Posted on 01/29/2012 5:22:24 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
January 29th, 2012
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): 2012 GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): 2012 GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum; David Axelrod, political adviser to President Barack Obama's re-election campaign; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Reince Priebus, RNC chairman; Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC head; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Donald Trump; Reps. Allen West and Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Gingrich; House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): 2012 GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Gov. Rick Scott, R-Fla.; Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; former Commerce Secretary Carlos Guttierez.
“Nobody is claiming Newt is Moses or has no faults, although Moses was a broken man when God chose him as was David and Solomon as were most of the great leaders in History.”
Amen! I was reading this and couldn’t help but think of Mitt & Newt. It’s not that I do or don’t know if Mitt has repented (for whatever he needed to repent for) - that’s something he needs to do with someone on high, but the “picture-perfect, storybook outward facade” hit a note with me. Of course, he could also be referring to the “self-righteous” Bambi
The Tale of Two Men
Townhall.com ^ | January 29, 2012 | Michael Youssef
Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:35:42 AM by Kaslin
>snip
We have a clear example of this in the lives of two kings in the Bible. King Saul was very good on paper and looked so good outwardly. And then there was King David who messed up royally. The difference is that King David repented with tears, and the Bible notes that King David was a man after God’s own heart.
In a few months, our nation will be electing a whole slew of candidates for a variety of offices. Some conservatives are making judgments similar to the Pharisees by going for the picture-perfect, storybook, glossy outward façade. Be very careful and be sure when you pass judgment that you choose those who know how to repent and not those who are self-righteous.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2839615/posts
Santorum has other things on his mind right now, and our prayers remain with Bella, Rick and his family. But that does not alter the fact that he should have gotten out of the race after SC.
It is significant that even though he won the most recent Florida debate, Santorum’s poll numbers did not move more than a point or two. He has to know that by staying in the race, he only helps Romney.
Even if he can’t bring himself to endorse Newt, unlike Rick Perry, Santorum could still have suspended his campaign with no endorsement, like Michele Bachmann did. Ultimately, both Bachmann and Perry, by getting out, advanced the cause of conservatism.
That's an ambiguous characterization of the exchange. If she's asked about Romney having good character, and refuses to answer, it comes off as her not finding him to have good character. I don't think that's the impression she left. I think she intended to and probably did leave the impression that Romney does not have an integrity issue in this campaign. If she can't say, then she really doesn't have basis to support her assertion to be a TEA Party leader.
If I understand your position, I agree with it - she's self-serving.
“I don’t trust ANY polls, really, but they often turn out to be accurate. PPP has Newt dropping 6 points and seniors going strongly for Romney....”
Yes, this phenomenon in Florida was well known, which is why this primary date was moved, at the loss of half of Florida’s delegates, in order to knock the conservatives against Romney out and end this now.
A further breakdown of the senior demographic would show you why this was so predictable, and certain.
But if Gingrich hangs in after Florida, he can still win more delegates in other states post-Florida than Romney.
We don't get FNS for a while yet,can't wait.
“Ultimately, both Bachmann and Perry, by getting out, advanced the cause of conservatism.”
Huh?
I see Newt as the guy who can win because of what Herman Cain said, ‘message’, and that message is just starting to amplify though other outlets.
Yep, assuming "safe bet" means they are indifferent about winning the presidency, as long as most of them retain their congressional seats of power.
They'd rather lose with Romney than win with Gingrich. They hold a grudge, they HATE the TEA Party with a passion. They will not go down without a fight, and in this battle, the media is firmly in their camp.
But you don’t think that if WE can see his faults and issues that point to him decidedly NOT being conservative...the media and the Obama 2012 folks won’t do it as well?
“People change. Drudge, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter—people we used to count on have fled the conservative coop. Don’t ask me why.”
I’m not sure why either, I can only surmise based on things I’ve read on FR:
Drudge - the Romeny-Drudge axis since 2005 ($s??)
Hume - there are stories that he blames Newt for his son’s death
Coulter - this is a perplexing one for me. She seems to have been drifting leftwards the past year or 2. She is a HUGH supporter of Christie (not exactly a die-hard Conservative), she’s very close w Drudge, and she apparently has/had been dating at least 1 liberal (Bill Maher) -perhaps she started believing his liberal spewing. She was/is Chairperson of GOP Proud. From what I’ve read, FReeper support for her has changed considerably - not many here will be buying any of her books.
Of course, I’m just speculating and summarizing some of what I’ve read. Perhaps it’s just that they all follow in line with the GOP Establishment, so are all-in for the Mittster.
You’ll enjoy FNS today when you see it. Ryan was just as great as he always is, even with Wallace not listening to Ryan’s answers properly. I enjoyed Brit Hume as well. He may not be a Newt fan but he strives to be fair in his comments.
Risking another crucifixion here, but if one looks at it realistically, we had a horrible field to start with.
No one candidate at the beginning seemed viable and one was hard pressed to see why any of them thought they should be president.
I think Palin is a little at fault. So many people here (myself included) were sure she would run and win.
She kept stringing us along way too long. She knew all along what would be entailed in the race and how it would affect her family.
So people were left in a void and many here flocked from candidate to candidate seeking a savior.
Cain: why did he run with no credentials at all to be president? None. And why did he get so much initial support? I think it was Palin supporters looking for someone to love. They chose the wrong lover.
Santorum: why did he run? He’d been a fairly conservative senator for two terms but had been beaten badly, and I mean, badly by a democrat, and hadn’t done much in politics since.
Bachmann: a little more argument for her running as she is the self-proclaimed queen of the tea party, but her stature as presidential dropped like a rock in a hysterical outburst over Gardisol. Gardisol??? With all the problems we have, she chose to take on Gardisol.
Ron Paul: he runs every time even though knowing he can’t win. He views it as a chance to get his positions out there and it is. That’s the problem, we all know his crazy positions, foremost among them the notion that middle easterners are nice people who only attacked us because we are mean and interfering.
Gingrich: Meteorical rise to the top with the contract with America. An idea machine, some of his ideas are far out (see Moon) but most of them are good. But what made him think he was suddenly ready to be president so many years after he resigned as speaker?
Rick Perry: (admit to prejudice here - he was my candidate) The only one who seemed viable. A successful governor who knows politics but not from a Washington prospective. Had a lot of anti-establishment ideas, but never caught fire for some reason I cannot imagine, maybe it was the first debate.
Mitt Romney: One term governor who created a health care program in his state eerily similar to the hated Obamacare. Has a lot of money. Always wanted to be president.
So, there it was and here we are.
So, that’s what we had.
So okay, here's my story....last week I heard, I forget from where please forgive. My kitchen TV is on most of the time, to Fox if not on a taped program...so I hear sometimes without seeing.
the ongoing discussion was about Newt and his association with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Now some of us might have born at night, just not LAST night. We know Newt has baggage but we're of a mind that we'll take Newt's baggage over Romney the meek RINO, wannabe liberal, creator of Romneycare.
Newt's association with Frannie Mae et al is murky, I get this. Newt did release his contract with Fannie Mae and it too was kinda vague, but there was, notably and as Newt pointed out, no reference to lobbying, that he merely a consultant for those two gubmint sponsored giants that almost destroyed this country's home buying market.
So one of the pundits said...and I paraphrase, "Everyone knows that these politicians are paid money just to keep their mouth shut", and at this my jaw dropped.
I don't know about Newt but that Freudian slip made the sun shine bright over my marble head.
I've wondered just how the hell all those Republicans in congress, both Senate and House, didn't know a damn thing about that experiment in socialism going on at the Freddies. And I'd add a lot of this was going on when the pubs were in the majority in both houses!
All those earmarks, giving mortgages to Crystal and her pimp, bridges to nowhere....folks, more proof we've got a political class and the Republican elite are part of it.
Like that pundit let slip, if those elected pubs didn't know what was going on in that abuse of the Community Reinvestment act, then I got a bridge to sell to anyone who believes it.
and I most certainly do believe that Newt maybe got money for NOT going out and railing in public against Fannie and Freddie....he was trying to raise campaign funds after all. There was also, with lightbulb still going on over my head, that stupid thing with Pelosi over global warming. I think Newt got some bucks for that.
But I think Newt is ever the opportunist and I think he realizes he better appease the very angry Tea Party types for they grow angrier and more hostile.
Yeah, I'll take a glib opportunist as I think he'll follow the prevailing winds. Mittens, oth, is bound by the political class and will align to protect their good thing. Newt's a rogue cannon and might just tell the tales and I'm quite sure he knows where the skeletons are hidden.
Their fear of Newt is that he'll put an end to their good thing and maybe he'll do it all for the glory of Newt but I don't care why. I want that political class stopped and dismantled and I do think Newt will do it.
So long as it benefits him is what I'm saying here.
I'll end with the factoid that when Newt was coming up to hero status, back in the mid-90's, he DID advance a conservative agenda, he did stop federal funds into welfare, he DID balance the budget.
Folks, there's nothing wrong with those who think the world needs them to, eh, think the world needs them. These are the types who will do your bidding, so long, as I remember Christine O'Donnell, it benefits them.
“Coulter - this is a perplexing one for me.”
Truer words have never been spoken.
Seeing her lurch towards “Moderate” is as big a shock to me as if it were Rush or Levin that were doing it.
It’s obvious. Because as long as the conservative vote is split, Romney wins the nomination, and conservatives get the shaft, as is usual with the corrupt GOP.
Romney loses the general election and the Alinsky radical gets four more years to destroy America.
Happy with that outcome, are ya?
Good. Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.
My thought is that the Republican elite think Romney could win because he will come off as being more palatable for the Independents, that there will be harsher contrast between Obama and Newt, and the Independents will still be unable to think for themselves given a stark choice and media bias.
“Happy with that outcome, are ya?”
Not in the least. But why are you limiting your choice to one of two RINO’s?
There is a third option that you are completely ignoring...one that if Conservatives would unite behind instead of getting wrapped up in the drama and trying to find some 100% pure candidate...would trounce Obama.
Mark Levin defended both Ann Coulter and Drudge on his show Friday.
I understand his not knocking them but going out of his way to defend them, I don’t understand.
I haven’t heard the Friday show (I listen to them on podcast here in Germany)...but I can only imagine he’s doing that solely out of friendship and not because they see eye to eye on who should be the nominee.
Mark has already said if the vote were today he’d vote Santorum.
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.