Skip to comments.Rand Paul mocks Newt Gingrich's marriages and Fox News' stance on Libya
Posted on 03/31/2011 4:39:21 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
"I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war; a position or two, or maybe three," Paul said Wednesday at the Congressional Correspondents' Dinner. "I don't know. He may have more war positions than he's had wives."
"They just really can't decide over at Fox News. It's like, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It's like, I was over there and there was an anchor going -- they were pleading, they were pleading -- 'please, please, please, can't we do both? Can't we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work?'"
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Awwwww! Little Rand is making some new friends and singing for his supper!
Does he really think toadying to the MSM is going to make them his good buddies?
Did it do “Maverick John” any good when it counted?
LA Times on the prowl again?
Character does matter, but which has become off the table for discussion since political correctness AND you can’t judge others........this idea, since Clinton, that character does not matter, when virtue is integral to government, has to be destroyed.
We should judge one’s character by one’s actions. If a person has no character, they will fall for brides and selling out the country to the highest bidder. If a wife can not trust a husband, as in Newt’s case, then who can.
We have seen it time and time again. Some people have more character than others. That should be a determining factor for public office.
Perhaps the most accurate typo ever.
whoops....freudian slip on my part.
Turns out Rand Paul is good buds with Al Franken.
Nothing is more infuriating than a shameless hypocrite. Rand Paul is not one (yet), but Newt Gingrich is little more than a political gadfly at this point.
Newt lacks the necessary character, he is too selfish and self-absorbed to understand what a family, and what one should be.
that’s some funny stuff
Google has 40 different articles about this. I just picked the first one to post.
HAHAHAHAHA! Poor, misunderstood Newt.
He and his father are the only ones standing up to the private banking cartel called The Fed which is going to destroy the US. The US is broke and inflation is about to skyrocket.
Maybe if you had a clue you might know what is going on.
i think that rand believes that we should not be involved in libya. i agree with him.
Rand Paul is as loony as his father.
The left doesn’t attack each other in media, this doesn’t help anyone but them.
These comments sound like what one would say at a roast. At a roast the speaker is supposed to zing everybody in the room. I guess with Dean Martin gone nobody has a sense of humor anymore.
Okay yeah, it’s kinda funny - though I don’t wanna laugh too hard, making snide comments is a little too easy. Statements like these could come back to bite him in the end, and that would be a shame.
a) The first time was because Obama had raised the stakes putting US credibility on the line.
b) The second was because Obama redefined the meaning of enforcing a NO FLY ZONE:
When the trouble was happening in Libya, the media was calling for some type of action or intervention on the part of the United States. At this point the United States had made no public comment on Libya.
1) Newt was against US Intervention even though the media was pushing for the silent US government to make a public stance.
1a) Sarah Palin for for US Intervention and toppling Gadaffi (even though the US Government had not yet taken a public stance on the media reports of the goings on in Libya)
2) Obama finally makes a public stance and threatens Gadaffi with No Fly Zone Enforcement if Gadaffi does not step down.
Now we're at a difference Phase where US credibility is on the line. Newt and many who were originally against US Intervention had to reestablish a new opinion based on the current situation.
Then again, silence from the White House.
3) Newt was for enforcing No Fly Zone (not allowing Gadaffi's planes to fly) NOT because he changed his mind but because the US Government had issued a policy to the world via Barack Obama which would hurt US Credibility if the US did not follow through with its threats.
At this point we saw the articles about Obama: Shoot Your Mouth Off But Carry No Stick
3a) Sarah Palin continues to encourage toppling Gadaffi even though it was not yet US Policy
4) US Begins so called "No-Fly Zone Enforcement" which was NOT enforcement of a No Fly Zone. Obama redefines NFZ enforcement as aerial intervention in a civil war. Obama's bombing targets on the ground.
5) Obama and Sarah Palin continue to demand that Gadaffi step down (intervention) and talks about regime change (intervention)
6) Newt is against the current definition of a No Fly Zone which is not the enforcement of a NFZ but active involvement in a civil war where we are actually bombing one side to assure a victory for the "rebels".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.