Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Question/Debate of the Day: Why All the Concern About Newt's Vetting on the Right?

Why does Sean Hannity have to ask if Newt Gingrich can survive the oncoming attacks, now that he is a frontrunner (the process fromerly known as vetting) when such concern appeared to absent when Romney was ahead?

Why does Rush Limbaugh dishonestly comment that Romney never gets attacked, onl;y those that get close or ahead of him?

Is Rush oblivious the daily DNC attacks and focus on Romney or just manipulating the truth to mold opinion?

30 comments:

Alan said...

It is clear that Rush does not want Romney to win, but he can't come out and say as much. Rush strongly hinted four years ago that he voted for Romney in the Florida primary. He has now abandoned William F. Buckley's sound strategy of supporting the most conservative candidate THAT CAN WIN.

Anonymous said...

Doug,

Rush off in la-la land these days. It's okay for him and others to attack Romney relentlessly all year long, but if we attack Newt (for a grand total of 3 days now), we're helping the Democrats!

Rush--is he really most stupid than we knew? I wonder. He has to know the Newt baggage, even if he doesn't care about the lack of morals. He knows very well that Newt is the one with the flip-flops, the one with the DC insider record, and the one with no core principles.

I can draw no other conclusion than that Rush is playing to an uneducated, bigoted mostly religious right audience who don't bother to learn anything for themselves. He is their king, and he wants to keep it that way!

He knows where the bread is buttered, therefore he must say what they want to hear.

This is a sorry state of affairs for all of us. The right has lost it's collective mind!

The few on the right who dare to tell the truth about Newt are traitors, don't you know.

And now we have Palin implying that Newt is the constitutional savior of the tea party! Ha ha. It simply doesn't get more ridiculous than this.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

IS Rush a bigot? Who knows, but his brother is. I know this for a fact because I once emailed him to let him know he had some things wrong about Mormons in an article he wrote.

He let me know in no uncertain terms that he does not believe a Mormon should be president. Now whether Rush feels like his brother, I do not know, but one begins to wonder when we see the way Rush is treating the most qualified and electable man running.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

A Romney nomination and win will do a lot for this party. It will begin the process of making Rush, Palin, Levin, Erick Erickson, and all their ilk irrelevant. Honestly, I can't wait.

-Martha

Pablo said...

It really boils down to rhetoric. Newt likes to throw the verbal grenade and dish out the red meat, while Romney doesn't. That is why Rush can portray Newt as conservative and Romney as liberal, even though Gingrich has had way more deviations from the Path that Romney. His ignorant audience won't pick up on any of it.

Anonymous said...

from david french

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2011/12/07/the-agony-of-newt-gingrich/

Right Wingnut said...

Doug,

When the DNC attacks Mitt, it elevates him in the eyes of the GOP primary electorate...just like Pelosi attacking Newt was "an early Christmas gift" to him. Others in the Dem party urged Nancy to shut her trap after that incident.

Make no mistake, the Dems want to run against Romney, or they would have gone for the full takedown by now.

Right Wingnut said...

I know I said I would take a break from commenting, but I couldn't resist. ;)

hamaca said...

RWN,

I've promised myself the same on more than one occasion and I've utterly failed to follow through. :)

Anonymous said...

Rush is a waste of time to listen to.

Slick-Willy said...

"Make no mistake, the Dems want to run against Romney, or they would have gone for the full takedown by now."

The DNC has already spent millions in anti-Romney ads in key battleground states. Romney is the ONLY guy w/a high % shot to win the purple states (based on over a year of polling data). The DNC told Pelosi to shut up because they didn't want Newt baggage to become an issue yet. They want it to come out in two months from now.

Anonymous said...

Rush also recently said, "I'm tired of the 'media' thinking they can choose our candidate". My question for Rush is this: WHICH MEDIA? Are you not part of the media? what about Redstate, and Levin, and Fox, and (you fill in the blank). Have these not been relentlessly attacking Mitt from day one and propping up the next available candidate who they hope will take down Romney? For Mitt, the attacks on him (at least the ones that matter the most) have been coming from the right. For this primary season, it is these attacks which are most damaging. By attacking him like they do, are the aforementioned media not 'choosing' our candidate? Or at least the candidate they least want? Rush, your suggestion that Mitt is the only candidate NOT being attacked is dishonest. in the words of the late Tony Snow..."you're smokin rope man".

Teemu said...

"When the DNC attacks Mitt, it elevates him in the eyes of the GOP primary electorate..."

Please put links on some right wing columnist or commentator, blog, audio or anything, that shows this rallying effect of the DNC ads against Romney. Fox News was so rallied around Romney, that Greta decided to do a program segment around the DNC of how flip-flop image is going to be problem to Romney, and Bret Baier decided to the half of the interview based on the ads...

Doug NYC GOP said...

Good point Teemu...that's RWN spinning nonsense again.

Ohio JOE said...

"And now we have Palin implying that Newt is the constitutional savior of the tea party!" Huh, I do think that is what she said. Do not twist people's word's.


"A Romney nomination and win will do a lot for this party." Yeah, move it further to the Left.


"He let me know in no uncertain terms that he does not believe a Mormon should be president." Let's just say, I have a difficult time believing that one. That takes the buscuit.

Right Wingnut said...

Martha,

Your claim about David Limbaugh would be more believable if you produced the email. Knowing your history, your claim is likely either an exaggeration or a flat out LIE.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think you guys are being way too insular on this campaign. For the most part Romney is considered a respectable candidate by the MSM. Sure there are the never ending discussions about MassCare and its inspiration of ObamaCare but for the most part Romney gets pretty good coverage by most media outlets. Every candidate will get scrutinized and every Republican will be made to look the fool.

As far as Rush and Hannity go...they're just media people covering the topics of the day and that topic is Newt's surge. At this point Newt is the biggest frontrunner this race has seen. Does that mean Hannity or Rush is schilling for either one of them...doubtful.

My advice...take a day, or a week off from this blog and go Christmas shopping or read a book...you'll feel a lot better in the end to get away from this nonsense for awhile.

Don't worry about the lineup of Presidential Dopefuls because none of them will ned up winning in the general anyway. Go research some Senate races and get involved with them instead.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Martha,

I would also like to see this "e-mail". I must say that I am suspect of it as well because of some of your past statements....we are still waiting for all of your Trig Truther proof.

A.J.R.

Anonymous said...

RW, I wish I still had that email, as well. I would happily publish it. along with the 7 page one from Richard Land telling me how false my religion is.

I've never lied once on this or any board. You can believe me or not, I really don't care.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

AJR, I never lied once about the Trig stuff either. I simply said the facts don't make sense to me.

You guys cannot find ONE single time I've ever lied about anything. Sure, I may have said a lot of nasty things, but that doesn't make me a liar.

I'm not lying about Limbaugh either, and why on earth would I make up a lie about it? I mean, that's just plain stupid.

-Martha

Right Wingnut said...

Martha,

If I was as concerned about anti-Mormon bigotry as you are, I would have saved that email. If it was as bad as you say it is, it would be big news if released to the right media outlet.

I'm calling your bluff.

Anonymous said...

Good for you, RW. If you want to keep your head in the sand, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not a liar, and I don't bluff. Everyone around here knows me pretty well by now.

I got into a lot of fights with people about Mormonism in 07 and 08. Lots of bloggers, writers, etc. Limbaugh's email to me was just more of the same, although he was probably the most high profile person who emailed be back. And Land.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

RW, OJ, and AJR, I see that you are skeptical about the anti-Mormon bigotry, and I have heard others comment on this as well. I, personally, am seeing the effects of all of the years of "Mormons are the bogey-man" rhetoric that has gone on among--mostly evangelicals. I, also, did not believe things were as bad as this. There really is no way I can explain Newt's being the favorite of the family values people, other than to believe that many people are more comfortable with someone they KNOW is a liar than someone they suspect must be one. I can tell you that I am highly disappointed.

John Schroeder recently posted at the Article 6 blog. He is an evangelical. He is concerned that many people are so "suspicious" of Mormons (not bigoted, necessarily) that it is almost worse than bigotry. People KNOW it's bad to be bigoted, but you can be as suspicious as you want, without ever educating yourself further. I suggest you read his post for yourselves.

A side note. Martha said she received e-mail from various people. I sent an e-mail to one of Mitt's Boston evangelical/radio criticizers. It was actually a very nice e-mail--in response to something he wrote--reassuring him that if Mitt became President, I was sure evangelicals would make it through the process. The guy not only wrote back with his vitriol, he actually gave my e-mail to one of his "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" friends so HE could contact me! Talk about abuse! I was unspeakably angry! (And I didn't even use the F-bomb then, RW, so I'm sure you won't provoke me to it, LOL!)

AZ

Right Wingnut said...

AZ,

What does that have to do with Mr. Limbaugh?

Also, if this mass anti- Mormon truly doe exist, what makes you so certain that Romney is electable?

Sooner or later, some of you need to come to grips with the fact that some people are opposed to Romney for many reasons that have nothing to do with his religion. Furthermore, he lacks the ability to connect with the voter. Many non Mormons have the same problem. Pawlenty is a prime example.

Anonymous said...

RW, you know we've said over and over that there are other reasons to oppose Romney, not just Mormonism. Bit it is one.

If Romney lacks the ability to connect with voters, then why has be been the frontunner for over a year? I think he connects just fine. The campaign is just getting started. 25% is the floor, not the ceiling, you'll soon find out.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

RW, does Palin connect with voters? If so, why were her numbers do dismal?

-Martha

Anonymous said...

I thought you would at least laugh at my joke, RW!

AZ

Ohio JOE said...

"25% is the floor, not the ceiling, you'll soon find out." While he has been as high as 32, he has also been as low as 16.

Anonymous said...

Also, RW, I think you missed my point. I am not accusing everyone of being anti-Mormon;I am saying that suspicion of Mormons can cause some of the same symptoms, and suspicion is far more difficult to remedy. I am not expecting everyone who has family values to get behind Romney. I am just really shocked that they choose Newt over Santorum or Bachmann, if they can't stomach Romney. Cain was crucified for being accused of doing things that Newt has openly admitted to. Newt also has been involved in government and lobbying government since about 1977. How can they see him as an anti-establishment candidate?

AZ

Ohio JOE said...

"I am just really shocked that they choose Newt over Santorum or Bachmann," I choose Mr. Santorum and Mrs. Bachmann over Mr. Gingrich, but than again, I do not necessarily hop on the front-runner's band-wagon.