Posted on 12/07/2011 8:16:15 PM PST by fightinJAG
It’s childish to call every piece that contains negative information against someone a “hit piece.”
I’ve made it very clear on this very thread that I have decided not to vote for Newt in the primaries.
So what?
How does that impact how people reading the article evaluate the information? Does it make the facts any more or less true? Does it morph the author’s words into a superpowerful mind controller that cannot be resisted?
Get a grip. My motivation in posting the thread is no more relevant to the information in the article than your motivation in posting on the thread. I could easily say you’re only here because you support Newt and want to shoot down anything negative about him.
Again, so what? Isn’t that the entire purpose of this forum? So that people who have DIFFERENT VIEWS can provide DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES on the same infomatioun in an article.
Yet it has become almost like posting an article that one doesn’t like is personally disrespectful. What a crock.
All articles are posted simply so people can debate the info in them. As you like to say, is that hard?
Newt’s leadership & what he’s able to accomplish will undoubtedly come down to whether he has to deal primarily w/ the same rino’s, or whether he’ll have a new bunch like Rand Paul, Demint, etc. to deal with.
The consequences for this election have a lot more to deal w/ than just the presidency. It’s time for a thorough house cleaning.
“I’ve made it very clear on this very thread that I have decided not to vote for Newt in the primaries.”
-
Here’s an idea:
How about you make it very clear who you are here campaigning for?
All good.
I don’t see why it’s become so ubiquitous to first question the motive of the poster and then questiuon whether the posting of the article is fair.
It seems to me that is what this forum is all about: if an article is not fair, it’s a good thing for it to be posted and shot down from all angles. Or debated by people with very different perspectives.
But this idea that the poster’s motive in posting the article somehow changes the way others reading it evaluate the info it contains is just a crock! Any more than your motive for coming on the thread and posting matters.
Of course, we are all here one way or the other to express our observations and opinions. I don’t see why that seems to have become a cause for alarm for some in FRland.
I appreciate your civil reply. And, yes, this is a particularly arduous primary season.
Rather than criticizing Gingrich, how about you tell readers who you support?
I guess for me it comes down to this, I have on several occasions here voiced my displeasure w/ many of Newt’s stands & activities. In other words, I look at both sides of the issue. I may be wrong, but I’m not sure I’ve seen you voice ANYTHING positive about Newt in your posts, even though there are positives regardless of what you may think of him.
Hit pieces are those that only give one side of the story, rather than a balanced view. They’re arguments that don’t accept dissenting views regardless of the evidence, but rather continue to argue the point simply to win the point rather than a produce a conclusion of fact. That was the point I was trying to make.
Again, I respect your opinion even if it differs from mine. The delivery is what I’ve had a problem with. With that said, goodnight good man.
You asked me about Newt’s record as a conservative since leaving office and I answered.
That is not dodging.
You continuing, it seems, to think I have not answered a question until I accept your answer to that question — your answer being, so what, he’s changed — is not responsive.
I gave my answer and it’s my answer because it’s what I sincerely think.
And what’s this crock about “I know why” — are you really trying to imply that I have some secret motive in listing the things I did to support my conclusion that Newt does NOT have a record of conservatism?
The psychological BS is getting out of hand. People support candidates. They have their reasons. They state their reasons. Other people don’t agree.
SO WHAT. It’s not some supersecret psychological mind game.
Some don’t state who they support.
Good. But.............
The questions you didn’t answer were whether you thought the republican party had become more, or less conservative since Newt’s departure, & whether you thought Newt was guilty of the charges against him. I wasn’t asking you to accept my views, but rather what yours were.
I don’t believe you answered either of those other than in an indirect deflecting way.
You need to check my posting history back to the start of the primaries. I was one of the first to say maybe Newt is at a place where he’s the one we need.
Then I was very positive about Newt as a VP when it seemed he would never be acceptable to conservatives as President.
Once he became the frontrunner, I had an obligation to find out more about what Newt has been up to since he left Washington. All I knew about him was hearing him on Sean Hannity and he sure sounds swell on that show.
What I found disturbed me. I have repeatedly said I would vote for Newt in the general election. But, after a long deliberation, I have decided I won’t vote for him in the primaries. I detailed some of my larger concerns in a post to JimRob on this thread.
I have often made positive comments about Newt. That said, I have no obligation to tout his positives just because it’s necessary to evaluate his negatives. That doesn’t make his negatives not negative.
So, in my view, I don’t expect and don’t care if someone who is pointing out the negatives of a candidate doesn’t also point out his positives.
It’s not the pointing out of the positives that’s the point. It’s the very acceptance of the positives that seems to be troubling to you these days. I take you at your word that that has not always been the case.
We’ll live to discuss again.
I read your question as whether the GOP or Newt had the better conservative record since Newt left Congress and said they both stink. Then I detailed why.
I do think the GOP has become somewhat more conservative since then, but I do not think Newt has. I don’t think he “gets” the Tea Party at all. In fact, it is looking like he might be the end of it. A thousand ideas a minute emanting from Newt’s mouth, yet it has been weeks since conservatives were riveted on debating and advancing plans for massive tax reform and government spending cuts.
As for whether Newt was guilty, that was not relevant to my point about leadership. He was found guilty by the Ethics Committee and the House concurred. One of the things he admitted to was LYING to the committee, and none of that was changed by subsequent IRS findings. The foundation was cleared by the IRS, so that vindicated Gingrich on that part.
But, as I said, that misses the point. No, it actually makes my question even more saliant. What did Gingrich do, in terms of his leadership style, to so completely lose the confidence of those he was supposedly leading? Especially since the charges were bogus?
I know your answer is “he was fighting the elites and they kicked him out.”
I don’t agree. He was the elite: he was Speaker of the House for crying out loud! And he was best friends with Bob Dole to the tune of getting a $300,000 loan from him. Hardly an outsider to the elites of the elites of the establishment GOP.
Gingrich didn’t resign because of the Democrats. He resigned because of the Republicans. All I’m saying is this whole Republican Camelot myth that seems to be spreading about Gingrich’s speakership doesn’t square with the facts.
If that’s not relevant to your assessment of Gingrich’s potential as President, that’s your call.
You’re right that the more I look into Gingrich’s record, the less his positives mean to me.
That said, he has potential to be a good, maybe a great President. But he could also be a nightmare.
You might say well, that could be true of any of the candidates.
My response to that is: but the others (Ron Paul excluded) we are not so fairly warned about.
Give us their names.
You post: “For those who don’t know, Republicans strongly supported action against Gingrich by the House Ethics Committee.”
And for “those of you who don’t know” - New was exonerated of these trumped up charges - even the one he THOUGHT he may have violated.
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html
Why are you posting this hit piece without including the results?
Is is total dishonestly or just ignorance. On second thought, you had to dig for this - and in so doing, the facts that he was cleared had to have popped up.
Newt was throwing monkey wrenches in the Socialists forward march - he set them back years. of course, this probe took year and effectively put Newt out of Washington. Worked once, huh? Going for a second time?
and many republicans suffered with ‘nose out of joint’ syndrome, plus he was a thorn in the side of the Establishment Republicans.
Hmmm - are you getting paid for shilling for someone?
you opine: “Yeah, sure he didn’t. That’s why he resigned.”
Ever think of doing a little research before spouting off?
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html
why don’t you at least read the truth -
this post is an underhanded hit piece - and dishonest to boot.
Per:
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html
They only got one of 84 charges to stick - and that turned out not to be true in the long run also ——
Pretty sad this dishonesty is being perpetrated on FR...
but that’s the nature of lawyers - twisted half truths to support their clients - which in this case is who - Romney?
You say” THE IRS FOUND HIM TO BE INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM ... HE VIOLATED NO LAWS!!!! If you’re going to pontificate, at least get your facts straight!”
EXACTLY - and when the IRS finds someone innocent, you know they HAVE to be! And here’s the link, for those who may be honest enough to want to know -
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html
geese, this thread is something I would expect on DU
perpetuating your ignorance or deliberately keeping up with lies?
Trying a little research before maligning someone on the WWW might be a nice practice.
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/newt.html
With the above link, you have the opportunity to learn the truth. If you continue to ignore it - you prove yourself to be less than honorable.
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.