, after 17 tries, get a sustained, serious conversation about what is wrong with the country, how to fix it, and who is the best nominee to beat the president and carry the Senate while maintaining the House majority

 

The suggestion is not to be "targeting" Mr. Obama, as you write, but to illustrate what each GOP candidate thinks about some Administration policies and how they (individually) would handle the situation differently.

 

Instead of the media's obsession with "social" issues that are stressed in order to make the Republican candidates look non -presidential.

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

.

[GG]

 

 

Instead of the media's obsession with "social" issues that are stressed in order to make the Republican candidates look non -presidential.

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

.

 

If the situation fits, then they should pursue it. This is not to say that many of the network & cable news reporters treat Dems & Reps the same way, Gingrich's personal conduct should be a campaign issue, because it could affect the way he would govern. After all, I'm not aware of many cases where a leader was tossed in a rebellion of his subordinates, only to come back and claim that he can lead again. The line up of people who used to work with Gingrich and are sticking their neck out in his support is as long as Bills playoff appearances in the last decade.

[Buftex]

Uhhh.....

 

During my casual review of RCP...I found Newt's debate blurb last night. John King Publicly Humiliated

 

First debate I didn't watch live, dammit. That is killer TV.

 

I'm not so sure whose nads are getting rocked here anymore. If anything, the story is the whipping Newt put on CNN. I doubt anybody is going to care about anything else now.

 

Just sayin', again: you can talk all you want about the man, but you cannot deny his political skill set.

 

I know you are enamored with Newt's "skill set", but I guess the interpritation of how he came off is up for debate. I think he sounds like a defensive child who got caught with his cookie hand in the jar. He is a far better debator than any of the other candidates, I will give you that... but, like Santorum said, he is very aware of what sounds good, even when you can't really take him too seriously, because his history shows he is full of ****.

 

But, I do agree with you...people who like Newt already know that he comes with lots of scars, lumps and bumps...so the news isn't so shocking, and won't likely hurt him all that much, with those already supporting him.

 

He is the only one who is a real threat to President Obama. Ron Paul could have been, but isn't eloquent enough- and despite what people say, that matters a lot.

 

What is being done to Gingrich isn't fair, but the question was- it IS news!

 

What is being "done to Gingrich"?

Edited January 20, 2012 by Buftex

[1billsfan]

I think Newt's surge is due to him reflecting the genuine undercurrent of anger in this country that they feel towards the president. Romney has that fake looking, game show host-like smile and it's not connecting at all.

 

America wants to see Newt "Sonny" Gingrich going off on Barack "Carlo" Obama in a national debate...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTit869LfWA

[OCinBuffalo]

I know you are enamored with Newt's "skill set", but I guess the interpritation of how he came off is up for debate. I think he sounds like a defensive child who got caught with his cookie hand in the jar. He is a far better debator than any of the other candidates, I will give you that... but, like Santorum said, he is very aware of what sounds good, even when you can't really take him too seriously, because his history shows he is full of ****.

 

But, I do agree with you...people who like Newt already know that he comes with lots of scars, lumps and bumps...so the news isn't so shocking, and won't likely hurt him all that much, with those already supporting him.

 

 

 

What is being "done to Gingrich"?

There's Newt, and then there's people who need a teleprompter. Nothing about Newt's beat down came off as rehearsed. He sounded like he was the GM of the company "counseling" a junior VP. Look at King's body language. Hysterical. He ACTED like the junior VP, literally standing there on the carpet he was called out on.

 

Since when has being full of **** not a core competency of a politician? The difference with Obama is: he isn't even aware that a lot of what he says is ridiculous. I'm done with blaming the WH staff. Clearly they are terrible, but look what they have to work with. There's already been the turnover in staff, yada yada. The root causes of this Administration's problems lie with Obama and Jarrett, who still has a job, which is also Obama.

 

Meanwhile, Romney has been trending towards Newt and away from teleprompter, since the beginning of this...whatever it is. Still, nobody has been able to land a clean punch on him. Just as in boxing, only clean punches count. Romney has made serious progress, and has made it without much resistance, especially from the media. What happened to the Bain Capital story? Now it's taxes? None of this is going anywhere.

 

Basically? I think the MSM knows Obama is likely to lose, I mean come on, they do this for a living and they have to at least be aware of it. They are pushing Romney as who they perceive to be the least conservative. Meanwhile, the ones that still think Obama has a chance, or more accurately, wish he did, are pushing Paul like crazy.

 

They know that if Gingrich gets it, there's going to be nothing but beat downs for them and Obama. Their only hope will some sort of Newt the Child gaffe....which means they will over-hype anything he does that comes close...but if they miss or it doesn't connect, they just opened themselves up big time. I wonder if anybody at ABC, etc. is smart, or wise, enough to see this.

 

Hell, the media blatantly conspiring against Gingrich, has the very serious potential of putting him in the WH. Americans detest bullies and love it when the bully's weakness is exposed and used to kick his ass. This is the only reason Clinton remained in office, when Newt was doing the bullying.

 

Nothing would please me more: not Newt winning, I'd take Newt or Romney, rather, the MSM silliness being used against them. Dan Rather Round 2

Edited January 20, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Obviously, the guys in the "Quiet Room," namely ABC's corporate board saved this to try and knock unelectable Newt out of the race so that their guy could win the nomination sooner and save their tax rates. No way did this story just happen to pop up at this exact time by accident. Newt was correct about that.

[IDBillzFan]

Obviously, the guys in the "Quiet Room," namely ABC's corporate board saved this to try and knock unelectable Newt out of the race so that their guy could win the nomination sooner and save their tax rates. No way did this story just happen to pop up at this exact time by accident. Newt was correct about that.

That would explain why they simultaneously ran the "Mitt has money in the Cayman Islands!!" headline.

 

Would have never imagined it possible, but you're actually dumber than conner. Way to lower the bar.

[Buftex]

Not to take the thread too far off the topic (of Newt's nads )

 

But I completely agree with what Hugh Hewitt wrote this AM

 

 

 

If the only aired the debates on CSPAN, people like Cain, Bachmann and Perry would have been gone long ago. Newt is scoring all of his points on theatrics.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Buftex

[Magox]

Newt is able to communicate the Conservative POV much better than any of the other candidates, he has the ability to make some conservatives proud to be conservatives. Having said that, he is all show, he is disingenous, egomaniacal and tremendously undisciplined who has NO shot at beating Obama.