Yesterday Elliot Abrams was part of a calculated effort against one of the GOP primary candidates whose last name wasn’t “Romney.” It’s typical in any primary, but what wasn’t typical was that in this republican primary, the information was misconstrued and presented a false narrative to readers. Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator takes Abrams to task for his piece and says it is “not worthy” of its author:
Abrams
A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines — which it did — by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework. Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with Establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.
Not so fast.
Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.
Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.
Uh-oh.
That’s right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich’s long ago March 21, 1986 “Special Order” speech on the floor of the House, and aware “that most of his [Abrams'] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order” — Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of the Congressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me …
… I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.
Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary.
Read the whole thing. Ben Shapiro has the full text of Gingrich’s remarks.
Such hits on candidates is expected in primaries, but a heated primary is no excuse for conservatives in media to forget their principles and assume the characteristics of progressive media. Lord is right on this. Let the purposeful inaccuracies stop.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
97 Comments
Indeed, the the vitriol that Mr. Gingrich spouts on the campaign trail is anything but mindless.
We'll leave all that mindless vitriol to you, little troll….
The Republican Establishment is getting desperate. Serves them right. The fact that Romney's vote totals are repeatedly at 30% show a total lack of enthusiasm for him as our candidate. At least the others actually have an ebb and flow to their numbers. That shows we, the electorate, are paying attention to what the others are saying.
I'm very happy to read this – and I agree that the "purposeful inaccuracies" are unwelcome. It's difficult enough to come to a conclusion without having to wade through junk like that.
I expect this tactic from the progressives – the truth does not serve them and they have nothing else – but I hold conservatives to a higher standard.
This is surprising that a Journalist like Abrams would put his name and career in jeopardy like this. Blatantly writing inaccuracies and outright lies while seemingly expecting no one would check the actual record is abysmal at best. Glad to see Lord was there to take the time that a JOURNALIST does to find the facts and present them to the people.
I doubt this will be picked up in any big way unless someone with a big audience mentions it. If it does make it out there, Abrams has a number of question to answer to – perhaps even suspension or termination. This is calculated misleading of the reader, or as many of us know it – lying.
I will expect Drudge to carry this as well to disperse remarks about his taking sides………..
Gingrich's record of Conservative reforms, i.e., the Contract with America, is a huge threat to Romney who has a record that resembles that of any Democrat [without the business acumen, that is]. Romney pulls this sort of sneaky liberal attack in every campaign – just ask Rudy Giuliani. It's also why Newt did it back to him [Bain Ads]. After Newt sincerely vowed publicly to keep his campaign positive and abandon scorched earth tactics, Romney ran two nasty, dishonest ads during the Iowa Caucuses against Newt, thereby destroying Newt's previous lead.
I can't enjoy National Review Online [NRO - National Romney Online] as a trustworthy source anymore.
This is all falling under the "Who do they think they are fooling" category. In all of Santorum's glory I'm puzzled at the "manners" comment.
I know perhaps as much about intensive care units as anyone who never got a paycheck from one or has been admitted to one. Perhaps Mrs. Santorum can give us a prognosis.
The patient – the USA – was admitted to the ICU in late 2007. Since then the revolving door has seen countless people enter the admissions room with open hands and exiting said room with bags full of taxpayer proceeds from debt. The doctors and nurse – We The People – are working overtime to save said patient. The parents – Taxpayers – are still agonizing and demoralized. And yet admissions is still dishing out the loot. My prognosis is that the coroner is now on speed dial Mrs S.
Rick, on the other hand, swims with the scum of the earth. They deserve neither respect nor manners. If Santorum wants respect he must prove his allegiance and fully prove to us that he will purge this nation of the enemy within. What are his intentions with the Treasury Dep.?
Our choices are a jagged pill and a poison pill. Which are you Rick? Bringing in Newt is like Dan Rooney bringing in Bill Belichick to coach the Steelers in the Super Bowl. It's a jagged pill to be sure. But we want the Ring.
If I thought I couldn't think any less of Mitt Romney last night proved me to be a fool. The lying corrupt SOBs in that wing of the GOP are in negative territory.
You should go on CNN and tell this story.
Oh…………..sorry.
Y'all are not fighting hard enough for Moonbat Newt! He's slipping in the polls.
Get yer boots on and fight for the "Moonraker" guy! Maybe Roger Moore can campaign for him?
Patience guys, It is all part of the process.
Don't maim yourselves before the main event. Regan said ( roughly ) that a man who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy, he is my friend and ally.
This is an old adage but it bears repeating: Figures dont lie but liars figure. Seems most appropriate for this hit piece.
The whole organized attack on Gingrich yesterday was stomach turning. If anything, this stiffens my resolve.
The establishments resent Newt, like they resent the Tea Party. When Newt went after Bain, the cry was "I would expect this from the Democrats, not a Republican." (and well deserving)
Well after yesterdays carpet bombing of Newt by the establishments, I would suggest the same quote should be addresed to the establishments.
After reading the Gingrich speech and the links I can only come to one conclusion, Abrams is pissed that Newt called him out many years ago and wants to get back at him.
Fail.
I am of the impression that Newt would do a good job cleaning up agencies, bottom feeder lobbyists, all around trolls, and trough feeders. Neither the repugnut establishment nor the dims want him there. Their days of easy living, drawing a good paycheck, pontificating, and blovating would quickly disappear. They might have to put in a full workday. It's time to break some rice bowls.
If you have evidence for your implication, Helen, spit it out.
Until then, I read your comments on Dana's posts as I would those of a dumpster variety stalker.
Cool avatar, Helen. Think of that yourself, did you?
People who begin sentences with "indeed" ought to shampoo my crotch.
Drudge was a participant in the coordinated attack. He should have kept his distance.
Abrams, you are now on my list.
Drudge linked to an article from Infowars yesterday, another sign of decline.
You should go post where you are considered to be clever………. Oh, sorry………….
I assume that this comment is in reference to Gingrich's calling for the eventual building of a lunar base. I also assume that the comment is intended to ridicule Gingrich for proposing for such a thing. What is amusing is that the comment reflects more on you than it does on Gingrich.
You see, history is littered with people who ridiculed someone who proposed an invention or innovation or business venture. Livingston and Fulton were ridiculed for their concept of running a steamboat as a business. When JFK called for the U.S. to place a man on the moon there were people who ridiculed him for it. This has happened time and again throughout history. What is really interesting is that history remembers the people who had the idea and only vaguely refers to the skeptics and as a rule they are viewed as having no vision for the future and as just plain foolish.
Sad thing is, like so many lefties our troll here probably doesn't even know who Guy Fawkes was or what he is remembered for. They just see the image as another lefty pop culture icon like Che's picture on a t-shirt that is fashionable. They seem to think is makes them edgy.
LOL!
Face it little girl. you are not Dana…and you never will be Dana….
Newt has been out of office for nearly 15 years. It is my
observation that he has pondered many thoughts since his
departure. He has risen from the depths twice in six weeks with the
precision of a Swiss watch. His double digit deficit to a 12 point
victory in SC was masterful and from my point of view; NOT
surprising. Now that Newt is back, the establishment republicans
have got their long knives out and are looking to savage anything
and any one that disrupts their power base. Problem is that they
are as responsible as the other big spenders. I am amused to see
John Sununu out defending Mitt. He is probably still mad that Newt
resisted "Read My Lips" George's tax hike.
Every now and then I see Infowars links on Drudge. Definte sign of unreliable spin. I just don't understand why these a sshats are sticking their necks out for a RINO.
Hey Indiepalin-Obsessed, it appears your comment score seems to be stuck on -110. You're going to have to come up with much more thoughful inane comments if you want that to head down any further. But we have faith in you. You can do it! Keep 'em coming!
I am really disappointed Drudge hasn't linked to Lord's piece countering Abrams attack yesterday.
Wow, the phony charges against Newt keep coming out. I also read the committee report for the ethics complaints files against him in the 90's. The original complaint was filed by the democrat who lost an election to Newt. The charges were all based on a video made to defeat the democrats and take back the house and the senate(which is what happened in the 90's). The video was being taught in college classes, but they crossed a line when the classes became political and the money from a 501(c) was used. When the ethics committee dropped all of the charges, all that was left was the 501 charges and those were dropped too. Newt also DID NOT resign in disgrace like Romney claims, he resigned because there was a coup, which included Rep. John Boeher, Tom DeLay House Whip, Hastert who was elected Speaker. ISN"T DeLAY OUT ON BAIL. Come on people Romney has a convicted felon out there helping him get elected. http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/fi...
Both the poltical party machines are out to stop Newt no matter what. I think this humorous cartoon at http://drawfortruth.com/2012/01/26/nancy-and-mitt... titled "Nancy and Mitt's New Ad" sums it up pretty good
This whole exercise is like a psyche-ops campaign. The question is why even the CCRINOS (CRYING "CONSERVATIVE" RINOS"),are all wallowing in the same mud pits together trying to rub out the Gingrich name.
Seems like the more that the CCRINOS wade and wallow into their own stench, the better that Gingrich looks.
But the question still remains: Why are they , (just like the Democrats), so desperate to "shoot Newt".
I assume that this comment is in reference to Gingrich's calling for the eventual building of a lunar base.
Should someone tell the twit the "Moonraker" never went to the Moon?
Breaking poll today continues to show Romney losing nationally among R voters…. Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll finds Republicans across the country favoring Gingrich 37% to 28% over Romney. Wake up FL!!
Drudge was part of the coordinated smear all along. Why would he post this?
I really think that Dana Loesch is working for Obama. Only someone so blind, so devoid of brains, would desire nominating Divebomber Newt and allowing that Marxist cancer currently acting as the President another four years to destroy America.
Ms. Loesch, you make me SICK. Stay on CNN – they love idjits just like yourself.
Democrats lie, people ….. get pissed.
"The original complaint was filed by the democrat who lost an election to Newt. The charges were all based on a video…"
Oh – so that is why following the 1998 midterms the conservatives in the House threw Gingrich out of the Speakership? Because of "a video"?
It was because he was a CROOK, a THIEF, and a SCUMBAG LIAR just like Clinton. That's why Gingrich has had to prostitute himself shaking down Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac – because he can't get a real job to pay for his Barbie Doll wifey's Tiffany account, now up to over $1 million.
But, but, they seen the movie, Hoosier!
Now now, Patrick! Wouldn't want to burst his bubble that he's clever and ruin all that good stuff his mom told him!
Hey…sounds like some limited government stuff right there…Mr. Bond! LOL
establishment republican party you have just made my mind up for me……………….If you are hell bent on derailing Newt he must be the one who can really get the nation back on track.
Abrams is not a journalist. And to what specific "outright lies" are you referring? I suspect you're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing: accepting something at face value rather than digging into the particulars for yourself. In this case someone is challenging Abrams's article and saying it isn't so and because that's what you want to hear your're accepting THAT without checking into it deeper. I love Dana–my single favorite Tea Party person in the whole world–dearly. She is no doubt correct in asserting that there is some measure of coordination in the attacks on Gingrich. But, for crying out loud, this is a political campaign for the very highest of stakes! Let's grow up a little. I grow so weary at times of conservatives constantly embracing media and "establishment" victimhood to explain every single thing that doesn't go our way.
Newt Gingrich's reputation precedes him. This stuff resonates because it rings so true to Newt's behavior historically. It's in keeping with the reality that virtually none of his own Republican colleagues from the glory days of his Speakership are to be numbered among his supporters today. Consider for a moment how Newt went on Meet The Press not that many months ago and stabbed Paul Ryan in the back with his outrageous "right wing social engineering" comment to David Gregory. Is it really THAT incredible to learn that in 1985, when no one knew how successful Reagan's handling of the Soviet Union would ultimately prove to be, Newt could be found warning that his first meeting with Gorbachev was “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich”? There's always an explanation with the Newt partisans but never the slightest acknowledgement of his obvious tendencies toward rhetorical excess. Can we just stop with the attempts to put lipstick on the pig? The only viable conservative alternative to Romney is Santorum, take it or leave it. If we make Gingrich our nominee the never ending personal and political saga of Newt The Flake will not allow us to keep the focus on Obama and we will pay the dear price of four more years of this wretched administration.
You mean I won't be a disgraced pundit kicked off of CNN for saying she'd "drop trou" and pee on the dead?
You're right, prolly not.
The other point about the ethics charges against Newt that is consistently overlooked is that Newt took out a corrupt Speaker named Jim Wright. There was a dispicable communist from Michigan named David Bonior, and Bonior made it his singular goal to do to Gingrich what Gingrich had done to Wright. The ethic charges were knowingly phony empty charges, but Bonior kept on submitting them to force a constant state of investigation against Gingrich, because the Republican party was controlling the legislative agenda, and in typical Alinsky fashion, the constant smears were meant to be death by a thousand cuts.
It is a fact of history that Gingrich led the republicans to real victories against Bill Clinton, and Gingrich became the most hated republican in Washington, and he was as viciously attacked by the extremeist left and the media as anyone I had ever seen, up until GWB.
And that coup was carried out by a solid majority of the ENTIRE Republican caucus of well over 200 individuals. So, nice try dropping the names of just three who happen to be unpopular around here. If the ethics charges were so groundless it necessarily begs the question: Why did Newt not stand on truth and principle and fight? Why did he make what was, in effect, a plea bargain and pay the $300,000? As for resigning in disgrace, you are technically correct that he did not resign over the ethics matter. What he DID do was resign his seat in the House altogether in a characteristic fit of pique after being voted out of the Speakership. So maybe we can just settle on saying he resigned in humiliation or a display of petulance. I'm willing to negotiate. Just keep in mind that this is exactly the stuff that we will be ever bogged down in if we make Gingrich our nominee. To fantasize that an election contest between Newt and Obama will turn on debates and Newt's articulation of issues is nothing short of delusional. We'll never get off the launching pad because of all the baggage weighing us down. It's time to get real.
What?!?
That would make sense. Along with TV, movies do seem to be one of the lefties' primary source of information.
Yeah, he's been linking to Infowars for quite awhile. I can't remember the first time I ever noticed a link to that site, but it's been several months ago, at the very least.
The nitwit probably thinks that "Moonraker" was a true story.
Why don't you buy the house next door to Dana in order to write your next tell-all book and just get it over with already?
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/articl...
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/articl...
Dana I'm curious, do you have a good chiropractor? Cause man oh man you have you got to be sore from carrying Fig Newton as much as you are.
He's linked to it now.
Drudge finally has linked to it.
Drudge has been a Romney-partisan from the start.
Look at his refusal to post anything critical of Romney whereas he flooded his page with critical pieces on everyone else.
He sold-out along with the Clearchannel (Bain-controlled) talkers, and Fox.
Well, I'm sure gonna get my facts from a guy who was convicted of perjury for lying before congress. Shows abrams has no scruples when he is carrying water for his masters.
I mean, b1ch PLEASE!
Being old enough to remember this, I also remember how many REPUBLICAN members of congress spoke about how newt was a really bad leader–how he failed as speaker of the house. But apparently as with abrams, time is expected to wash all sins away. I object to lying about newt, but the truth is nonetheless very grim.
You make me sick, wanker. Strap on a pair and be a gentleman.
Looks like your theory of drudge has no predictive value.
You miss the point my friend. There is a narrative in our midst that says Newt is the one who can beat Obama. I totally reject that as even remotely plausible. I'm not the least bit concerned at this point about the merits of the ethics case. I lived through it and assumed at the time that it was a lot of partisan baloney. What you need to ask yourself is do we want to spend an entire Presidential campaign trying to explain the details of that ethics case to the American electorate? Do we want to be preoccupied with explaining the theory of repentance to people who will be reminded again and again that Calista was one of the mistresses? And where's your article to explain away the mutiny that took place among Republicans in Congress against Newt's leadership? I could go on and on but there's no point in belaboring what should be obvious to anyone with a reasonable amount of political savvy: an election contest between Newt and Obama will end up being about Newt. That will be a disaster in waiting. To be sure, the Democrat attack machine will go after any candidate we put up. But at least with Santorum or Romney we will have a fighting chance of making the President's record the issue–no personal scandals, no legacy of extreme partisan vitriol or the blatant contempt of many of their own former colleagues and peers to divert the focus from Mr. Obama's abysmal failure to turn our devastated economy around and get America working once again. The constant complaining whine about establishment opposition to Gingrich seeks to drown out what that establishment is earnestly trying to say, that Newt will bring us all down. Like it or not, what they're saying is true and it's time for some of us around here to wake up and realize it.
And what did that same poll say about head-to-head versus Obama? Yeah, you buried that part… Wake up your own damn self!
"A lie gets half-way around the world while the truth is still putting it's boots on." –Samuel Clemens
There's a recent rebuttal to the Lord article Dana loesch posted here. The article is by Rich Lowdry from National Review Online and affirms that the one speech Lord cites as a distortion is, in fact, not at all distorted by Abrams.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289558/jeffr...
Did you even read Newt's remarks? If that was backing Reagan, I'd hate to see what he would say if he thought Reagan was messing up.
That was a lame attempt by Lord. He has no basis for saying anything. Reading is FUNdamental.
Uh-oh
Check this link out Newtron Newter's http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289558/jeffr...
Yeah, that Rich Lowry sure is an elitist. Isn't he?
Yup and Lord just laid out a big ol' lie! But you Newtron's will be happy. It gives you a thread to hold onto.
Yes it does. The plan backfired obviously… Did you even read it two days ago????
Romney-bot———————^
When you say something will not happen and it happens, then your predicted wrong. Its not a complicated concept.
Compelling comeback… Somehow the "bot" thing sounds much more like the person gushing over any positive reinforcement, no matter how fleeting and ephemeral. (That's my stylish way of saying Mr. Gingrich is about to implode.)
Still live in Minnesota?
Newt's speech was long enough and covering enough ground that any dissection of it could make a good case for either side. The point of the original article was that Newt was making himself out to be Reagan's right-hand man. He wasn't, and was not unwilling to throw Reagan under the bus if it was expedient. Lord's critique has as many problems as the original article. The bottom line is that on the floor of the House Newt was calling Reagan's policies weak and making a prediction that they would fail. Regardless of how many times he said he admired Reagan in the same speech the bottom line was that Reagan was failing. Totally fine for him to say, but completely taking credit where none is due to say something like he was the one that helped Reagan take down the Soviet empire.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289558/jeffr...
I guess we all know who Ms. Loesch is fighting for in this primary…sure are a lot of Gingrich-leaning stories of late. I know, I know, that's because the things Gingrich says and does are either right, proper, or if not, then excusable and everything Romney says is just lies, lies, lies….yeah, whatever. I just don't get how Romney–or any person– can be accused of being too square, nice, plastic, timid and boring at the same time that he is accused of being evil, inflammatory, villanous, and dishonest. Don't those kind of contradict each other? Gingrich supporters better find their message here. I don't really see the same sort of contradiction in the attacks on Gingrich. At least to me…
Just a note on the "4 years of balanced budget". Ron Paul's debate commentary on the claim was pretty spot on.
There is this other nagging critique of the claim: http://evangelicalsformitt.org/2012/01/did-newt-b...
DEAR FLORIDA
You need to punish Mitt Romney and the establishment and their attack dogs in the faux conservative media for the most despicable display of filth in the history of GOP politics, BLOODY THURSDAY, the day the full force of the establishment decided to CARPET BOMB Newt Gingrich with one filthy smear after another, and the mission was crystal clear … incinerate Newt Gingrich.
You know who recognized BLOODY THURSDAY for what it was?
The one person who lived it, SARAH PALIN, and she aptly called it …
"A COORDINATED EFFORT TO CRUCIFY NEWT GINGRICH"
In the name of all that is decent, please do not reward Mitt Romney and his surrogates for this behavior.
Punish them for it.
VOTE NEWT GINGRICH
LOL!
So Dana is a disgraced pundit on CNN because she would pee on dead 'tolerant' taliban soldiers?
Really?"
Taliban gunmen shooting couple dead for adultery caught on camera
Taliban gunmen have been filmed executing a surprised couple whom they repeatedly shot for the alleged crime of adultery.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pa...
Taliban execute pregnant woman. Taliban insurgents flogged and publicly executed a pregnant Afghan widow for alleged adultery Saturday, according to reports.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/09/taliban-...
Taliban Executes Pregnant Woman
(Herat, Afghanistan) Barbaric is not a strong enough word to identify this murder.
The Taliban publicly flogged and then executed a pregnant Afghan widow by firing three shots into her head for alleged adultery, police said on Monday.
Bibi Sanubar, 35, was kept in captivity for three days before she was shot dead in a public trial on Sunday by a local Taliban commander in the Qadis district of the rural western province Badghis.
The Taliban accused Sanubar of having an "illicit affair" that left her pregnant. She was first punished with 200 lashes in public before being shot, deputy provincial police chief Ghulam Mohammad Sayeedi told AFP.
"She was shot in the head in public while she was still pregnant," Sayeedi said.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/203510.php
BTW
You don't even want to know what they do to little girls like you……
check please
way back in 2010 Drudge had linked to a youtube clip of an Alex Jones rant back when Lebron had moved to the Clippers. I was agreeing with his rant about how dumb sports are, but then he said "its all part of a plan of the zionist architects…"
-__-
Nobody cares what you think you despicable worthless troll.
With all his flaws, and there are many, Newt is a far better choice to do what must be done than Romney. Romney is a straw man…..there is no substance there. You can tell by looking at him he does not believe what he is saying.
Drudge was part of the coordinated smear genius. Wake up!
Gingrich and Mittens are both polling the same head to head in trial heats vs Obama numb nuts. Obviously a Romney-bot.
Wow. Newt was a clear visionary concerning what it would take to curb the Soviet threat. He articulates therein some lessons our governments should take to heart today in terms of the Islamist threat, for they are as relevant to that situation and even more so:
"…the failure must be borne by the senior executives in the Cabinet, the Department of State, Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency; …Those institutions currently do not have anunderstanding of the transnational Soviet empire, do not even use the language that describes that empire, have no strategies to defeat the empire in countries the Presidenthas identified"
"If the State Department has no real knowledge of Leninism, it can hardly understand theSoviet empire."
The number of scholars of Islamism who used to be on hire by the State department, the military and the U.S. Intelligence establishment who have been let go because of political pieties (I know some personally) is very telling. Directives come from the central administration to avoid all language and analysis that links Islam to terrorism.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Of the men on stage only Newt seems to understand that.
As the Republican camps sort themselves out during the campaign for Republican presidential nominee, it is becoming more clear every day who the progressive infiltrators are.
Drudge ,Foxnews, Hotair , NRO and others are Oprahizing themselves
Each ones ridiculous support for Romney has ruined their own credibility in a way that they may never recover from
OKAY ABRAMS MAN UP AND DROP TO YOUR KNEES AND APALOGIZE TO THE WORLD FOR LIEING .
The head to heads do NOT matter during the primary.
Pew and Gallup had Reagan losing to Carter by an averge of 25 points during the primary
This is partly because each candidates supporter answer they will not vote for their unfavored candidate in the general in hopes it emboldens their candidates chances of winning the primary
The other part is ………all polls are mere propaganda and most polls make up their results.
See polls claiming Santorum would lose in Iowa See polls claiming Gingrich was losing big in SC.
Now look at who did the those polls…….NYT's ,Time, CNN,.
Pollsters only get semi honest at the very last poll, to save their alledged credibility
They claim people change their minds the last minute even one a single sound bite, which is not believable at all
Thank you Mr. Lords for bringing the TRUTH to the into the light .
You've got some bizarre thinking. The single thing that Newt Gingrich has proved at this point is that he can defeat the media and the Democratic attack machine. It is the singular reason he has popularity at the moment. Everytime he has been directly attacked he has become more popular, not less.
Since it is a given that Mitt Romney has absoultely zero record of actually being a conservative, and a consistent record of changing positions to suit his need, exactly what do I gain by voting for him? A better angle of descent as the plane crashes into the moutainside?
Actually I'm for Santorum, but on behalf of all Tea Partiers I want to thank you for letting us know you're afraid of Newt.
The rebuttal does not delve into the full transcript of what Newt said, here is a link (that does not contain the transcript – have not found the full one yet) that speaks of Scheve, former foreign policy aide to Newt Gingrich, and his finding of the original speech:
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/elliott-abra...
The only misleading thing here is Abrams. Lowdry's article follows with more cherry-picking.
I would like to see the speech in its entirety, that would really set the full tone.
Not afraid of Newt at all, just don't like him. I will concede I should not have assumed your "Newtness". We all know what happens when we assume. But be careful speaking for all the Tea Party. The great thing about the Tea Party is that it's not all under one tent. There are Tea Party Groups who support Romney too. So to speak on behalf of all the Tea Party is a bit much, don't you think Free_Stinker?
Nicely put Ogeechee. If anyone doubts what you're saying they really need to read the Rich Lowry piece that was written in response to Lord's piece.
I am not supporting Newt. I am in agreement that Lord has exposed Abrams' poor journalism and have made it seen as it should be – an attack. I would do the same (and have) when it was done to Cain, Romney, and Santorum. But let me help you out a bit:
Definition of a journalist – 1 : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
2 : a writer who aims at a mass audience. Last I checked this article was written and placed on National Review Online with the title : "Gingrich and Reagan : In the 1980s, the candidate repeatedly insulted the president" which states clearly that Gingrich "repeatedly insulted the president" – which he did not do. That is an outright lie. The "floor statement" of which Abrams cherry-picked when reviewed shows how Abrams (or whoever gave the information to Abrams) picked lines out of context, and even edited out phrases to create new sentences. If you read the article you know that, if not you can check it out here: http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/elliott-abra... or you can just google "floor statement Gingrich March 21, 1986 full transcript" and read about it. You have Ed Rollins, Pain, Limbaugh, bloggers, and an actual record of what Gingrich said to rebut what is now an obvious spin-piece by Abrams. I don't like spin, lies, or smears. That is all.
So, if you wish to ask me to "grow up a little" perhaps you should start with the man in the mirror. If you wish to suspect someone for not "digging into the particulars myself" or "embracing media and establishment victimhood" you should find out if that is true or not first, but it was a great rant you went on, even though it was misplaced.
Now that I have cleared up your misunderstanding of the word "journalist", have pointed to what I consider outright lies, and have shrugged off your accusatory assumptions about myself I will thank you for commenting on my statements and hope you appreciate my own retort to your post.
I also would like to say that your support of Santorum is well-placed. He is truly the most conservative person in the race at this point. I also disagree that the nomination of Newt means Obama wins, just like I disagree with others' assumptions that the nomination of Romney means Obama wins. Any, yes ANY, of the remaining four could beat Obama.
What a complete moron you reveal yourself to be. I specifically called you out for ignoring the head-to-head vs Obama results in the NBC/WSJ poll you were crowing about above. Please put on your reading glasses and look again:
Obama 49% Romney 43% (Obama +6);
Obama 53% Santorum 38% (Obama +15)
Obama 55% Gingrich 37% (Obama +18)
Earlier results for December and November were comparable:
Obama +2 vs Romney, Obama +11 vs Gingrich (Dec '11)
Obama +6 vs Romney, Obama +18 vs Gingrich (Nov '11)
Other major polls this month:
RASMUSSEN: Obama +4 vs Romney….Obama +10 vs Gingrich
CBS/NYTimes: Obama & Romney tied….Obama +11 vs Gingrich
ABC/WASH POST: Romney +2 vs Obama….Obama +12 vs Gingrich
FOX NEWS: Obama +1 vs Romney….Obama +14 vs Gingrich
CNN/TIME: Romney +1 vs Obama….Obama +9 vs Gingrich
The current Real Clear Politics averages of the major polls:
Obama +2.4 vs Romney
Obama +12 vs Gingrich
So, you are either extremely misinformed, delusional, or a shameless liar. And name-calling and fantasizing about my testicles doesn't alter that reality no matter how much Kool-Aid you've consumed.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Poli... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/pres... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/pres...
You're spinning ShawnSen, substituting self-serving speculations and theories for credible evidence. I invite you to document your ridiculous assertion that most polls literally "make up their results." The problem with gasbags like you is that you undermine legitimate criticisms of polling methodology with your uninformed critique. In any event, it was your cheerleading buddy easye2984 who came in here gushing about a poll result, not me. Polling is an effective tool for determining a number of things. That is why ALL the candidates themselves, Newt included, use it and engage in it internally in their campaign operations. My biggest objection is people like your pal who jump on a particular poll result and trumpet it to the world when it coincides with their interests but turn right around and disparage the very practice polling whenever it doesn't do so.
It would appear after reading the speech that Abrams was correct. http://tinyurl.com/6v2jhbm
You must be logged in to post a comment.