Thursday the Drudge Report had no less than 13 anti-Gingrich links scattered across the page with somewhere around five “above the fold.” The same day, National Review Online, the American Spectator, and pundit Ann Coulter all published missives railing against the former House Speaker. Drudge compiled all the content on his site late Wednesday night. They, along with Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, have been cheerleading for a Romney candidacy since there were still eight candidates in the running. Conservative media has clearly cast their lot, and not all for the same candidate.
It’s clear that after the blowout in South Carolina and the Gingrich momentum in Florida, Team Romney called for help.
Sites such as Red State have clearly been anti-Romney, but more non-Romney than for a particular candidate, after Perry left the race. Rush Limbaugh hasn’t officially taken a side, but his criticism of Romney as “not a conservative” is definitely noticeable. He also defended Gingrich’s defense of Reagan from the onslaught of oppo published Thursday, as has Dan Riehl, along with Jeffrey Lord.
Do these outlets and personalities have influence over the minds of voters? Sure — to an extent depending on the voting bloc. The soft support Romney has received hasn’t helped one iota with grassroots, and only minimally with independents in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now that the push has strengthened, how will voters — conservative voters who get so much of their news from such sites and programs — react?
AIM discusses the breadth of conservative pushback; is it more than a coordinated oppo dump from pro-Romney media figures? Is this a way for pro-Romney conservative media to neutralize Gingrich’s populist stance against MSM? Perhaps they reason that Gingrich can’t take his stance against corporate media if even conservative media outlets are aligning against him. Or does this simply fuel the fight raging between establishment and grassroots? It seems a gamble.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
110 Comments
Sounds like that "vast right wing conspiracy" is at it again.
Great article… Would like to see a running tab of who these Romney pushing outlets are in future posts.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but Drudge is a site that compiles news headlines. If all these people were publishing stories on the same day, why wouldn't they all be on his site at once? And if the timing of these stories raised questions about an anti-Newt conspiracy, then it would be even more reason to post them on his site. I am not defending Romney, I am just wondering why Drudge is getting blamed for posting these articles when that is essentially his job.
It's time to flush Newt. He absolutely can not win. He is far too creepy and repulsive. The only people who will vote for him will be other fat old white men. Newt is McCain is Bob Dole.
Larry O' Connor and Meredith Dake are Mitt Romney supporters. Mitt has demonstrated very few conservative positions. Anti-Reagan and labeled himself as a Progressive and an moderate Republican. Ed Rollins, Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lords have defended Newt from attacks made by Ann Coulter, Creamy Kris Christie and Abrams (national review) about him not supporting Reagan in the 1980s.
Get off Drudges case……………..he is one of the last true reporters in existance. Drudge publishes and compiles as much news as he can discover without regard to the entity being featured. He came to prominance with the "BlueDressStain" being reported by National Inquirer, he didn't originate the story he just gave it legs the MSM tried to shackle. That being said…..Drudge revealed once again the hidden goings on with the political world………..co-ordinated effort to derail a candidate threatening their choice……………who'd a thunk it?
The establishment has been trying to end the primary process since it began. They pushed Romney and didn't want any other candidates getting time with the public. This is just more of the same. Their attempt to shove a candidate down my throat doesn't win my support. In fact, it irritates me and makes me suspicious and resistant. The last time the establishment gave us McCain, a sometimes conservative, and a-total-loser who would not fight BO because it was beneath him!?! Before that they gave us Bush, another sometimes conservative with big spending habits including compassionate conservatism, ie, liberal social programs. How many of these big spending establishment types who refuse to fight for conservative ideas are just irked with Newt because he made them reduce spending? His service as speaker was successful at reducing welfare and getting people back to work. The political class of politicians and media all benefit when government grows. It is more money and more opportunity for them. For us, it is more enslavement. I think we have seen how small their intent is to reduce government. Newt has his problems and I don't know that he can be elected because of that and the establishment's resistance to him. Yet, the establishment's resistance may be the best clue that he would be the right candidate.
Simple…The more the establishment pushes Romney and denigrates Newt the more attractive Newt looks to me as a candidate.
Picking a side is the American Way!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/01/21/...
Romney head of company guilty of massive Medicare fraud.
Yes, Drudge mostly just links to other sites and rarely generates his own content. However, Drudge links some stories and not others. In the decision to link to a story, or series of stories, and in the selection of his headlines and photos which accompany the links, Drudge is communicating information.
Drudge mostly just links to other sites and rarely generates his own content. However, Drudge links some stories and not others. In the decision to link to a story, or series of stories, and in the selection of his headlines and photos which accompany the links, Drudge is communicating information.
Here's a story from Politico in June 2011 noting the favorable linking for Romney:
* * * * *
“One of the mysteries of Drudge is how he continues to be such a mystery. Never clear how or why he leans for or against candidates. But there is a lot of behind-the-scenes, very quiet and secretive mojo that goes on,” said Mark McKinnon, who, as a top adviser to John McCain in 2008, watched with dismay as Drudge gave top billing to questions about the Arizona senator’s health.
“It looks like someone in Romneyland has figured out the secret code,” McKinnon said.
Frustrated rivals think they know the secret: a low-profile, hard-driving Republican operative named Matt Rhoades, who is Romney’s campaign manager. Rhoades met Drudge, as POLITICO Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris and co-author Mark Halperin reported in their book “The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008,” when he became research director of the Republican National Committee and was introduced by his predecessor on a special trip to Miami. Rhoades has since been seen as a pipeline to the reclusive Drudge, who now has two veteran Washington reporters working on the site as well.
“No one has displaced Matt Rhoades in the Republican firmament as the go-to Drudge guy,” said a top GOP operative who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid angering the powerful online entrepreneur.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56714.h...
Are you crazy?
I am on Drudge like white on rice.
Certified Code Word Free
I understand that, but I have seen stories unfavorable to Romney linked on the site too. I just don't see how his posting 13 links in a day is a testament to his own bias. If 13 anti-Newt stories hit in a single day, that IS news. I would expect him to post them all no matter which candidate he backs, not out of bias, but because that is the news for the day.
That is it in a nutshell. They have taken the argument we are a republic, not a democracy to an illogical end. They can't trust the voters so they select our candidate for us.
I'm kind of wondering why the story of Romney being involved in some type of medicare scam and a fine of 100 plus million is not being reported on Drudge. That would seem to me to be a huge story. Possibly the story is without merit and that is why it's not being reported.
To the Romney bot. Thanks for making my case.
All I care about is getting the Socialist with the fake Social Security card out of the White House. His Secretary of Treasury and his Attorney General should be in prison. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be in prison.
Keep your eye on the prize.
I want neither of them. If the rest of the country had brains, neither of them would even have a shot in hell.
lay off drudge, he is a libertarian, he has no dog in this race. if tomorrow there are 13 hit stories on mitt, he will put them out there too. he has been fair in covering what is out there all the time. he even put out there how one of the hit pieces was based on false information. if he was out to embarass newt, why would he show that story? ann coulter is another story. i do like her, but first she was pushing christie, perhaps for his fireballing of the unions? but then she has been on the romney bandwagon, and i cannot get that. yes, she was possibly right about bachmann, huntsman, johnson, and paul. but why she was not a herman cain fan, or santorum i do not know. not that she can't be like rush, and say both positive and negative thigs about everybody. but she only has eyes for mitt, and i do not understand it.
Me either. This country needs a "Cain"ing in November.
I'll be voting for "notObama"…now there's a solid choice..
I lost a lot of respect for Herman Cain, when he decided to cozy up to Stephen Colbert. The only thing that makes sense is if he had a lot of debt from the campaign that he needs to pay off.
I'm with you, Sisqui.
It's sort of a cause and effect thing – does Drudge drive the news cycle, or does it drive him?
But ultimately, it comes down to what is going to get him the most clicks.
Let me get this straight. If I think that Newt Gingrich has no business being president, that means I'm for Romney? Is that what passes for intelligence on this site?
I get enough intellectual dishonesty from my liberal friends. I would have thought folks here would be smarter than that.
It doesn't matter who else is running. Newt Gingrich would be a terrible president.
Please. We've already got a blog-war going on with Beck.
Don't pick a fight with Drudge.
When you have 13 news stories, there's bound to be overlap, right? Why link every single one of them? To make an impression. That's where the bias accusation comes from.
And yet, McCain and Bob Dole have endorsed Romney.
This is why people keep saying Romney and his supporters seem a lot more like Democrats than Republicans. The Dems love to take criticism against themselves and say the same thing about Republicans even though there's no proof of such. For example: the Dems who call Sarah Palin a "grifter". It's obviously completely untrue, has been said (backed by facts) about the Clintons and the Obamas and the Dems just pick it up and throw it at a Republican with no evidence it's true.
That Romney supporters use the same tactic is just another mark against the candidate.
Drudge was so obvious that I was shocked, glad to see the bigs pointing it out.
I lost a lot of respect for him the first time he participated in a baseless attack against Rick Perry. I lost more respect for him the second time he did it. And I lost all respect for him the third time. Not a shred of substance to his attacks, an admission that he didn't even know anything about Perry's policy positions and zero evidence in his accusations. Not a good man at all.
There's no room with 13 (and counting) anti-Newt stories posted.
Do you support any of the final four?
Thirty pieces of silver?
When I was a young whippersnapper of 23 (in 1993) and just starting to realize just how Republican I was (and still harboring some liberal causes), I did not like Newt. When I saw him on the news, he looked like another blustering blow hard who'd eaten too many steak dinners. At least Limbaugh (another of the same ilk) was the first to show video of Dems saying one thing and doing another. I know differently now and enjoy listening to him explain, in a matter of fact manner, our position. I still do. But, the impression of a 23 y/o on the periphery should not be ignored. That is one of the main reasons I don't think he's electable. Not because the establishment is telling me he isn't.
I have looked at Drudge less and less over the last year. He could have broken open Fast & Furious months ago but will barely give it any mention. He clearly declared war on Newt Gingrinch by pushing the ABC Marianne Gingrinch interview but that backfired so he went all out last Thursday and it appears to be working as Newt's numbers in Florida are dropping and his debate performance was terrible, which was Newt's fault, but he was clearly angry and looked tired – probably was not expecting the multi pronged attack that hit him that day.
I guess not. But seriously, the nastiness of these campaigns needs to be focused where they belong. On 0bama. I'm voting for anyone but 0bama. I just expected a more united stance against this disaster of a president we now have.
Talk about creepy. Creepyness is about an establishment that has already made the choice for us. Makes me very suspect.
how dare he link to article published by the other new devices of they day…. he must not have got the message that he was not supposed to link news that would be negative for their candidate… never m mind those that wrote the articles.
I'm with you there. I'll vote for anyone but 0bama.
I like Santorum the most of the 4. And before anyone says he's not electable…I would have a better chance of being elected than Newt.
Of the three sites I check several time a day, Breitbart is the only one playing it down the middle. No doubt Drudge has shown a preference to Romney as has been mentioned. Equally as biased in it's postings has been Newsmax in favor of Gingrich. I can see through the bias at both those sites as easily as seeing through the phony persona of Barry (Obama) Soetoro. I don't need that to make up my own mind.
Sarah sees it too……
Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left
by Sarah Palin on Friday, January 27, 2012 at 2:57pm
…………… We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left.[[[[[[[[And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?]]]]]]]
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150516...
- Sarah Palin
glenn becks site is nearly number 10,000 in the rankings.
no one is watching that globalist.
drudge report— #379
poloitici–#1101
infowars.com–# 1744
breitbart.com –#3409
dailypaul—#4970
glennbevk.com–#9356
media matters—#16566
Drudge has been pro-Romney since 2008 election. I've known that but I still go to the Drudgereport everyday. He still post stuff that we should know about Obama and other Dems don't want us to know. However, I still have more problems with Mittens and Paul than I do with Newt and Santorium.
Newt evokes a gag reflex among women. You don't want to hear it, but it's true. Newt is so much more than a pandering Washington insider. He is a pathetic little worm who brings the vomit right up to the back of the female throat. Newt is a lying despicable slimball who needs to crawl back under his rock. If nominated, he will absolutely elect Obama. He can't win because character matters (remember when you said that about Clinton? What was true then is still true.) Newt looks nasty. He smells nasty. He is nasty. I hope the rightwing press is successful in taking Newt out. WAKE UP, GUYS! Newt's got loser written all over his pasty little pillsbury doughboy body.
Everything about this election is a wild and crazy gamble.
For one thing it is not much of a shock that we don't have a clear and obvious leader for the lovers of freedom.
Consider: we have just lived through several decades of cultural decline leading up to the unthinkable election of Barry Barak Soetoro Hussein Obama! The fact that that SOB could even be nominated was a damning symptom of trouble. Elected by the general public ?!?!?!?!
That the landscape is not popping with new George Washingtons lately is not a really big surprise. Ours is not fertile soil for growing such. Recoverable? Maybe. Healthy? Absolutely not.
That the situation is confusing is no big surprise either. We have almost NO historical precedents to follow. Name for me the last time a great nation was brought back from decadence and decline by political means — or any other for that matter … … … I'm still waiting.
We are on the hook to come up with an historical first. Good news … we're Americans, historical firsts is what we do. Bad news … we're still on the hook.
The next election can be nothing more than a single small step in the direction of recovery. So my advice to my gentle fellow lovers of America is — don't expect too much. Our next president can only get us started on the path back to health, he can't and won't get us all the way there. He will only provide the groundwork. 2016 and 2020 will be a different story — if, and its a BIG if, we win 2012.
Right now we've just got to get rid of Obama. Any of our candidates will undo SOME of Obama's deadly handiwork, different degrees and different focus perhaps, but they would ALL help to some degree. And they are ALL guaranteed to screw up some of the job. Every last one of them.
So let's stay focussed on the main chance.
Getting Obama out of the White House.
========
And oh, BTW, lets not forget the legislature elections. We need those seats to make this all work!
As a former liberal myself (in my college days), I have the same memories of Newt. He was an immediate turn-off and made a terrible impression on my young self. I have to wonder how many other youngsters feel the way that you and I did when we were youngsters. I do think that Newt's strength is his willingness to take on the media – I think that might play well with the younger crowd.
Now, without Cain in the race, I find myself unable to get passionate about any of the four left. I find myself reading these comments and giving "thumbs up" to pretty much everyone with a point, regardless of which candidate the poster is supporting, because every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. I guess I just fall into the "anyone but Obama" camp.
It's called a free press. No establishment is making the choice for you. The primaries are ongoing and people will vote. They will vote against Newt because he left two wives when they were very ill. Because he criticized Bill Clinton for doing Monica when he was doing Calista. Because he is a liar and a hypocrite who sat on the couch with Pelosi and took money from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.
Is Everyone out to get Newt? Yep
Is it some big conspiracy? No
People have a short memory. People don't remember Newts term as speaker of the house. He bullied people, belittled people, and ran a smash-mouth "Its my way or the highway" top-down leadership style. Regardless of wether or not this was effective is irrelevant to the current situation. He threw a lot of people under the bus last time he was in Washington, and they've crawled back up on to the road with the knives out . This shouldn't come as any surprise to his supporters or detractors.
Right on the mark. Newt has done more for the conservative movement than any one. He has been demonized for two decades because he has achieved real conservative progress. Ted Kennedy was idolized as an emperor of the left even though he had more baggage than a tour bus. There will be a backlash.
You must be a scientist.
I think you're Newt wearing a fake beard! BUSTED!
There will be a backlash. The Sam's Club Republicans will have the Country Club Republicans reaching for aspirin.
Yep, I was right. You certainly were descended from a monkey.
Yep, I was right
you were descended
from a
monk*y
"They're" running against Paul. He's the guy wanting the "sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic." The "old guard" does not want Paul and they know any of the others will go along with the status quo (to a point).
I can't smell anything through my TV.
I'm also looking at my Almanac, and can't find anything about the second term of George H.W. Bush or a President named Dole.
The nastiest one of all: Barack Obama.
And Newt had no gender gap in South Carolina, although he could have one with female independents.
Of course its a free press, but I have a perfect right to push back against those pundits who I think are trying to tell people who to vote for.
That's called freedom of speech.
Doesn't Bill Clinton have one of the highest approval ratings of ex-Presidents?
Do you seriously believe that with all the massive problems this country and the free world has right now — unemployment, deficits, energy, terrorism, rogue nations, government exercising excess power and violating the Constitution etc., that people will throw all of that in the garbage can and base their votes on what Newt Gingrich did more than 10 years ago to his wives and because he did a dumb thing and made a pro global warming commercial with Pelosi?
What's worse? A person who took $1.6 million dollars from Fannie and Freddie to lobby on their behalf, or someone who refuses to acknowledge at all that Fannie and Freddie bear any responsibility for the housing crisis and the economic collapse, and refuses to do anything about it?
Rick Santorum was correct about both Newt and Romney. No wonder the scortched earth negative ads are working.
OK, I'll bite. Who would be a good President, in your opinion?
The way I see it, if either Romney, Newt, or Santorum win the nomination, they have my vote. I can't vote for Ron Paul, but he's not going to win the nomination anyway, so that's an academic discussion.
I may be dead wrong on this, but I think Romney, Newt, and Santorum would beat Obama. He sealed his fate when he nixed the Keystone XL pipeline. People are not looking at this from the standpoint that the national general election campaign has not yet started.
I agree with ya and they have just painted Paul as racist, new information that supposedly proves that he did in fact sign off on the news letters?
Drudge is a great "compiler" of articles, and I love his site, (it is my homepage!), but I would never describe Drudge as a "reporter".
He finds great links to headline, and not-so-headline news, and writes catchy headings for them, but he does not go out and report on his own stories. He is an editor-at-large, IMHO.
Ron Reale
realetybytes
This kind of BS article is the reason that Obama will win another term. Polls show that only two candidates come close to Obama nationally, Romney and Paul. Romney has beaten Obama in a few polls and Paul has tied Obama once. Gingrich and Santorum have never come within 5 points of Obama.
Ron Paul attracts independents and Democrats more than any other Republican candidate. Paul's problems are the Republicans who can't abide his foreign policy (actually they really hate his domestic policy but are afraid to say so). He has the lowest support among Republican elites. If Republicans voted for Ron Paul he would beat Obama but they won't so he won't.
However, if the Republicans run Romney then we have four more years of Obama whether he wins or not. Gingrich can't win because he would have to keep the same platform for a whole three months and his ADHD personality won't let that happen. Santorum? He'd be beaten worse than he was when he lost his Senate seat.
When the Republicans run Romney, as they will, the party will disintegrate. Gary Johnson, the man who should have been the Republican candidate, will take 5% of the vote as a Libertarian and will be blamed for the Republicans losing the election even though they will lose by over 15%.
Not AN article–13 articles all on one day, all negative and all up at the same time. It was like a white house Friday document dump only on a Thursday. "News" about marriages, quotes from x-wives lawyers– He seemed to "get the message" loud and clear.
Thursday the Drudge Report had no less than 13 anti-Gingrich links scattered across the page with somewhere around five “above the fold.”
Well, Newt has the pasty little white fat guy vote sewed up, that's for sure! ( bet you think you look like Hemingway, huh?)
I have to admit, I thought the drudge issue was a bit strange. I have always found his site pretty non biased in regard to reporting and or linking to articles from both parties. Coulter has been disappointing as of late, so no surprise there. The drudge thing seemed orchestrated. To me anyway.
I'm not sure any of the 4 right now would be that great a president. Like I said above, I think Santorum would do the best job. It would be easy to say I like Daniels, Jindal….people who aren't in the race, but they aren't in the race.
If I had to choose between Romney and Gingrich, I would likely wimp out and say Romney because I think he would have the best chance of beating Obama. But that is a terrible way to choose someone. I want to vote for someone because I think they will do a good job.
But my point is the liberal-like thinking of this site. I get it, the editors of this site like Gingrich. But to say that anyone who thinks Gingrich isn't a good choice means it's some Romney conspiracy is getting into tin-foil hat, MSNBC territory.
Well, thumbs up to you, 76. We have to win the spot. After that, we can pressure anyone who wobbles.
Yes, you are missing something.
A coordinated effort to undo the Newt campaign in favor of the Romney campaign.
Could it have been a simple explanation of Drudge merely repeating the happening now news of the day? Sure. Could it be just coincidence that all these stories were all published at the same time all attacking Newt? Of course. Could monkey's fly out of my butt? Maybe.
But we should go after the most plausible explanation instead of the most fanciful. Drudge never overwhelms his site with story after story after story of the same thing. As an example, Drudge has been running for a few days now a "Sunshine State Turns Cloudy" headline with a head down picture of Gingrich. If you look at Drudge right now, you will see headlines that are all negative in some manner for Newt (Even about his wife) and positive for Romney, even about his wife.
Yet if you look here, or at HotAir, or at Powerlineblog, etc, you will see that the stories that came out about Newt from the past week were really full of it. That there is a lot of, "It isn't quite what it seems at the time." But you don't see any of that at the Drudge report. It is clear that Drudge is pro-Romney and anti-Newt. It doesn't mean he is necessarily coordinating with anyone, but I wouldn't doubt it.
Romney evokes a gag reflex among women. You don't want to hear it, but it's true (Because I just said it was). Romney is so much more than a pandering Washington insider. He is a pathetic little worm who bring the vomit right up to the back of the female throat (And I know this because I am a man). Romney is a lying despicable slimball who needs to crawl back under his rock. If nominated, Romney will absolutely elect Obama. Romney can't win because character matters (remember when you said that about Soros? What was true then is still true.) Romney looks nasty (and wooden and fake). He smells nasty. He is nasty. I hope the rightwing press is successful in taking Romney out. WAKE UP, GUYS! Romney's got loser written all over his wooden, no emotions, no feelings, deadpan body.
Vote your conscience in the primaries, then vote for whoever's not Obama in the general election, whether you picked him or not. Any of these guys will make a better president than Obama.
Newt speaks the language of the left. He thinks it's wrong that Rom made money. We already have someone who hates capitalism. His name be Obama. We don't need another.
Give Newt the boot, Florida! Then we'll be finished with this chubby little philander with his fat little fingers and his bird-beaked, helmet-haired home-wrecker hussy of a wife!
Only coots vote for Newt!
Amen, Charm
Amen, Liberty
and Amen, b2
Huh?
well done
drudge report is a news aggregate they link news reports others publish.
Drudge doesn't make the news. Drudge Rarely report news.
He links other people's work.
Sure he drives more traffic than face book twitter and ny times combined…..
infowars broke fast and furious and long time ago.
My point is that we don't need further splitting among the ranks, ZMB.
I think people are reading too much into Drudge's choice of stories. Such arguments serve to validate the left's arguments against Drudge.
And of course, there is the fact that many anti-Gingrich pieces have been posted right here on the Bigs.
That's all ya got? Some incoherent mumbling about a monkey?
Newt lost it when he started talking like an occupy Wall Street moron and attacked Romney for making money. That's "money," LibWriter. Not "monkey."
(Does the staff know you're out of your room?)
"No establishment is making the choice for you". Are you serious? Maybe that scientific study does have some the merit to it. Could it be you just like the more handsome of the two?. And the pasty comment to LibertyWriter earlier really says alot about your character. I'd expect that from the left and not someone supporting a republican against the failure, 0bama.
BTW I'm for ABO
i agree with what you just said.
i don't understand the "blog war". glenn beck is almost out of business because he has been exposed.
I hear you.
Beck was probably a bad example, but the animus between the two sites, both of which are populated by many good, conservative readers and commenters, is not helpful.
I don't think the 4000+ babies Dr. Paul brought into the world were exclusively anglo. In fact, I'd be very interested to see the ethnic breakdown of his patients. Both PA and TX have sizable populations of various ethnic heritages other than caucasian.
The news is the document dump that went up on Drudge, he does write the headlines for his site and choose what stories to link too, do you think he didn't notice.
Drudge makes news everyday, he decides what links go up and what links do not, he is a traffic cop and directs the traffic to the news of his choosing.
You're right. Newt's not a pasty little twerp at all. The man is an Adonis. He is practically Charleton Heston from the "Ben Hur" days. (Except Charleton someone managed to be true to the same woman all of his life.) And LibWriter? Definitely a man's man. Hemingway circa "The Sun Also Rises." No doubt about it. You Newt guys are right and anyone who doesn't like Newt is a monk*y.
A rational person: "Hmmm, an awful lot of people who seem to know Gingrich pretty well have some pretty bad things to say about him."
A Newt-wit: "It's a CONSPIRACY!"
I'm not aware Romney was involved. And you don't seem at all eager to back up your allegation that he was or is.
Excuse my, supposed ignorance but……..a reporter is one who gathers information and repeats it……period! No candy coatings, no slant……….as Sgt. Joe Friday of "Dragnet" fame……………"just the facts, ma'am"
This is precisely a WAR between the corrupt GOP establishment and grass roots Conservatism.
The GOP power elite have destroyed every candidate that came along to threaten their coronation of Mitt Romney.
Newt Gingrich has become the most serious threat, so he's receiving the harshest slime slinging.
If Mitt Romney achieves getting the nomination, Conservatism loses big time AND Obama will serve four more years.
thx
Drudge was documented early-on as a Romney advocate.
He refused to run anything critical of Romney but flooded his site with articles critical of the others.
Clearchannel (most of the AM talkers) is Bain-controlled and it's obvious who they support.
Fox is Ailes and Rove (including the Crossroads PAC), and their ties to Romney are obvious – as has been the activism at Fox to destroy candidates who threatened the coronation of Romney. (Murdoch endorsed Santorum late in the game but he appears to have become irrelevant to the race.)
Gingrich is hardly an innocent-bystander. He joined in the savaging of other candidates and has been artificially propped-up by his billionaire gambling buddy due to the idiocy of McCain-Feingold and other legislation tampering with the election system.
Conservatives, and others seeking an competent, ethical, and experienced candidate have no one left whom they may support – there still is time for a conservative Voter Revolt – to draft someone new into the race. Steve Largent remains the best name floated to-date.
Baggi you are absolutely right and have backed it up beautifully …… I have, in the past now, had much respect for Drudge …. but unfortunately he has gone the way of Anne Coulter ….. 2 very large disappointments foe me in the last few months to realize that they are both RINOs …… but worse than that …. incapable of even handed reporting
Actually he has grouped stories together like that. He caught hell for putting all of those headlines together about teenage gangs rampaging around during the summer.
I have to agree with you. I'm not wild about any of the four remaining in the race, but I think Gingrich may actually be the worst. (and my view has nothing to do with if he could win or not) When the campaign first started I rather liked what I was hearing from Gingrich. But now I've heard way too many clips of him in the past praising FDR as his favorite president for my liking. Combine that with things like sitting on the couch with Pelosi about the global warming lie and his anti-capitalist attack against Romney a few weeks ago and now you've got me thinking he's not the conservative he makes himself out to be.
Now, Now, I never said you were ignorant and certainly hope you took no offense. I apologize if you did. I would doubt if Drudge considers himself a reporter. I think he is great at what he does! If you break it down to a newspaper-type setup, other reporters and journalists collect the news, even publish it under their name. Drudge just picks the ones to highlight, exactly like an editor. Just a question of semantics, I guess.Be well,RonRon Realerealetybytes@yahoo.comhttp://realetybytes.comhttp://coachisright.com
He came to prominance with the "BlueDressStain" …..
Poor choice of words…..
That's one of the stupidest, least-insightful, least-informed comments I've seen here in a long time. And that's saying a lot.
You must be logged in to post a comment.