Skip to comments.In Breitbart’s Last Column, Did He Endorse Newt Gingrich?
Posted on 03/05/2012 9:46:59 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Deceased conservative media icon Andrew Breitbarts posthumously released article outlines a leftist play heralding radical Saul Alinsky that Obama participated in. But for as much as the crux of the article is centered on Barack Obamas affiliation with Alinsky-styled radicalism, does he also endorse Newt Gingrich at its conclusion?
When Andrew Breitbart announced at CPAC this year that he would be vetting Obama with a new set of tapes that would confirm his radical roots, he planted an eagerness in the conservative movement that currently waits with bated breath to see if these videos live up to the hype that Breitbart gave them. Today, with the release of Breitbarts posthumous column on Obama and his participation in a leftist play about Saul Alinsky, conservatives are taking note of the opening salvo in what should prove to be a much-needed revisionism of Obamas political past.
Easily overlooked, however, are the two paragraphs devoted to accrediting Newt Gingrich and his recent performance in 2012 election primaries as the true first shot at reopening the issue of Obamas radicalism.
In his piece, The Vetting, Part 1: Baracks Love Song To Alinsky, he has this to say about the former Speaker: The reason Newt Gingrich surged in the Republican primary contest in January is that he was attempting to do the press job by finding out who the current occupant of the White House actually is. Millions also want to know, but the mainstream media is clearly not planning to vet the President anytime soon. Quite the opposite.
Breitbarts admiration of Gingrich is clear enough in this quotation, singling him out as the only Republican Presidential candidate willing to broach the subject of Obamas radical tendencies. But even more poignant is how Breitbart ends his article: If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newts strategy into a nomination, well have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real Baraka Obama, not the manufactured one the media prefers.
Clearly Breitbart is stopping short of anything approaching an official endorsement in keeping with his promise at CPAC to support whomever is chosen to run against Obama in election 2012. It is interesting, however, that Breitbart decides to characterize the Republican nominee as an imperfect but well-known Republican. Pundits will be quick to say that that characterization could apply to any of the remaining GOP candidates. But it cannot be dismissed that Newt and only Newt was referenced in Breitbarts last column.
I don’t think this is his final “vetting.”
That is the definitive statement. Anything else is just speculation. Had Breitbart wished to endorse a candidate he would have done so in very clear language.
Let’s do an SAT type question.
Which two of the following do not fit:
A: Andrew Breitbart
B: Sarah Palin
C: Newt Gingrich
D: Mitt Romney
E: Rick Santorum
Agreed. Andrew had no problem with saying what was on his mind.
Really? The implication is clear to me who it is of the three candidates that already posesses (in spades) the only
“strategy” Breitbart points to, lauds, wants and recommends.
If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newts strategy into a nomination, well have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real Baraka.....
Just D, Einstein.
Some Santorum supporters, like CC, do not have the brain power to deal with nuances and even clear implications. They are sort of sad that way.
Santorum in clerical collar and seen whining now against DRUDGE, is NOT a strategy Andrew would be seen recommending.
Brietbart was pointedly speaking of *strategy”, not who can squeal the loudest.
chuckle, chuckle, snort.
Palin and Romney. The rest are males.
TOUCHE. Good one.
If you keep that up, I’m going to have to back down on my claim that all Santorum supporters are humorless!
Mentioning “satan,” in a 2008 speech makes one some kind of nut, but gathering around the séance table to divine the hidden endorsement of Breitbart is a perfectly rational act.
Oh, speaking of Drudge. Do you think it’s any coincidence that Breitbart’s plan was to open up a competitor to Drudge Report after the Drudge report shredded Newt openly and obviously for months?
Dear God, I miss Andrew Breitbart.
Yes, nuance for sure, and sometimes it’s also clear that even the *obvious” whizzes right over the cranial region, causing some exposure for other regions.
Puts one in mind of Sarah’s non-endorsement endorsement of Newt.
Hidden in plain sight.
Though credit where it is due: Joe 6 Pack did make a funny......a talent Ive yet to see in CC or AC or Naps or even Rick himself....
Why wouldn’t one brilliant, masterful, hero warrior be for the only other brilliant, masterful warrior?
There you go again, my friend Einstein, properly deducing again. :)
Whining is seldom Newt’s style, but like Breitbart picks his battles well, Newt does as well.
A perfect arena for Breitbart to pick his battle, taking on a website to compete with DRUDGE for conservatives, of whom he said “....aren’t going to take it anymore”!
Neither Romney nor Santorum are conservative record makers.
Newt IS the only history maker among them. AND, the record that proves it.
What has Santorum or Romney done for conservatives, EVER?
Oh, talked the “conservative speak” alright on the trail, but both legislate far Left of conservative. It’s on the record.
A band of brothers all their own.
Andrew is a movement. RIP, fearless one. +++
Someone is really really reaching here.
You are a very mean individual.
That is certainly the way I read it. Actually, I was quite surprised by the statement, but very pleased.
EAGLES UP MR. NEWT!
I dont care who our candidate is and I havent since the beginning of this. I havent! Ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate! When I walk through CPAC or a I travel the United States to meet people in the Tea Party who care black, white, gay, and straight anyone thats willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker. And if youre not in that bunker because youre not satisfied with [a certain] candidate, more than shame on you! Youre on the other side!
Gracie, you are the mean person. Rita is right, you are not.
Gracie, sorry to offend. Are you among the strategists for Santorum?
I think I recognize Rick’s whining strategy in your post. He says the same thing to so many.
Politics isn’t bean bag. Some of us are discussing the two geniuses, Breitbart and Newt. Just cheer up and forge onward in the fog.
Well, he was no summer soldier
Where he fought was hard and cold
His manner? less than gentle
His words were always bold
Andrew was a leader
And we happily played the chorus
When something needed saying
We let Andrew say it for us
Well, the contest isnt over
And the system still is broken
So in honor of his memry
We all need to be outspoken
When the moment calls you
Never turn your back and run
Gladly face the challenge
Its what Andrew would have done
For he was no summer soldier
And the battles never cease
With the others who defend us
Let us pray he rests in peace.
~ Tarzana Joe
What a gift!
Thank you for posting to this thread!
“..no summer soldier..”.
He was a revolutionary. He’s given a whole new generation of conservatives a blueprint.
Oh, sod off, newbie. The only conservative with a history of conservative success is Newt Gingrich.
Santorum is not now, nor has he ever been, truly conservative.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rick Santorum Cast Himself As ‘Progressive Conservative,’ Non-Reaganite In First Campaign
WASHINGTON — Making his first run for Congress in the early 1990s, this candidate promised not to be a Reagan Republican, fashioned himself a progressive conservative, said he was impartial on unions and stayed vague on abortion rights.
It’s a description that fits Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor whose past political pursuits in that state have weighed down his current presidential ambitions. But in this case, it applies to former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, whose own political origins have been explored in far less depth.
In his circuitous path to the top of the primary polls, Santorum has presented himself as the pure conservative alternative to Romney. But an extensive review of newspaper archives and interviews with officials involved in his successful 1990 congressional race against Rep. Doug Walgren (D-Pa.) suggests that Santorum was cut from a similar GOP cloth as his current adversary.
Take, for instance, a November 3, 1990, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, in which Santorum distanced himself from Ronald Reagan.
Santorum insisted that he was the one who is more in touch. ‘From child care to taxes, we’re right for this district. This district has had enough of government sticking its nose constantly in our business,’ he said, insisting nonetheless that he is not a Reagan Republican.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You want mean?