Todd Palin Endorses Newt Gingrich

ABC News ^ | Jan 9, 2012 | ABC News’ Santina Leuci and Z. Byron Wolf reporting

[ez]

LOL, that’s rich. YOU post that “obviously Sarah does not endorse Newt,” and then accuse everyone else of speaking from emotion? You may be fooling yourself, but you are not fooling me. Pot, kettle...

Your SUPPOSITION that Sarah “obviously” does not support Newt is not supported by the facts. Wishful thinking is more like it.

[ansel12]

What is illogical is claiming that this is a split between the Palins.

The Palins are on the same page, are a team, and are backing Gingrich.

[ez]

I will admit that we are not sure that Palin endorsed Newt, if you will admit, unlike your original post declaring it fact, that Palin DID NOT endorse Newt.

[Parley Baer]

Nope. GO NEWT!

[Brown Deer]

Todd P is just only slightly dumber than Nancy Bimbo-osi.

He married Sarah Heath, so I guess that makes him quite a bit smarter than you, which puts you where on the scale of dumbness?

[ez]

Rewrite...I will admit that we are not sure that Palin endorsed Newt, if you will admit, unlike your original post declaring it fact, that we are not sure Palin DID NOT endorse Newt.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"No, petty nonsense does not call for using up time, keep pretending the Palins are not signaling support if that is your need and compulsion."

Again, you are making claims that I never said. I never questioned whether the Palins are signalling their support of Gingrich. I questioned where Todd ever declaritively came out in support of Newt Gingrich in the article. It makes that statement at the beginning of the article and never backs it up with proof (i.e. quote from Todd). Seems to me, you are the silly one who is dribbling petty nonsense.

"If you post proof for your claim then I will look at it."

Let's get this straight. I claimed Todd Palin is a neophyte when it comes to being in a political interview by major news media (usually hostile).

You said that's not true.

I said show me the other interviews.

Seems like the balls in your court. I'm waiting....

[Buddygirl]

Thanks for the laughs re: picture! Long time, no see!

[ez]

That strikes me as ABC’s problem, not mine.

It's nobody's problem, it just makes your argument false. You are basing your argument on an incomplete set of facts that do not include Palin's full remarks. That's all.

[ansel12]

Prove your claim, as it is the media savvy Todd seems to have succeeded in signaling the Palins approval of Newt.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I will admit that we are not sure that Palin endorsed Newt, if you will admit, unlike your original post declaring it fact, that Palin DID NOT endorse Newt."

Absolutely! I think we are on the same page. My whole point in my first post was not if Todd ever endorsed Newt or not. He may have. But the article makes this declarative statement, then never backs it up with a quote from Todd. Many people on here run with it as Todd supporting Newt when there is no basis of fact from the article. Until there are more definitive quotes from Todd, we just don't know. I opened up the article in expectation that the headline was correct. As I read through it, it's murky at best. It bothers me that people are taking just the facts from this article and assuming all kinds of things from it.

[napscoordinator]

I heard Rush. You are getting your info from second sources. Someday if you listen to Rush you may understand what was said.

[ez]

I reread your first post, and we are on the same page. I took your statement “That’s not an endorsement” to be a blanket statement, but upon rereading realized you qualified it with “based on the article.”

It is wise to suspect bad motives from the press.

[ez]

I reread your first post, and we are on the same page. I took your statement “That’s not an endorsement” to be a blanket statement, but upon rereading realized you qualified it with “based on the article.”

It is wise to suspect bad motives from the press.

[Buddygirl]

I believe you are right and what the media supports, we have to be strongly against! I wish we could destroy the mainstream media or at least, get in their face!

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"unlike your original post declaring it fact"

One other thing, this is from my original post:

"Just from the excerpts of the article, it does not exactly sound like he’s endorsing Newt."

I never declared it a fact that Todd did not endorse Newt. I said from the excerpts from the article. Referring to the few quotes of his in the article. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding and poor communication on my part.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Prove your claim, as it is the media savvy Todd seems to have succeeded in signaling the Palins approval of Newt."

A poor excuse of a retort from someone who cannot properly debate and discuss. That is to ascribe motives and things I never said and then to attack that. It just shows how poor of a debater you are and how you cannot properly argue or admit when you're wrong.

[RichInOC]

Yeah, but where’s the quote? If ABC had the quote, if they had him on record saying that, we wouldn’t need the transcript. Because they’d have no good reason to hide that quote. They’d have every reason to put that quote front and center in the story. Because it IS the story. Without it, we have Todd saying nice things about Newt. Which is nice, but it’s not an endorsement, and it’s not really even much of a story.

[ansel12]

LOL, I’m not here to debate, and especially not to debate the obvious, and especially with someone who clearly can go on forever about nothing.

The fact is that the media savvy Todd has strongly signaled the Palins are backing Newt.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I will no longer throw my pearls before swine...