Skip to comments.Gingrich to packed house: Wal-Mart must be empty
Posted on 03/10/2012 3:55:56 PM PST by VinLEdited on 03/10/2012 4:01:19 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
There was an overflow crowd greeting Newt Gingrich when he arrived at the Wiregrass Museum of Art in the southeast corner of Alabama on Saturday.
Looking over the hundreds of people packed into the gallery area and spilling down the steps in the main lobby, Gingrich enthused, "What a crowd. I'm really impressed. There must be no one left at Wal-Mart this afternoon."
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.blogs.foxnews.com ...
It’s not the suggestion that people might shop at WalMart, it’s the comment suggesting that everybody who is a Republican would shop at Walmart.
You want to debate class, Charles Wayne. Fine. One at a time. Here’s the quote:
“I didnt sit on the couch with anybody, Santorum said. I would only sit on the couch with my wife. Period. No other women particularly not Nancy Pelosi.
You defend that! I’m here; I’m waiting.
its the comment suggesting that everybody who is a Republican would shop at Walmart.
You have to learn to stop distorting the facts, Charley.
Where did the poster or Gingrich say that?
Huh? You are clueless about the South. Have you ever been to peanut country in Alabama and Georgia? There’s nothing to do. It’s a joke enjoyed by Alabamians, Missippians, etc. Newt shares the joke. You don’t. You are out of touch.
(sic) “two rether rediculous complaints”... disgusting to even THINK about the bizarre interpretation you had...funny that you didnt see the irony
Charley???? Let’s go....you can’t hide under your keyboard...defend your distortions and vituperation.
Yes, I am out of touch, because I didn’t know that every republican in Alabama goes to the Walmart. ;-)
I’m noticing that the Gingrich folks are being particularly sensitive lately. Attackign Santorum for not cheating on his wife and having the temerity to actually mention it, and then not recognizing the illustration of the absurd by using absurdity in commenting on a Walmart joke.
I did notice though that a couple of others did take the Walmart joke more seriously — and they were attacked as class warfarists or something... :-)
I’d defend something if I had the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Your complaints were rediculous, and the image I got from YOUR interpretation of what Santorum said about Gingrich and Pelosi on the couch was a disgusting image, or maybe I should say “disturbing in a “wash my eyes out” sort of way”.
Do you actually think that everybody who has complained about Gingrich sitting on the couch with Pelosi the past 2 years were all really making a crude sex joke?
At I believe the 2006 republican convention, Barbara Bush mentioned how well her husband had run the white house during his time as President. She was attacked by liberals for “attacking Clinton”, by pointing out her husband had good character. Your complaint about Santorum mentioning he had been married for 21 years is very similar and equally rediculous.
Now, if you want me to defend against some argument you want to advance in defence of YOUR first comment, you’ll have to actually MAKE a defense first, not just act all outraged.
Don’t dance. Here again, is your candidate’s quote:
I didnt sit on the couch with anybody, Santorum said. I would only sit on the couch with my wife. Period. No other women particularly not Nancy Pelosi.
It’s classless. As i indicated, it’s innuendo. You see it otherwise, you tell me what it means.
He didn’t say that. If he had SAID it, it wouldn’t be a “suggestion”, it would be a “statement”. I wonder after today whether anybody actually understands english, much less the art of sarcasm, parody, and hyperbole.
Gingrich, according to the article, said “”What a crowd. I’m really impressed. There must be no one left at Wal-Mart this afternoon.”
Taken literally, which apparently everybody here is doing way too much, he said that the only people who shop at Wal-Mart are republicans who would come to one of his campaign events.
See, if democrats shopped at WalMart, the store wouldn’t be empty because of people being at his rally. And if republicans shopped elsewhere, there’d be more stores than just Walmart empty.
Anyway, this is a “Gingrich” thread. I don’t normally end up in a Gingrich thread, but when the person who POSTS the “pro-Gingrich” thread can’t think of anything but negative Santorum stuff to say in the first comment, and posts rediculous arguments against Santorum, I decided to respond.
I’ve re-iterated that response, and I don’t care about the Walmart comment, and won’t discuss it any more.
The fact that you think that needs “defending” is the whole problem. Santorum was bringing up Gingrich’s unfortunate commercial with Nancy Pelosi about Global Warming. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up, it is a fair attack on Gingrich, even though Gingrich has admitted it was a mistake to do so — just because you admit a mistake doesn’t mean it is off-limits to mention it again.
Nobody would think Gingrich was sexually involved with Pelosi. Well, at least until this thread I wouldn’t have expected it.
Well, now you know that in Lower Alabama, almost everybody of every political party, race, religion, etc. goes to Wal-Mart. I noticed that the other posters who took issue with the old Southern joke were not from Alabama or Georgia or Missippi.
Your argument is flawed and inept- or in your new invention “rediculous” (4 times in 4 posts— try ridiculous) - Since you have no basis of knowing the political affiliation of the people who attended-you have no foundation for your hallucination.
Secondly, in my original post, I quoted Santorum directly- and based on the content of the quote- I called him classless. I had never said anything negative about the guy- but in reading this quote- there was only one conclusion to be drawn.
You then claimed that my interpretation of the quote was bizarre and disgusting— but you refuse to tell him how else Santorum’s quote can/should be interpreted.
You constantly operate in this way— you distort posts in order to provoke a confrontation- attack posters personally- and then run from the confrontation..
Frankly, that’s not very “classy”.
Nobody would think Gingrich was sexually involved with Pelosi. Well, at least until this thread I wouldnt have expected it.
He says: “I didn’t sit on the couch with anybody.I would only sit on the couch with my wife. Period. No other women particularly not Nancy Pelosi.”
Interpretation- He’s a faithful husband who only sits on a couch with his wife.The predicate is thus fidelity - no other possible interpretation when he introduces his “wife” and “other women”.
He then injects Pelosi- that can only lead to one further identification- Gingrich.
Thus, he is the faithful who only sits on a couch with his wife, as opposed to the identified Gingrich who sits with other “women”.
As i indicated in the thread, I’ve never objected to Santorum speaking to Gingrich/Pelosi and global warming. That’s factual.
This is an undisguised reference to Gingrich’s marital problems- it’s a personal attack on a “friend”-— and thus, classless!
when that 3am phone call comes arent you glad theyre calling newt.
thanks. I like them both very much.
I am hoping the glaring disparity of their leadership qualities will be made very clear on Monday:
Alabama GOP will hold a Debate/Discussion between Newt and Rick on Monday March 12. This can be viewed on C-SPAN 1 at 6:30pm EST. Tell all you know that have not decided between the two.
I know, but it is still very touch-and-go if you are a worrier, and I am. I had a friend who worked in Tenn - he was something like a county chair or something. And he told me that they rarely if ever got any calls returned or any help from the Tenn campaign for Newt. That was where Newt's chair defected to Santorum with 3 others the day before Tenn's vote.
My friend said they finally got so desperate they formed their only little campaign - printed flyers, door to door stuff - that the state campaign would have usually helped with at least marginally. And Newt won his precinct or cty or whatever you call it by 68%. That kind of stuff makes me worry that there are powerful forces behind the scenes working against Newt that we don't even comprehend.
And then yesterday, I think it was, the gov of MS came out for romney, and it makes me worry the same GOP machinery is working against Newt. It's the same in every state.
“Santorum doesnt pay his tithes?”
According to his tax records, Santorum gave an average 2% of his income to charitable donations. I don’t know where it went, but it was definitely not a biblical 10%. But he is a “devout Catholic” which in his case apparently means a sanctimonious blowhard.
Oh charles, you and I have had many meaningful exchanges on Gingrich threads.
“He (Santorum) should have backed off Al and Miss- and let Newt win. At least, that would slow Romney down”
Santorum does not want to slow Romney down. He wants to keep the Evangelical vote from Newt and secure his position as Romney’s running mate. The evanglicals won’t vote for a Mormon, but they will vote for a sanctimonious Catholic that has not been married 3 times. So what if the US turns into socialist hell hole.
"I know that the first thought thatll run through my head every morning when I wake up in the labor camp will be I cant believe Newt Gingrich married more than once. ~ trappedincanuckistan
and they'll call rush, who's been married 4 times, and tell him they think he should run for president, or he's their inspiration...
Oh, I know. I was just using your post as a convenient opportunity to grandstand on my own. I do that a lot. LOL
I'll give you a pass, Charles, since being from Connecticut, you don't know what "nobody must be left at the WalMart" means in a lot of places in the South (it means something to the effect that something big must be happening).
The comment shows that Newt knows his people.
I don’t think Santorum implied anything when he said Gingrich sits on the couch with pelosi but he himself only sits on the couch with his wife. But it shows how stupid and illogical Santorum’s remarks are - his sitting on the couch only with his wife has nothing in common to Gingrich sitting once on the couch with pelosi.
What is Santorum’s message in saying it like that?
People are either puzzled by this ‘message’, or they interprete it the wrong way (sex joke?)
One thing for sure - Santorum is not good at delivering his message. He constantly blabbers his mouth and spills forth gibberish.
Family always tries to fit in a trip to the Conestoga Sheakhouse every time we pass through.
ITA, it’s a dead issue. I’m not a sanctimonious holier-than-thou and I believe that Newt could be the David for our time. I would definitely vote for Newt if he was on the ballot. I was just pointing out to the posters who were hammering Rick about his comment. I didn’t think it was an out-and-out attack on Newt’s romantic relationship, it was about Pelosi.
Yes, after I hit send I realized that I had typed “many” and regretted that. Wish there was a way to edit posts, within a few minute time period at least.
He didn’t intimate in any way that all Republicans shop at Walmart. He was speaking to a specific crowd. Even so, why would that be an insult? As those who live in that area have said, it’s pretty much true. If he were speaking in my little town and said the same thing we would have laughed too because it is packed on Saturday It’s pretty much all there is unless we want to drive 40 or 50 miles.
Of course he didn’t. And Santorum didn’t intimate (or imply) that Gingrich was sleeping with Nancy Pelosi. That was my point, that if you were going to make rediculous leaps of illogic to attack Santorum, you better deal with the Walmart comment.
I wasn’t attacking Gingrich in this thread, I was pointing out the illogic of the initial comment made with the article by the freeper who posted it — who took a pro-Gingrich thread and poisoned it by starting with a hypocritical attack on Rick Santorum.
I guess because it implies a certain lack of seriousness of purpose. Like, “Gee, I’d rather be shopping, but I guess I’ll go to listen to a presidential candidate instead”. Also, it’s not as if Calista would ever be in a Walmart, so it sounds little patronizing to me.
Of course, context is everything here. I merely read the words, while those who were there heard them. And a poster who was there commented that the line went over well.
We are on the edge of the precipice. One slip, and we are done.
Good one, Yaelle... some of the Gingrich people are not helping their candidate. I like Gingrich a lot more than I like some of his supporters. Of course, Gingrich has a lot of solid supporters too.
And I have no problem with the Wal-Mart comment. Gingrich “gets” the South. Wal-Mart is the hub of commercial life in many small Southern towns. My only problem with Wal-Mart is than Sam Walton's successors seem to have decided supporting Chinese manufacturing is more important than being good Americans... but it's pretty hard to argue with the economics of their decision.
67 posted on Saturday, March 10, 2012 6:47:19 PM by Reddy: “I totally disagree that this was a dig at Gingrichs many marriages and affairs. Santorum was simply using an analogy about not sitting on the couch with another woman (I had a pastor that would never sit alone with a women nor be in a car alone with a woman because he wanted to make sure that there was never any question about fidelity) and the incident with Newt and Pelosi- sitting on the couch with Pelosi was improper because it led to all kinds of questioning of Newts loyalties. Period.”
104 posted on Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:29:56 PM by Yashcheritsiy: “What's funny is that for the past fifteen years, Newt has been as happily and faithfully married as either Santorum or romney. It's a dead issue, people. People can change. Newt did. Get over it. Stop being sanctimonious little holier-than-thous.”
Reddy is right, but Yashcheritsiy has a point about Newt and Callista Gingrich apparently being faithful to each other for the last decade and a half. Having the Roman Catholic Church approve a twice-divorced man for a church marriage is not an easy thing to do, and I have good reason to be confident that Gingrich's priests know more about the situation than we ever will.
However, let's try to understand what Santorum was saying.
No less a figure than Rev. Billy Graham had a well-known policy than neither he nor any member of his staff would be alone with any woman other than his wife. (I'm assuming that the details of the rule also allowed being alone with daughters, mothers, sisters, and other close family.) Graham's policy is well-known among evangelicals and it's a good policy, one I try to follow as much as possible in my personal and professional life, though it sometimes simply cannot be done in secular business.
Guys, I know there are people who think Gingrich's past doesn't matter. There are other people, among them the pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, who have written that Gingrich's past **DOES** matter but they're convinced he's repented.
The fact of that matter is that for those of us who take Scripture seriously, we believe that a man who cannot run his home cannot be trusted to run the church of God. If you don't like that, go take it up with God — he wrote I Timothy 3:5, not me.
I am very much aware that we're selecting a president, not a pastor or an elder, but the fact is that when someone has serious problems in their home life, it **IS** an indicator of whether the people who know the candidate best might just possibly know something the rest of us need to pay attention to before it's too late.
I've read the articles by Gingrich's daughters defending him. I've read enough about Gingrich's past to believe he may be truly repentant. Fair enough.
But to say Gingrich's family life is irrelevant simply isn't true. If the Republican Party nominates Gingrich, we're going to be treated to wall-to-wall family values advertising by Barack and Michelle Obama talking about how much they want to be a model for family life in an America where families are falling apart, and where Barack Obama himself personally experienced the pain of divorce and paternal abandonment. What Obama will throw at Gingrich will make Santorum’s “family values” comments look pretty mild by comparison.
If someone believes Newt Gingrich is the best candidate despite his marital background, certainly go ahead and vote for Gingrich. I supported Reagan despite his divorce, and there are often other issues which are more important than family life. I will almost certainly support Gingrich if he becomes the Republican nominee.
But don't act like it's only Santorum who will bring up family values. President Obama will do so, and he'll do it with a vengeance.
216 posted on Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:47:02 AM by Bizhvywt: “(Quoting Bailee): ‘Santorum doesnt pay his tithes?’ According to his tax records, Santorum gave an average 2% of his income to charitable donations. I dont know where it went, but it was definitely not a biblical 10%. But he is a ‘devout Catholic’ which in his case apparently means a sanctimonious blowhard.”
The main thing this shows is the difference in practical aspects of church life between conservative Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants. Tithing is not emphasized in the Roman Catholic Church the way it is in many evangelical circles.
Santorum is a Roman Catholic. There are differences between what his church believes and what I believe, and what his church chooses to emphasize even if there is no formal disagreement.
We simply cannot hold Catholics to evangelical standards, and vice versa.
Then perhaps you should have directed your answer to him and not me. I didn’t say anything about Santorum.
“But don’t act like it’s only Santorum who will bring up family values. President Obama will do so, and he’ll do it with a vengeance.”
Let the “Infanticide President” make it a family values election. The guy said that he would abort his own grandchildren for Pete’s sake.
I think we are too pre-occupied with potential “baggage”. Obama has far more baggage than any of our candidates. What we need is someone with the cajones to call Obama on it. Newt has shown that he can do that better than the others.
Fair point, and that's probably the tack that we as Republicans are going to have to take if Newt Gingrich is the nominee. We can assume on the abortion issue that Obama will say “every child should be a wanted child” and he'll be an advocate for adoption, saying “hate is not a family value.”
We need to be prepared to respond to that.
I've said many times that if Gingrich wins the nomination I will almost certainly support him. I like a lot of things about Gingrich's views and I like his demonstrated record of accomplishing the impossible by taking back the House of Representatives.
If you believe Gingrich is the best candidate to defeat President Obama this fall, then please work for him as hard as you can, but don't dismiss the importance of dealing with the family values argument since Obama will use the “family values” argument this November.
Part of his appeal in the 2008 Democratic primary was that unlike Hillary Clinton's marital problems and John Edwards sex scandals (which at that point were mostly tabloid fodder which hadn't yet been proved true), Obama presented himself to Democrats as a clean-cut family values guy.
We'd better get used to responding to that sort of attack on Gingrich, because even if Republicans don't do so, the Democrats definitely will.