Obligatory Newt Debate Post

I have already seen many, many people, mostly on the left, in the media, but not limited to them only, complain about how unfair they find it that people reacted positively to Newt Gingrich slapping down the CNN reporter that started last nights Carolina Republican debate with the question about an interview done with Newt’s disgruntled ex-wife that was done by ABC, very likely to be aired post Carolina primary to function as a hit piece, but which got derailed by Drudge’s early mention of ABCs plans to do just that. The talking point from these members of the fifth column is that this was a legitimate question for any serious reporter to ask. So those that like me reveled in Newt slapping King down, or as the members of the LSM now all say, “deflecting” the blame to the poor reporter doing his job while not answering, miss the point completely.

It’s not whether this was a legitimate question or not: it is. It’s the fact that these scumbags in the LSM that now are trying to hide behind the excuse that they where just doing their job and reporting on news, seem to ONLY care about these sorts of “legitimate” questions when the target, and yes, have no doubt Newt was a target of this hit piece, are republicans. If you doubt this I recommend you go look at how the members of the LSM treated much larger scandalous information that make the whole Newt wanted an open marriage deal look tame, in the past. Let’s start with the 1992 elections. Bill Clinton was accused of raping someone. They gave him a fluff question he could knock out the park, and declared the matter closed. The woman accusing him was basically dismissed as trailer trash and not credible.

Fast forward to 1996. We now have confirmation Clinton is a sex fiend, after it became obvious, despite LSM’s attempts to cover for him, that he was diddling chubby interns and groping anything in a skirt. It’s now obvious that the accusation the media so nonchalantly dismissed in 1992 as false was dead on. Did they do a 180 and hammer Clinton? Fuck, they defended him. The accused everyone that dared point out Clinton was a liar and had lied under oath when questioned about this and other things, of actually being sexual prudes that were pissed Clinton was getting himself “some, some”, and dismissed this all as just stuck up shitbags making a mountain out of a molehill.

Skip the next guy, which the esteemed members of the DNC’s fifth column tried to demonize & destroy, and let’s not forget that in addition to parroting whatever bullshit lines the DNC spoke as factual some of them even got caught making up shit about Bush’s TANG service, before an election of all cases, to the 2008 election. Remember John Edwards and how interested the LSM was in his martial infidelities before the National Inquirer, a gossip rag, basically did the story its due diligence and forced the LSM to finally report on how big of a scumbag their glided hair boy was? Yeah, they avoided the story and made excuses for the guy. Though questions? Yeah, right.

And let us not forget the two other players in that election. They not only covered for the first one, they basically chose to protect him by focusing all their might on digging up any kind of dirt they could find on the VP of the other party. They got that unqualified asswipe elected to the office of the POTUS – we all know from the last 3 years how disastrous that unvetted and inexperienced marxist empty suit has been for the country – and continue even today with their insane obsession of Palin.

See the pattern yet? If you do, you understand why people like me cheered Newt for slapping down the LSM. Because despite their claim to just be doing their job, it is pretty evident to those of us that don’t have our heads firmly up our asses, that these members of the LSM seem to believe their job is to dig up dirt and attack republicans, and republicans only. If the dirt is bad enough to torpedo a democrat, they ignore or minimize it. It isn’t until recently, when the blogosphere deprived the LSM of their much abused ability to control the news and kill any damaging stories that could hurt their DNC counterparts – like the Wiener showing his wiener incident which did not go away and ended costing Weiner his job – that we finally got a break. And it is even more refreshing to see someone, even if it is someone like Gingrich, which most of us conservatives don’t feel is anything close to an ideal, let alone good candidate, finally fighting back.

Conservatives, and especially anyone that wants to be a conservative politician, need to learn that the LSM is the enemy, one that will never give them a fair shake when it counts, and that they need to be treated it as such. When they do their hit piece on conservatives call them out on it. Do not play their game. Point out the double standard. The more national exposure the podium the do this on, the more valuable the event to educate people about the fact the members of the fifth column are more interested in doing the left’s dirty work then report news. That’s the reason why so many, like me, where ecstatic and celebrated when Newt did just something like that, and pointed out the excuse that they where just doing their job when they pull these kinds of hit pieces on republicans only, was bullshit.

Get it yet?

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    And we all know that bitter, spurned, crazy-ass chicks don’t have an axe to grind and always tell the truth about the men that dumped them.

    Thumb up 1

  2. Screamin

    SO – I’m sure you’re not meaning this (I hope), but are you arguing that the exes/mistresses of Clinton/Edwards et al just had “an axe to grind” and Newt’s ex is the only reasonable woman?

    Just want to clarify…

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    For the record, the intern and rape accusations were made after the ’96 election.

    The accusations that he suffered form zipper control date back to his days as governor of Arkansas. Clinton used the police force there to get him his tail & to cover up or intimidate his victims into silence, and everyone in Arkansas knew that was the case. Down there they where rooting for Bill to be elected president so they could get rid of him and his scandalous behavior. The members of the LSM ignored these “rumors” and did not feel any compunction to pursue this huge story – which you have to admit was even bigger news than this nonsense about Newt asking for an open marriage – during the 1992 elections. What they did is put Bill & Hillary in a room, where they of course then denied it all, and then the members of the LSM that now pretend they where just doing their job fishing for stuff like this from a disgruntled wife, buried the story. The people that had made the accusations? they where labeled as trailer trash and enver interviewed unless they could use the footage to make them look bad.

    Because slick Willy was a scumbag that suffered from both a lack of zipper control and the ability to tell the truth, more such crap followed, and it was all ignored or excused. The accusations that he had been using the police to get him laid resurfaced during his first term, when a Police chief came out and admitted the stories where true, and the members of the LSM that are now telling us they where doing their job coming up with this hit piece on Newt, back then, I point out yet again, wished the story away. I point out tat they not only ignored it: they actively worked to discredit the people accusing Bill at first, then, when they could no longer do that after Bill kept doing more of the same, they resorted to actually defending him and writing hit pieces against anyone that would not let the story die.

    Lewinsky served in the WH before the 1996 elections, BTW. If the LSM which claims to be just doing their jobs now was really interested in this sort of news, don’t you think that with all the warnings they would have found this out before the election? Instead the usual partisan hacks in the LSM covered up this affair they likely knew about, and did not report on it during the 1996 election cycle. We the people then finally got on board when Drudge scooped them. Bill was a serial philanderer and liar. And the media covered for him.

    That the members of the LMS seem inclined to cover up scandalous sex stories for democrats, but now want to hide behind the mantle of just doing their job, was precisely my point Hal. And my story stands that this is what they did for Clinton, in BOTH elections.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    SO – I’m sure you’re not meaning this (I hope), but are you arguing that the exes/mistresses of Clinton/Edwards et al just had “an axe to grind” and Newt’s ex is the only reasonable woman?

    Whether they did or not, the LSM only seems to feel obligated to do their job when they can interview a spurned crazy bitch that then will say things they hope that they can use to hurt a republican. When the bitch has something to say about a democrat, even when faced with massive evidence that the crazy bitch is telling the truth, despite being a crazy bitch, the members of LSM not only don’t feel any compunction to do any interviews/their jobs, but then they go out of theirs way do hit pieces on the crazy bitches, accusing them of being crazy, trailer-trash, and spurned bitches. I am certain that their hit piece on Newt was not going to have the angle that she was a crazy spurned bitch and that we should ignore her, like the ones they did for Clinton. And yet, democrats are considered to be the party that cares about feminists. That is until it is one of their guys doing the nasty.

    Just want to clarify…

    Me two.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Poosh

    The same Clinton who executed a mentally retarded murderer , who had no conception or memory of what he had done, specifically to make him look “not soft” to voters?

    Imagine if Bush did that.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Hal_10000

    Alex, your memory must be faulty. Cilnton in ’92 famously went on 60 minutes and admitted that he had “caused pain in his marriage”. This was talked about constantly. I can remember Jay Leno, after the election, commenting about it and joking that it was going to be a good four years for comedians.

    The Juanita Brodderick accusations did not surface until 1998. She only told her closest friends about it. No way the media could have known about it. The Paula Jones accusations emerged in 1994 and were heavily covered. The rumors of coverups and corruption in Arkansas were out from day one with Clinton, with his “I was honest by the standards of Arkansas” claptrap. We knew Clinton was a serial philanderer. And the public didn’t care, at least partially because Clinton admitted to his behavior on 60 minutes and partially he was not a cultural conservative. It’s not philandering that bothers people, it’s hypocrisy. Newt is running out there saying gays, atheists, abortionists and secularists are ruining the country. He has staked out extreme positions on cultural issues, supporting a personhood amendment, a gay marriage amendment and reinstatement of DADT. When you’re running as liberal, your greed becomes an issue. When you’re running as a culture conservative, your behavior becomes an issue.

    Jesus, just look at who he is sharing the stage with! Mitt Romney has been married to the same woman for four decades and supported her unconditionally when she was diagnosed with MS. Rick Santorum, whatever else I might say about him, appears to be moral in his private life. He supports a child with Edwards Syndrome and he and wife did the best they could to give their son Gabriel a chance at life. Ron Paul, of course, stays off the moral pedestal even though his personal life, as far as I know, is beyond reproach — married for 55 years with five kids. These guys are putting their moral money where their mouth is (or in Paul’s case, where it isn’t). These guys have stuck with their wives through thick and thin. Newt has a history of running away when things get tough. That’s presidential material?

    You complain about Edwards not being investigated. Fine. But why wasn’t Newt? During the ’98 impeachment hearing, he was banging away at his mistress (contra the left, this is not really germaine — Clinton was impeached for perjury not adultery). Larry Flint offered a million dollars to anyone who dug up dirt on these guys. Why didn’t the media catch him then? This isn’t a media creation. This is a woman who came forward several years ago to talk about how she saw their divorce. I don’t find her particularly credible, but that’s not the point. It’s an issue because Newt has made his moral behavior an issue. (And you know very well that if Obama had a similar past, it would be an issue.)

    Frankly, the open marriage stuff is the least disturbing part of the interview. The personality she describes is one that I think is remarkably unsuited to the White House. I never thought I’d say this but I’d almost prefer Santorum over Gingrich. At least Santorum isn’t a screaming hypocrite with delusions of grandeur and an insecure personality complex. Yes, even worse than the current resident.

    This is vetting. This is what we have a primary for. Let’s not make the mistake the Democrats did, nominate some guy and say, “Oh, shit. What’s his background again?”

    (PS – I am close to people with MS. So his behavior bothers me on many levels, some of which are personal. I may not be entirely objective, which is why I’ve avoid an above-the-fold post.)

    Thumb up 0

  7. richtaylor365

    Never thought we would be rehashing the sex life of that horndog.

    We knew Clinton was a serial philanderer.

    How about sexual predator? Consensual stuff is just that, consensual, but weather you call it rape, sexual assault, or just being a dick, Clinton committed actual crimes in his bid to secure more pussy. Not just once, there is a coterie of accusers that point to behavior not just despicable, but abusive.

    It’s not philandering that bothers people, it’s hypocrisy.

    Would you not agree Hal that the simple act of infidelity equates to hypocrisy in that we all swear an oath of fidelity to our spouse when we get married? All marriage vows involve a promise to be faithful, he was not, hypocrisy. Sure, I can see it more blatant if you are a Larry Craig, preaching the sins of homosexuality then we come to find out you also like sucking cock.

    You complain about Edwards not being investigated. Fine. But why wasn’t Newt?

    That might have to do with the fact that along with the infidelity, Edwards (allegedly) was committing fraud,/theft/violating campaign finance laws by giving his squeeze money he had not right to give, that and asking several people to lie for him.

    My problems with Newt and why I can’t support him go beyond any infidelity problems he had. But I’m also a believer in redemption and forgiveness. Apparently he had a Come To Jesus moment, confessed his sins and asked forgiveness from all the aggrieved, including Marianne. For the voter that weighs those sins as heavy and preemptive of support, so be it, for me, I believe in a clean slate, but still won’t support him for president.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Hal_10000

    Would you not agree Hal that the simple act of infidelity equates to hypocrisy in that we all swear an oath of fidelity to our spouse when we get married? All marriage vows involve a promise to be faithful, he was not, hypocrisy. Sure, I can see it more blatant if you are a Larry Craig, preaching the sins of homosexuality then we come to find out you also like sucking cock.

    That’s a great point Rich.

    Thumb up 0