Thursday, January 19, 2012

Newt Gingrich Responds to Media Bias

This is mostly off-topic, but one of the issues we regularly deal with at AM is media bias (in favor of Islam). It turns out that the media are biased in other areas as well!

I've never seen anyone lay a smack-down on CNN for their bias the way Gingrich does here.

20 comments:

Foolster41 said...

it was gracious but unlreasitc to include Paul. Of course the media won't attack Paul in the same way, he is the most instep with the PCMC liberal mindset. Only if and only if (and I shudder at the thought) he somehow becomes the Republican nominee (or more realistically an independent) and faces off against Obama.

Actually this is what I fear. I don't see Paul bowing out graciously, and if he doesn't become the republican nominee (which is very likely) he will likely attempt an entry as an independent and, like Perot and Nader suck out the votes off one side, and only accomplishing another 4 years of Obama.

Joe Bradley said...

Newt has stated that his ticket will include Jon Bolton as VP. GREAT choice. He has no silly notions about the Middle East, like Hillary, and the man is all business.

Newt is already demonstrating his ability to be presidential and make good choices regarding the office, unlike the current Muslim occupant of the White House.

characterbuilder said...

Gingrich is a serial adulterer and a hypocrite. Notice how sanctimonious and indignant he becomes when a legitimate question is asked about his personal life.

It's obvious he was ready for it. He knew he could score with a "red meat" response. And the people ate it up!

Frankly, considering his past peccadilloes he is unworthy of the trust of the American people.

Joe Bradley said...

Obama has, reportedly, been involved in homosexual trysts, yet nobody in the media dared to ask him any questions about that during his campaign.

DOUBLE STANDARD!!!

Radical Moderate said...

Now that is the way a Leader Hanldes a Question like this.

What is funny is that his second X wife who had a affair with him now comes up and says he is unfit...

But this second X wife is now the second x wife becasue he had a affair with the third Wife.

As if she has anything to talk about.

Radical Moderate said...

I'm going on the record just to let you know I have picked successfuly all of the US presidents since Jimmy Carter.

The Next president is going to be Newt Gingrich.

I do not agree with him on health care however he is a man that has a proven record working with both sides. He knows when to compromise.

He is not a "IDEOLOGIST" ubstructionsit he is a leader.
Although i'm not happy with his infidelity. I will say he at least had the common decency to mary his whores.

Foolster41 said...

Wow, semi-OT but speaking of Ron Paul being attacked, I saw today a attack ad by Ron Paul saying Newt isn't conservative enough! Pot meet Mr. Kettle!

Zack_Tiang said...

Whatever your opinion about Newt Gingrich's candidacy, you have got to agree with him that that sort of question is seriously trash, in light of a presidential debate.

Joe Bradley said...

The expression on King's face, as Newt was hammering him, was priceless. Like the gaze of a deer caught in the headlights of the car that was about to take it out.

The brainless liberal spin jockeys have made the rule that their fellow liberals will receive puff questions and white glove treatment while conservatives are reserved for "the tough questions".

Newt just changed the game! The old adage of, "Never pick a fight with people who buy their ink by the barrel.", is passe now that newspapers are holding on for dear life, and nobody trusts the broadcast media anymore. The internet and cable killed the newspaper and MSM star!

It's time to bring dishonest spin, masquerading under the guise of journalism, to an end.

Deleting said...

characterbuilder said, "Frankly, considering his past peccadilloes he is unworthy of the trust of the American people."

And Barak Obama is that much better? The man spent over a million dollars trying to hide his birth certificate. That little 'insignificant' document is kinda necessary if you want to be president, but he and the liberal media don't think so.

I'm assuming you don't think so either.

But you want a 'moral' president. I'm sorry but of the four republican noms, ain't one of them moral.
Mitt Romney-mormon. All mormons have to swear some sort of allegience to the prophet-whoever that might be. Is it moral to elect a man whose first sworn priority is his cult?
What about Ron Paul? Keep in mind he doesn't really have a real high regard for israel. Now, I've also been told he just doesn't want to give any foreign aide to other countries and I could agree but if anything else we need to support israel so he's out as far as I'm concerned.
Rick Santorium....actually I know nothing about the dude. Need to look at him a little more.
But all of these are side issues....if you are looking for a 'moral'president as if that's going to fix E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G that ails this country...you need to go ask your doctor if your too old/young to start taking alzheimers medication because you're living in another world.

mikeyh428 said...

Yeah, the 2nd ex-wife calling him unfit is like the kettle calling the pot black. I suspect none of those marriages were happy ones, but not really relevant to anything now. Churchill himself was not a particularly "moral" leader, but lead Britain through one of its darkest hours better than anyone could. Newt also seems to have more awareness of radical Islamic encroachments on our western values here (aka stealth jihad) than some of the other candidates do. But perhaps I'm just bias since he is from my home state.

Zack_Tiang said...

I'm not really up to date with the presidential candidates...
but if I were to consider any of them.. it would be either Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, or Nick Santorum.

Thought to share with any of you willing to consider, some short videos by a popular Youtube personality, Molotov Mitchell.

Ron Paul 101
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mWpDTg0MWE

Ron Paul and Israel
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3N0s_Ibau4

And then, there's Nick Santorum...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTOtpzg7LQQ

characterbuilder said...

Since I have taken my alzheimers medication ... I think I can respond to Deleting.

Deleting ... your response is a classic Red Herring (and a very smelly one at that!). Introducing other politicians and their morality into your argument has absolutly nothing to do with Gingrich's moral character.

My friend ... if you can't see that ... I would be more than happy to share my alzheimers medication with you.

Joe Bradley said...

characterbuilder,

The main topic of this thread is media bias. You have chosen to believe Newt Gingrich's 2nd ex-wife and her allegations regarding Newt's, alleged, infidelity and that's fine (even though her allegations may be born out of bitterness).

John King opened the debate with a demand that Newt respond to his ex-wife's allegation and Newt cleaned his clock.

But getting back to the main issue, "media bias".

During the time that Barack Obama was a candidate for President, allegations arose from a man by the name of Larry Sinclair who asserted that he had a gay tryst with Barack Obama when Obama was a Senator (married to Michelle by the way). This infidelity was NEVER raised by the press, at any time, during his presidential campaign. The fact that this allegation was never even raised, much less discussed, demonstrates a media bias towards liberal political candidates. The press gives liberal politicians a pair of fuzzy slippers and a free pass and they give conservative candidates a trip to the woodshed. This time, however, Mr. Gingrich turned the tables and took King and CNN out to the woodshed.

You are probably thinking that Larry Sinclair is a crackpot, not deserving to have his allegations aired - and you may be right. However, ex-wives can, similarly, be crackpots who do not deserve to have their dirty laundry aired by the media and this is one of those times.

The Larry Sinclair story and the story of Newt's ex-wife are morally equivalent, so why is one being headlined by the spinmeister media and the other one buried in a closet somewhere???

MEDIA BIAS, PURE AND SIMPLE!

Deleting said...

Someone needs to have their medication adjusted.

Characterbuilder said, "Deleting ... your response is a classic Red Herring (and a very smelly one at that!). Introducing other politicians and their morality into your argument has absolutly nothing to do with Gingrich's moral character."

Hmmm....sooo NOT my point. My point was someone's moral character is a piss poor reason to elect or not to elect someone.
These are POLITICIANS for cryin out loud!!! You can't even take the letters from the name politician and spell morality, much less find it in them.

The one with the stinky fish can is you.

Deleting said...

Characterbuilder, you said, " Introducing other politicians and their morality into your argument has absolutly nothing to do with Gingrich's moral character."

But do you also remember you said,

"Frankly, considering his past peccadilloes he is unworthy of the trust of the American people."

and before that you said:"Gingrich is a serial adulterer and a hypocrite. Notice how sanctimonious and indignant he becomes when a legitimate question is asked about his personal life. "

And why does his personal life have any relevance if the other candidates don't?

Chessie L said...

I am seeing a contradiction in peoples thinking and assumptions. On one hand people are saying the president is not the "Pastor in chief" so Newts personal behavior should not matter. On the other hand most of the same people rule out Ron Paul because he "does support Israel" a belief that seems to be based on people's dispensationalist leanings. If the president is not the "Pastor in chief" then why is Paul expected to elevate Israel in any special manner and yet Newt's moral's are a non-issue?

By this comment I am not making a statement on what positions I personally hold..I am more concerned with the general thinking among American Christians on these issues.

Joe Bradley said...

Chessie L

Support for Israel is, primarily, a secular issue and not one of personal morals. The nation of Israel was created by the United States and its allies and it is our most valued ally in the region. The recent attempts to throw Israel under the bus has not gone unnoticed by, not only the Christian community, but by other non-religious, secular interests as well. This treatment of Israel goes right to the heart of the issue of how we treat our long-standing allies and the commitment and treatment our other allies can expect from the United States. It is not, exclusively a religious issue.

The press would have us think that support for Israel is, exclusively, a religious and moral issue which is based more on dogma than on reason because, from this vantage, it becomes easier for the liberal press to take cheap shots at conservative candidates and their supporters, often portraying them as religious zealots.

In closing, I will say, once again, that I have heard quite a lot from Marianne Gingrich, on CNN, regarding Newt Gingrich, yet I have still heard nothing on CNN from Larry Sinclair regarding Barack Obama. Before anyone formulates any opinions regarding the credibility and veracity of which story is the more likely to be true, you should review this story about Newt's ex:

http://tinyurl.com/7sy6ymj

Deleting said...

joe bradley....it didn't do the hyperlink clicky thingy (hush, it's a word! lol)
Can you repost the link?

Joe Bradley said...

OK, I hope this can handle a hyperlink . . .

http://tinyurl.com/7sy6ymj