Why The Media Wants Romney To Win The Nomination So Badly
This recent item in the New York Times below is in good part what's behind the liberal media's desire to see Mitt Romney get the nomination. Now, I don't see Romney quite this way. But the left does. Religion, wealth, a "retro vision of the country." In short, in Romney they see everything they have been working to destroy for decades. They even want to pretend he isn't flawed, hence the over-looking of his many gaffes and retorts that invite his being slammed. But they don't slam him, … not for now.
Read it. Then realize how badly they will aim to destroy him in the general. And as his campaign stands today, he'll be a sitting duck. He's configured perfectly for a GOP primary today, even if he had to contort himself and disregard principle to get there. The media has already annointed him. But remember the day after McCain got the nomination and they turned on him, the first story being some alleged affair, or something? That was nothing.
In Romney, the media, wrongly, in my opinion, sees the perfect symbol of everything they are against. Now, imagine what it would mean to them and the Left to beat him, especially with Obama? For them it will be like turning a page in America that can never be turned back. And only a fool would think they won't do everything to destroy him after having made him appear so invincible. Unfortunately, combined with a lack of enthusiasm on the part of conservatives because he's actually such a weak candidate, they very likely will get their wish.
What’s Race Got to Do With It?
Pundits have already begun the endless debate over whether Mr. Romney’s wealth and religion are hindrances or assets. But there has yet to be any discussion over the one quality that has subtly fueled his candidacy thus far and could well put him over the top in the fall: his race. The simple, impolitely stated fact is that Mitt Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory.
Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density. I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president. It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America.
Confirmation that the Collective is…and will be…obsessed with race.
It is a knee-jerk instinct in them, to see Americans first by race, then gender, then whatever other class distinction they can impose.
There will never be a post-racial America until that mode of seeing and thinking is made universally disgusting…as it surely is.
It’s been a trap from the jump. And only the suits in the DC Republican sewing circle could be so obtuse as to not see it. But then these are the folks who are ignoring 2 completely different lessons in electoral politics, that from 08 and 010. Pathetic, unprincipled, incompetent, arrogant, morons.
If I had to guess, I’d say the OWS movement was invented with Romney in mind.
Soon as he’s the delegate winner on April 24, Palin/Rubio can announce.
Only way Rubio can get on any national ticket because of the ‘natural born citizen’ thing, is if Zippy is currently in office and seeking another term – the Left cannot make that argument.
Zippy and Rubio share exactly the same situation vis a vis that particular qualification.
A Palin/Rubio ticket – an Independent ticket – if it had early Spring as a starting date, would be unbeatable.
Romney/Christie
Palin/Rubio
Obama/Biden
Of course, after Palin announced, Zippy would swap out PIAPS for Biden.
Doesn’t that sound like fun?
Oh, and Palin/Rubio could announce some choice cabinet selections …
Bolton @ State
Issa @ Justice
Gingrich @ Czar of Dismantlement
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
http://tinyurl.com/7syqbay
Sometimes it is good to ask when a late breaking story like this comes out on the eve of an election, who really benefits from it?
Just saying. Especially in South Carolina.
You left out the fact that Bain Capital, a company he owned, is the owner of Clear Channel Communications, a MSM media outlet that owns several radio and tv stations. They also own AMC, another media outlet
Dan – I’m not so sure that the media/Obama wanted Romney as much as they just figured he was going to be the nominee. Given the stupid party’s predilection for going with guy next in line, it was a good bet. It’s probably why they felt safe launching OWS. Too bad (HA,HA,HA) the commies took it over.
Whoever the Republican nominee is, he will have a new one torn for him each and every day. We all know Gingrich’s liabilities. If it was Santorum, they’d bring in gays from foreign countries when they ran out of American gays to talk about the hell of living in a world of bible thumping homophobic gay-haters.
Jesus Christ himself could be our candidate and the Dems would have plenty of bogus oppo research that the MSM would trumpet daily. Bet on it.
Romney has issues, definitely; but, I don’t think being Mr White Bread & Mayo is really a liability.
Oh, and Lee Siegel is an educated idiot. They’re the worst.
Issa can’t handle the job he is doing now.
Asleep at the wheel comes to mind.
Too many rinos spoil the recipe for conservatism.
“Jesus Christ himself could be our candidate and the Dems would have plenty of bogus oppo research that the MSM would trumpet daily. Bet on it.”
True that.
But don’t tell some of the others here that. They are already messing themselves over the power of Axelrod lies.
You’d think Reagan never won, and that the Mushroom Media didn’t have competition from New Media that never existed before.
Or that some here believe lies trump the truth.
Odd.
Thank you for this post. That’s all I are able to say. You most absolutely have built this blog website into something special.
You clearly know what you are working on, you’ve insured so many corners.
Yeah, it’s the media’s fault your candidates f*cking suck.
And it’s the ACORN / GEORGE SOOOOOOOOOROOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSS!!!!!! fault that the Iowa GOP are in the tank for Weird Willard. http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/
The media DO want Weird Willard to win. But not because they want to feed the Borg Collective’s perpetual victim complex (although that is a logical result of the same).
Since, to paraphrase a recent Encounter Books pamphlet by Richard Epstein, liberalism is not sustainable, it can either continue on its path towards the Great Reprimitivization (let’s ban or make prohibitively expensive everything! From malaria-preventing DDT to light bulbs and electricity.) Or it can start to embrace what Tom Wolfe once called “The Great Relearning.”
The latter will proceed one way or another, but unfortunately, society (read: liberalism) invariably must relearn its lessons the hard way.
See also: the Costa Concordia.
–Ed Driscoll
Those are the choices here, folks. We can follow the Obamic Diminishing or we can embrace modernity and liberty. The American Revolution or the Reactionary Collective.
Educate your friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors. All to the good.
What’s really funny is that Steel Turman is NOT the MOST delusional of the Borg Collectivists.
Why is it that 8 votes makes Weird Willard a winner in Iowa, but a couple dozen votes only gives the Frothy Mixture a tie? What happened to all those votes the Iowa GOP “lost”? No wonder you patriots are so *concerned* about “vote fraud.” You are experts in practicing it.
Geez, UAssMORON, you would be a pitiable victim of the Mushroom Media…
if it was not for the fact that you are such a hate-twisted, stupid, voluntary victim…
with all that Frothy Mixture smeared all over your fat old body from where you wallow in it.
On you, it looks like justice.
Poor Clownselor. The Frothy Mixture won more “votes” in Iowa. Yet I guess a “tie” goes to Weird Willard because your heroes in Iowa “lost” votes. Whoops!! And you’re just fine with it. Funny: ACTUAL ballot irregularities that actually affect an outcome in the very first GOP contest of 2012 – *shrug*. Rumors of blackity black black blackity BLACKS being uncomfortably close to proper white voters in PA in 2008, that the Bush DOJ disposed of – crime of the century.
Poor, stupid, lying, RACIST, RELIGIOUS BIGOT, evil, Collectivist harpy(tm)…
Iowa is a tie. Iowa was a tie.
Can’t you read, seriously?
Or is it that this is just your lie d’jour…??? The one you will chant here until it is proven a lie and you have to go back to the moonbattery for a new one…???
Poor lickspittle. He hasn’t gotten his orders faxed to him yet. Don’t worry, Clownselor; I’m sure that by the end of the day you will coherently explain to us how the Frothy Mixture’s MORE votes in Iowa entitle him to a “tie” because votes were lost. I wonder if the other *conservatives* who comment hear see how you are in the tank for the Central Committee’s chosin won.
I consider Iowa in general a non-story, UAssMORON.
It has little to no significance to me.
Now, voter intimidation DOES, but we see you think it can and should be marginalized according to the color of the intimidators.
Which is why we all know you as the racist puke your are.
Well…one of the many reasons we know that about you.
I suppose I have to allow that having an idiot second in line behind Bad Luck Barry DOES have some significance to me.
“Biden to San Francisco crowd: ‘The Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl’…”
So long as Barackah stays healthy, we can all just laugh…
“ACTUAL ballot irregularities that actually affect an outcome in the very first GOP contest of 2012 – *shrug*.”
Poor, stupid, lying, RACIST, RELIGIOUS BIGOT, evil, Collectivist harpy(tm)…
wrong on that,
front to back.
You really don’t know jack-spit about anything, do you…???
Willard recently said he thought Obama was basically a good guy. He also said he, Romney, wanted to work with the Dems to get things done[What things? FB]. He said exactly the same thing about wanting to work with the Dems years ago. He was also against, against I say, the Contract with America. Let’s go to the video tape:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/who-was-undisciplined-in-1994/
New news. Perry drops out, supports Gingrie.
Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says
Gingrich Wanted “OPEN Marriage”
B, it is an old, retreaded smear.
I mean, if you like that kind of thing…
MICKEY KAUS: Has Obama Abandoned (Private Sector) Unions? “Obama may be closer to Walter Russell Mead–and Mitt Romney– than we think. … It’s almost as if Bain-like consultants are behind it all!”
–InstaPundit
I asked misef that very question yesterday, when Pres. “We Can’t Wait” killed off the Keystone Pipeline as a job ASSURER in the near-term.
Seems Bad Luck Barry has decided his buds in the public-sector unions are worth a lot more than the private-sector worker.
Hmmm…
Dan you might have also mentioned that Mitt also seems to be the favorite of the Republican establishment, probably because he is the one who will (well, would) not rock the boat. And you see this reflected in the Fox News coverage, in my opinion. When Frank Luntz declares Mitt Romney the overall winner of the last debate (only grudgingly giving high marks to Gingrich for his standing ovation) you are seeing the GOP elites in action filtered through mouthpieces like Luntz. And he is far from the only one.
The establishment is making a grave miscalculation. They know we desire nothing so much as to remove Obama from office, and they think this is their penultimate chance to force-feed us their preferred candidate.
Don’t let them get away with it.
imho the MSM/Left feel Romney least likely to roll back ObamaCare, etc, thus legitimizing the vile ‘progressive’ era forever
Romney also least like to beat Obama, the lack of contrast = uninspired moderates + demoralized TEA Party
Then Obama can twist the knife for a few more years
I respect Gov. Perry for doing the right thing.
As of this point, I’m going Newt.
“I consider Iowa in general a non-story, UAssMORON.
It has little to no significance to me.”
Of course you do, and of course it doesn’t. That’s my point, perfesser. You have no problem with an organized state political party affecting the outcome of a state-wide contest (in this case the caucus). As long as its the political party you closest identify with, and as long as the result is to your liking. Since you are obviously in the bag for Willard, the fact that the Frothy Mixture actually got more votes, is no concern of yours, right lickspittle?
“Now, voter intimidation DOES, but we see you think it can and should be marginalized according to the color of the intimidators.”
Right, right. Your *concern* is that black people stood too close to a proper white American in the general vicinity of a polling place in 2008. For which the Bush DOJ found f*ck-all in the way of actual wrongdoing. But your fever dreams totally say otherwise. Which is all that matters to the Borg Collective.
And how is pointing out the Borg Collective’s collective bigotry, “racism” on my part?
“wrong on that,
front to back.”
That’s really compelling, Clownselor. Especially in light of your previous statement that you consider Iowa a non-story. Which is it?
Finally, Clownselor, now that ACORN has forced Gov. Totally Not Gay out of the race, and the unions have forced him to endorse Newton Leroy, do you still plan to schill for Willard? What is the Central Committee’s position on that, especially in light of the fact that Weird Willard only “tied” in Iowa?
Way beyond our usual spittle-flecked psychotic break, you…
Poor, stupid, lying, RACIST, RELIGIOUS BIGOT, evil, Collectivist harpy(tm).
You are such an idiot, and such a liar, there really is no need to even attempt to rebut all that BS.
But you do…again…nicely display your complete disjunction with reality…
well, coupled with your stupidity and ignorance.
Way to go…!!!
“You are such an idiot, and such a liar, there really is no need to even attempt to rebut all that BS.”
Again, very compelling, Clownselor. As usual, you have nothing. You NEVER address facts. When even the smallest holes are poked in your fever dreams, we get the same thing: blah blah blah stupid, blah blah blah racist, blah blah blah evil, blah blah blah liar.
Yet you never demonstrate a thing.
But, in any event, it looks like the Iowa GOP has finally said “yeah, the Frothy Mixture really did win.” Again, which is it, Clownselor: do you care about vote integrity or not? And for the third time in this thread alone: what’s your evidence of “voter intimidation”? Actual documented, factually verifiable evidence.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/breaking-romney-calls-santorum-concedes-iowa/
And that changes…what…???
“…do you care about vote integrity or not?”
Yeah. I do.
I’d be really unhappy if I lived in Iowa…and not because my caucus vote means a damn thing, really, (outside of a popularity contest) since it does not even determine delegates from Iowa. I’d be pissed at the ham-handed handling of this popularity contest.
Being that I’m from Texas, this is a none-issue for me.
“And for the third time in this thread alone: what’s your evidence of “voter intimidation”? Actual documented, factually verifiable evidence.”
I can’t help you, as we’ve established many, MANY times before now.
Your skull is too packed with crap, and cannot admit anything but more crap from your Collective masters.
The evidence is all over the interweb thingy, including eyewitness accounts from long-time voting rights activists, voters, prosecutors, etc.
I warmly invite all who care to research the issue for themselves.
Which will prove you a liar, yet again.
Another daily happening.
Blah blah blah. You’re just a perpetual swing-and-a-miss, Clownselor. Like in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Not. One. Verifiable. Fact.
Not. One.
Again.
Although, the old “it’s all over the internet” defense is particularly charming, particularly in light of the fact that you NEVER show your work anyway.
Anyway, it looks like the Frothy Mixture won Iowa by 69 votes. 69, Clownselor. I bet the gays are behind that number. Also too, ACORN and the Blackity Blackity Black Black Black Panthers.
See…???
Wipe the Frothy Mixture off your nasty, hate-twisted gob, you…
Poor, stupid, lying, RACIST, RELIGIOUS BIGOT, evil, Collectivist harpy(tm)…
supporter of race-based law enforcement, college admission, loan administration, etc.
People seem very eager to forget that this is the same Newt who shared a sofa with Pelosi Galore a couple of years ago warning us of the dangers of global warming.
There’s a lot of things I’ve liked about him over the years, but it wasn’t that long ago that people were using that fact as a reason why he shouldn’t be the nominee.
Question is, is it more important to defeat Willard Milton Romney or Barack Hussein Obama?
Dan’s post could be applied equally to any and all of the field as it existed four or five months ago.
“Question is, is it more important to defeat Willard Milton Romney or Barack Hussein Obama?”
Yes.
And in that order, just in the natural progression of the thing.
Dan what do you think of Perry endorsing Newt?
I really like Perry, I was hoping he could make a come-back.
What about Santorum, I like him too – am I missing something – why is it so hard for him to keep momentum? Why won’t they (Iowa GOP) declare him the winner – they were quick to declare Romney winner – did GOP in Iowa try to steal that election for Romney?
“People seem very eager to forget that this is the same Newt who shared a sofa with Pelosi Galore a couple of years ago warning us of the dangers of global warming.”
It isn’t that that will doom Gingrich in the primaries or the general. It’s his marital infidelity. It’s on Drudge right now.
Excerpt:
“Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as she was having dinner with her mother, Newt Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”
Shocked, Marianne Gingrich replied: “Is there anybody else?” she recalled. “He was quiet. Within two seconds, when he didn’t immediately answer, I knew.”
The next day, Newt Gingrich gave a speech titled “The Demise of American Culture” to the Republican Women Leaders Forum in Erie, Pa., extolling the virtues of the founding fathers and criticizing liberal politicians for supporting tax increases, saying they hurt families and children.”
Source of the above quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marianne-gingrich-newts-ex-wife-says-he-wanted-open-marriage/2012/01/19/gIQAJzgwAQ_print.html
In my view, Gingrich is a pure moral scumbag. I understand that people get divorced. It happens all the time. But that’s not the real issue here for me. What’s hardest to stomach is the callousness of his filing for divorce while his (then first) wife was being treated for cancer, and a close second nausea inducer is his bald, unmitigated hypocrisy.
It’s easier to gloss over a person’s failings when they’re not front and center. Gingrich’s moral failings are going to be getting a gnats-ass-like scrutiny. It’s a huge negative, and probably a deal breaker for many many Republicans and Independents.
formwiz – Newt and Romney had the same view about global warming. They are both progressives. Romney is the kind of progressive Beck can live with, Newt is the kind of progressive that some teapartiers can live with, it seems.
Newt did great things for conservatism once, Romney has never done any such thing.
His business experience did not help Massachussets much, what guarantee do we have that it will help the US.
Newt understood what the Tea party was all about from the start and has even defended them, Romney seemed embarrassed about Tea party, his supporters loathe the Tea party.
Regarding the ABC trash story that the holier-than-thou Romney supporters are so happy about:
At least Newt did not advocate for under-age girls to get abortions without their parents permission – Saint Romney did that.
Don’t know if anyone noticed this but the FBI just shut down Megaupload for piracy. This has seriously pissed off the 4chaners and they are in the process of launching a ddos on the FBI. SO AS OF RIGHT NOW THE FBI’s computer system is shut down and under a direct, brute force hacking attack. What makes this rather news worthy is that this a purely civilian attack that could by sheer numbers alone work from what I am understanding. I guess the FBI is learning that you don’t mess with the 4chan and their free anime.
Godzilla, stay out of Newt’s bedroom! You are doing what you accuse social conservatives of doing. Remember how you hate socons?
Newt’s 2nd wife should be the last one to complain, did she not steal him from wife number 1?
Besides, those are old stories from a woman scorned. I will listen and judge when I see evidence that Newt is stil engaging in that kind of behavior.
Wow, ‘zilla…
Way to hear out both sides!
Cause we KNOW that…
1. scorned spouses NEVER, EVER lie, embellish, remember stuff that didn’t happen, etc.
2. the WaPo NEVER, EVER just prints crap up from whole cloth, arranges things out of sequence, etc.
3. this crap has been around and around. Note the timing for THIS latest retelling.
I withhold judgment for now.
I have wondered if, fer instance Thomas Jefferson was a “hypocrite”. Some would…do…say OH, YEAH. Wrote of the rights of man, and owned slaves.
I suggest that is not hypocrisy…but humanity. Big difference, to my mind. We (the best of us) try to live up to our ideals, and the best of us fail. We regret the failure, and we note the conflict, and we try to do better.
A hypocrite is someone who PRETENDS an ideal, but makes no effort to live it themselves.
We can be both, but not at the same time IMNHO.
Newt has shown signs of reformation. I like to let people show me who are CURRENTLY are. Not to just be stupid and forget who they have been, but to provide them the chance I’d want.
“At least Newt did not advocate for under-age girls to get abortions without their parents permission/”
Ricky, as I noted yesterday, ANY such law in ANY state would require that provision to get past judicial review under Roe. It is wrong to cast that as a Romney “advocacy” when it was a dead-bang necessity.
Rags, I did not see your remarks of yesterday.
The issue is Romney’s SUPPORT of the idea! He could have stated that he does not support the idea, but that he will abide by the law. Did you watch the whole debate where the issue came up? Romney was throwing pro-lifers under the bus big time. At the time he received an endorsement from Massachussests-Life, he even threw them under the bus, it was ugly!
Meaning that he will respect the law in that regard.
And for another inkling of what’s coming for Gingrich:
“Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as speaker. After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was sanctioned $300,000 by a 395–28 House vote. It was the first time in history a speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.[64]”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Ethics_sanctions
And I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a lot of burried dirt that’s going to surface regarding those sanctions. Pelosi already tipped their hand.
Ricky, I’d have to say that I “support the idea” because it is the law, and I’m an officer of the Court.
I could go on to say I want the law changed, I think it wrong, and the like…depending on the venue and who I might hurt venting my spleen (it wouldn’t be fair to a client with no dog in that hunt).
But I hear you on the very ambiguous Romney abortion record. I find it very odd and hard to reconcile, too.
Part of the shape-shifter quality I really distrust about Mittens.
Rags, look what happened to Cain over allegations much less egregious (imo) than Gingrich’s transgressions.
Another prediction: Gingrich supporters are going to start criticizing the second Mrs. Gingrich, trying to marginalize statements, and that’s not going to play over very well. Hillbuzz made a tepid attempt at it today.
Regarding the ethics charges: Keep in mind that Newt was the establishment and Dems enemy number One at the time.
“Pelosi already tipped their hand.”
And got third-degree burns before she could pull it back.
That sword cuts two ways.
Newt stepped up. Repeatedly.
Contra Balless Bill Clinton, etc. ad nauseum.
I, again for one, don’t think Marianne Gingrich gets a free pass. I think it is appropriate to look narrowly at what she claims, and her own conduct, without going all “bimbo eruption” on her.
Ricky, the vote on the sanction was 395 – 28. It’s just a matter of time before the Gingrich hits the fan. The splatter’s going to be widespread.
So, zilla, who do you want to draft, b/c Santorum is a non-starter for me.
“the vote on the sanction was 395 – 28″
Revenge of the establishment and Dems!
Rags, Godzilla is now a Romney supporter (she said so some time ago).
Ricky, just because I defended Bain does not make me a Romney supporter. I really have no dog in this race now, and am just pointing out bullshit when I see it.
I kan’t keep all you whipper-snappers straight…huck, huck, huck…
Maybe Ricky can publish a daily batting order…or something…
Rags, the only real problem I have with Santorum is that he wants to legislate his morality to the rest of the people. I actually have a lot of respect for him, and believe he can be a positive influence. Just keep him away from the reigns of power!
I could vote for Gingrich (probably), but I can’t support him.
I could vote for Romney (definitely), but I can’t support him.
Forget Paul.
My dog never entered the race. It was Palin.
Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman, Gingrich’s daughters by his first wife, told ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross they had spoken with their father about Marianne Gingrich’s allegation and that he had assured them he never asked for an open marriage.
“We spoke with him about that, Brian, and he said it’s simply not true,” said Kathy Lubbers. “The truth is our father and Marianne had a difficult marriage. They had a difficult divorce. … The American people have moved on. Our father has moved on.”
“I think most divorces are very painful, they’re never easy,” said Jackie Cushman. “Dad tried very hard to make their marriage work, and unfortunately it didn’t.”
So, it ain’t all one way or the other, is it…???
About abortion: Romney vetoed the contraception bill in 2005 as Governor, stating, “Furthermore, this legislation would make the morning-after pill available to young girls without any restrictions on age… this bill undermines the state’s parental consent laws and represents a departure from the public consensus that minor children should not act without parental involvement in these matters.”
July 26, 2005, Boston Globe
“So, it ain’t all one way or the other, is it…???”
If you take Gingrich at his word. But yes, no qualms with the daughters asserting that the marriage was difficult, especially those six years when the Gingrich was screwing Callista.
“The liberal media,” she added, “and some of that GOP holier-than-thou machine overplayed their hand this time.”
Palin said that Gingrich, who she identified this week as the candidate she would vote for in the South Carolina primary if eligible, would ultimately benefit from the media attack.
“I call them ‘dumb arses,’” she said. “They think by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview — that’s old news and it does feature this disgruntled ex- that claimed that it would destroy a campaign. All this does is, Sean, is incentivize conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction because it’s played so selectively by the media.”
“Their target in this case, Newt,” Palin added, “is now going to soar even more because we know the game now and we just won’t put up with it. So you know, good call media. Way to go to covertly hype this, even with Gingrich opponents. For being so brilliant, they sure are dumb.”
It’s not easy hearing Palin describe the victim as a ‘disgruntled-ex’. Quite dispiriting, actually. I expect the second Mrs. Gingrich to get attacked, but not by Palin.
Again, geez, zilla…!!!
Consider the whole “I could burn him down with one word” atmospheric of this story.
If that doesn’t shout “hell hath no fury…” at you, I dunno what the hell would.
Please…!!!
Godzilla, my apologies, I think you’ve mentioned before that you can vote for Romney, that must be where I have gotten that from.
Palin is also my first choice. A lot can still happen.
I understand people’s concern about Gingrich, but he seems like our best chance now. Sad, I know. But I just cannot vote for Romney, he is so liberal, he makes Newt look conservative!
There is still Santorum…
“If that doesn’t shout “hell hath no fury…” at you, I dunno what the hell would.”
Sure the woman is pissed off. Understandably. That doesn’t mitigate anything. Gingrich’s moral failings is only one front that the DNCs will attack him on. There’s also the ethics violations. The guy is going to get eviscerated, and it’s not going to be easy for anyone with integrity to defend him on these two issues. He’s a scumbag, but he’s our scumbag?
Again, zilla, I am impressed that you have assigned victimhood on Marianne, scumbagery on Newt, and know all.
I can’t find anything that allows for that. I have known of marriages where a wife very privately, very quietly pushed her husband away and cut him off. Nobody on the outside would fault her, because she did all behind the walls of her home.
A marriage bed can be the loneliest place on earth in such circumstances.
The case has been made that Romney is actually to the right of Gingrich.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/more-conservative-you-think_616151.html
I imagine that marriage bed can be a mighty lonely spot when the wife finds out you’ve been screwing one of your aides, young enough to be your daughter. Newt admitted he’s an adulterer. So him asking for a an open marriage isn’t that much of a stretch from his copiously document marital infidelity.
There was a time when Marianne was ‘the other woman’. I don’t expect either of Gingrich’s daughters to speak well of her (maybe they have, I don’t know, and haven’t seen Marianne’s interview…but I wouldn’t expect them to…also, psychologically I would expect the daughters to get along well with Calista as a proxy for getting back at Marianne…we’ll see out it plays out).
As for the end of Gingrich’s first marriage, regardless of what Gingrich and the daughters allege, the original divorce document gives factual proof that Jackie DID NOT want a divorce. See page 6 of http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/12/25/gingrich_divorcefile_via_cnn_politics.pdf
Does this mean that everything Gingrich says regarding his failed marriages is bullshit? No. But it does give credibility to Jackie assertion that the divorce request came as a complete surprise.
Jackie’s quote in an interview given in 1985: “He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise.”
Source and links to the court documents: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html
Godzilla,
Hate to burst your bubble, but any leaks of that information would be an ethics violation, it why Princess Nancy shut up.
But the public record is very clear on this. Newt was brought up on those charges, all of them but one were summarily dismissed as without merit, the one and only ethics charge that was not summarily dismissed was later proven to be without merit by the IRS investigation.
What Gingrich got convicted of was a single paper submitted in his name by his attorney that Newt failed to vet fully and had erroneous information on it. Newt had submitted other documents that were not in error that showed that the information on that sheet was false, and he also testified honestly in questioning. So, that one sheet of paper out of hundreds if not thousands was used to punish him. But Punish him for what? I propose to punish him for actually being successful with the Contract with America that all the other Republicans thought was nothing more than a ploy to get elected and then when they had the majority ignore so they could wield power against the American people instead of returning it to the American people like Speaker of the House Gingrich forced them to do.
astonerii, it’s not my bubble that’s going to burst, but I’m telling you right now that Gingrich’s going to get popped like a bad pimple if he wins the nomination. That anti-Romney sheen he’s wearing now will wear off quick, leaving all his chancres butt-naked for eyes to see.
zilla, pleadings in a divorce case are…often have to be…gross misstatements of people’s positions.
For somebody who didn’t want a divorce, Jackie sure had a clear set of ideas for what she wanted from the court.
You REALLY seem to be deep into the tea leaves here, reading the daughters’ minds now, too.
“I imagine that marriage bed can be a mighty lonely spot when the wife finds out you’ve been screwing one of your aides, young enough to be your daughter.”
Nishferatu seems compelled to bring Balless Bill Clinton into this.
But I reckon Hill-Larry knew about Monica before Bill did. Years and years of experience to work from, you know.
By way of regaining focus…
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/another-obama-record-the-average-age-of-us-car-on-the-road-is-10-8-years/
and
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/modern-slavery.php
Some thoughts…
1. ‘Gingrich Wins The GOP Debate In The First Five Minutes’–Ed Driscoll
2. “He fights”, said A. Lincoln of U.S. Grant. Today several are saying the same of Newt
3. With the history of Balless Bill Clinton, Chawley Rangel, etc. ad nauseum, the Collective has very little to work with any longer
4. When Cain was attacked, it pushed his polls up (for a time). I look for that to play here with Newt
5. The sorry history of the Clinton impeachment process tells us that the American people have an “ick” factor that…while extremely nebulous…seems rather strong
6. This is a “one-and-done” play by the Left. Rehashing it in the general has been denied them. They can try, but it will boomerang.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/abc-news-textbook-lesson-in-media-hackery/
Yep. It sure was.
Godzilla:
I was wondering if you could give me the powerball numbers for April 24, 2012? It would really be a help to my finances.
I noticed that you made an attack on Newt. I countered with facts that make your attack totally void. You respond with some stupid prognostication about how newt will lose his anti-romney sheen? Wow, you know, I was always only looking two tenths of a millisecond into the future, and there you are a full second ahead of me. I always thought we would be talking about Romney months after Newt won the nomination. You know what Newt gains the moment the anti-romney sheen wears off? The anti-Obama sheen. That is far far superior to the Obama-light sheen that Romney will never lose.
NPR was practically slobbering over Romney’s camp after the Florida primaries, and was vicious and condescending to Gingrich. I am a Ron Paul supporter, but it was so blatant it was a bit pathetic.