Posted on 03/04/2012 6:25:04 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says Rush Limbaugh was wrong to call a college student a "slut" and "prostitute" in the debate over contraception coverage, and was right to apologize for the comments.
Gingrich tells CNN's "State of the Union" that he's glad the conservative commentator issued the apology on Saturday and that it's time to move beyond the controversy.
Gingrich says it's "silly" to suggest that Limbaugh speaks for the GOP. Gingrich contends the media are "trying desperately to protect" President Barack Obama.
No Trapped, you are not wrong - you nailed by sentiments on this exactly. Newt made some typically brilliant Newt points on this, and yes, had he stopped before the “glad Rush apologized” line, it would have been another Newt home rum.
In our headline driven world, he unfortunately gave the world the impression he was throwing Rush under the bus. Obviously that’s not the case, but look at all the Freepers who think he did.
Thus, my point is validated. Sadly.
Between McCain the Huckster and Romney—three RINOs—who would YOU have endorsed?
Mitt was the lesser of three evils and even I supported him then over McCain and the Arkansas Clinton-lite.
Silly premise.
Gingrich is trying to get past this.
Why don’t we all forget about this and move on to the most important issue - OMG - Obama Must Go! Gingrich the nominee defeating obama!
The more shrewd Newt deflected the bait on offering direct criticism and takes it to the press for spending more time on Rush than Obama's apologizing to Afghanistan while tolerating the murder of our military. You know, things that matter.
If it wasn't "right to apologize," would Rush have done it? Think about the logic of your statements. Is Rush suddenly the voice of the GOP? Did he become RNC chair? Is he running to be standard bearer in the 2012 election?
As usual Santorum supporters take any opportunity to attack Newt for uttering anything, no matter how true or statesman-like.
Better left unsaid was Rush's initial characterization that's cost him four sponsors, sucked up valuable airtime ahead of Super Tuesday, dragged the conservative and Republican brands through the mud ... do you get the picture yet?
It was plainly obvious from the testimony she was an activist and this was a trap that Rush should've been keen enough to avoid. He could've made his point about the absurdity without offering the personalizing soundbite. Sometimes I think he can't help himself and craves to be talked about no matter the collateral damage to his supposed side.
Gingrich is our only hope but the hold the communists have on America he will not make it. The communists democrats will make sure Romney will win the nomination because they know King Obama and the lying MSM, Hollywood, and the Unions will hit him so hard poor Romney will just crumble.
I don’t know. This actually increases my respect for both Rush and New. I am a Christian before I am a Republican or an American or anything else, and I cringed when I heard Rush (live) go down that path. I know what he meant to convey, but calling people defamatory names, even when arguably true, isn’t normal Christian practice. Love tells the truth, yes, but if doesn’t beat you over the head with it. Rush did the right thing. This is not a hill worth dying on.
OMG. Just not what Gingrich did on MTP. He immediately moved the dialogue to Obamas apology to afghanistan. Then Gregory wanted to talk about he national dialogue on birth control, at which point, Newt then started talking about Obamas voting record on infanticide. If anyone wants to take a statement to Rush, it should be Santorum’s, calling Rush absurd and an entertainer.
This has become a national movement against Rush. Newt's comments show that Newt is looking at this from that perspective, since he is deeply experienced in Legal matters. The “apology” was made from a legal perspective only, to quell any further outrage. But in the long run, it opens up the door for a long drawn-out and expensive legal case.
You are totally missing my point, therefore being guilty of what you are accusing me of.
I fully understand that Newt’s statement, in its entirety, is very good. I fully understand the logic of what you say. So let me say this again, for about the 50th time: Newt gave one inarticulate response that has become a HEADLINE that will make 95% of the folks think he threw Rush under the bus.
I repeat, the HEADLINE quote will be all that most folks ever hear of Newt’s statement, and therefore, they will assume Newt is more or less aligned with Santorum on this - which he is not. THUS, it was a poor decision on Newt’s part to utter the “glad he apologized line” and the “silly” line.
AND, should Rush pull a double reverse, an operation reverse apology, on Monday, it would be far preferable for Newt to have huge separation from Rick on this issue. Thanks to that headline, he does not in the minds of most people.
Apparently, you have merely skimmed my comments and missed my point - and assume I have done the same with Newt. Not so.
With due respect, you so misapprehend the nature of the battle we are in. So so so misapprehend it.
You may well be right. I hope not, but you might be.
In 2008 Romney was the worst candidate, as events proved, that is why he came in third.
Romney is the most hard left, anti-conservative man who has ever made it this far in the GOP.
I agree that Santorum’s statement was sillier, but the media will take any opportunity take Newt off message before Super Tuesday.
I wrote in Thompson at the last minute, because even though I liked Palin, (And intended to vote McCain on her behalf) I just could not force myself to vote for McNasty. With the split vote in 2008, it was a disaster anyway, and I knew that the Left would likely win.
Good Morning CEW-
I'm not following your condemnation of Newt on this. I read the article at the link and the only things in quotes attributed to Newt is one word and one phrase: “silly” and “trying desperately to protect (Obama)” ...that's it! Everything else is the author's opinion/paraphrasing of what Newt “said.”
It is not clear; however, perhaps you actually heard Newt on the program (I didn’t). That said, from what is offered at the link, there isn't much substance for any condemnation of Newt that I can discern. How do you get from the those two quotes to “Newt screwed the pooch”??? (It goes without saying that I NEVER trust anything attributed to any Conservative by the media unless I see that it is in quotes and I can verify that the quote is correct.)
I know we're both Newt supporters and I know you are sincere and thoughtful; however, in this case I am not following your criticism and am asking you to elaborate if you would.Thx!
Regards,
-Geoff
You astutely nailed what was behind Newt's very Presidential analysis!
Post #135-
“only things in quotes attributed to Newt is one word and one phrase” = only things in quotes attributed to Newt ARE one word and one phrase
(That’s what I get for not “proofing” my own comments!)
In regards to all the companies who abandoned Rush.
Rush may charge high rates for these start up companies to run ad’s on his program but there is a good reason for it...they become national brands.
Once the become national brands they have to sell to ALL the people, regardless of political affiliations or those with no political views at all.
Once politics have been attached to their products, they have no choice but back off just to stay in business. How many times have we heard the old saying IT IS NOT PERSONAL, IT’S JUST BUSINESS?
Rush is fully aware of this and probably has had personal conversations, beforehand, with these companies in regards to their decisions. If Rush is the man I believe him to be, he won’t blame them but where it belongs...on the very core of what started this scandal and his, heat of the moment, choice of words.
I know many of us, in our rush to defend Rush, went after the regime’s latest naive puppet of the left with a vengeance and I was among them. When Rush apologized, we felt betrayed and then in our fury we attacked him.
As heated rhetoric cools, we have to keep in mind it should not be personal...it’s just business and, more importantly, how radicals conduct their business.
With all due respect right back atcha, I do understand this conflict, and naturally I think I understand it better than you (why else have an opinion forum, eh?). The Bible describes the war behind the war. As a Christian first, I believe that account. The reason Alynski acknowledges Lucifer is because his methods, not just his objectives, were and are Luciferian. Adopting calculated defamation as a way to diminish one’s political opponents is corrupting to the one who so adopts. You worry about the battle. So do I. No good soldier puts himself or his fellow warriors in harms way unnecessarily. And no such warrior who relies on God’s blessing for success in battle will do what alienates him from his God. If God does not help us in this particular fight, we are truly doomed. And as Jesus and the apostles specifically rejected the tactic of insult and defamation, Christians who are serious about winning will follow that lead.
I congratulate Rush for having the courage to apologize for his poor use of words. Just because the left uses the same words describing conservative women, does not make it right for us to lower ourselves to the same depth of stupidity. Two wrongs does not make it right. Personally, I would be embarrassed for the stupidity of the coed, and as a mother, I would be ashamed if she was my daughter.
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.