http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...-LY2R0.DTL

I think it was perfectly reasonable, accommodating even, to offer Newt the stage to address the elephant in the room. Newt doubled down and used it as an opportunity to score points with the conservative electorate by pouncing on the media AND denying the claim.

Very crafty, Newt. Very crafty.

(01-20-2012 10:50 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...-LY2R0.DTL

I think it was perfectly reasonable, accommodating even, to offer Newt the stage to address the elephant in the room. Newt doubled down and used it as an opportunity to score points with the conservative electorate by pouncing on the media AND denying the claim.

Very crafty, Newt. Very crafty.

And this is why I wouldn't cast a ballot for this *******. Not only is a cad..he is a gutless cad. I am beginning to really hate this MOFO.

Honestly, I couldn't care less how Newt conducted himself in his marriages so long as he's not assaulting his wife or doing something illegal like that. He's not running for husband of the year. Lots of great leaders have been pretty awful spouses, and many have been fairly marginal as human beings. I'll judge him on his policy choices and his perceived ability to lead the country, nothing more and nothing less.

As for the question you posed, it's news. Media are going to ask about it, and Newt is going to handle it the best he can. Nothing new there. There's nothing wrong asking about it. I do question whether any major news outlet should have given his ex-wife a platform to lob bombs at Newt, but I don't question whether news outlets should then follow up on the issue once it is in the public domain.

yea, it had to be asked especially after Mitt made an indirect comment about it in the intros. Best to get it out of the way early instead of letting it fester.

Playing the victim card when it comes to the news is a GOP candidate go-to move. It worked for Palin and it's working for Gingrich.

(01-20-2012 11:12 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  yea, it had to be asked especially after Mitt made an indirect comment about it in the intros. Best to get it out of the way early instead of letting it fester.

I agree. It was a fair question to ask. And you knew Newt was going to be prepared and he used it beautifully to really boost himself in the eyes of the primary voters. They love it when you bash the media. And overall I think most, even those who hate Newt, see how slimey it is for ABC to do it.

I still maintain Newt will win in SC and he'll have, in large part, ABC and his ex-wife to thank for it. Irony.

So in the presidential debate it will be fair to ask Obama how much his wife spends.

(01-20-2012 10:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 10:50 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...-LY2R0.DTL

I think it was perfectly reasonable, accommodating even, to offer Newt the stage to address the elephant in the room. Newt doubled down and used it as an opportunity to score points with the conservative electorate by pouncing on the media AND denying the claim.

Very crafty, Newt. Very crafty.

And this is why I wouldn't cast a ballot for this *******. Not only is a cad..he is a gutless cad. I am beginning to really hate this MOFO.

Right because if they opened the debate asking about the racist letters you would think it was all ok.. I mean no way the Pauls supports would be saying "can we please talk about issues!

Newt was a rat bastard and I give it a 50/50 chance that the story is true. But he has, long ago, put that life behind him.

There are a lot of reasons not to vote for any of these clowns but failing at their marriage, even epically failing, ranks pretty low for me.

(01-20-2012 11:18 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Playing the victim card when it comes to the news is a GOP candidate go-to move. It worked for Palin and it's working for Gingrich.

LOL yea no way the dems *ever* play 'victim of the corporate media'

(01-20-2012 11:26 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  So in the presidential debate it will be fair to ask Obama how much his wife spends.

Absolutely. In fact it's much more relevant than that fat slob Newt committing adultery.

(01-20-2012 11:30 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 10:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 10:50 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...-LY2R0.DTL

I think it was perfectly reasonable, accommodating even, to offer Newt the stage to address the elephant in the room. Newt doubled down and used it as an opportunity to score points with the conservative electorate by pouncing on the media AND denying the claim.

Very crafty, Newt. Very crafty.

And this is why I wouldn't cast a ballot for this *******. Not only is a cad..he is a gutless cad. I am beginning to really hate this MOFO.

Right because if they opened the debate asking about the racist letters you would think it was all ok.. I mean no way the Pauls supports would be saying "can we please talk about issues!

Newt was a rat bastard and I give it a 50/50 chance that the story is true. But he has, long ago, put that life behind him.

There are a lot of reasons not to vote for any of these clowns but failing at their marriage, even epically failing, ranks pretty low for me.

WRONG...and please don't speak for me....you don't do it well. I clearly stated repeatedly in previous posts that I had no problem with that line of questioning in regard to RP's past. Questions of character are clearly acceptable IMO.

I find it very strange that any Christian would put the character of a candidate low on their criteria for picking their chief national leader.

(01-20-2012 11:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I find it very strange that any Christian would put the character of a candidate low on their criteria for picking their chief national leader.

As a Christian I believe in redemption. By all accounts Newt has put those ways behind him, repented for them, and they feel at the cross.

He did this years ago!

(01-20-2012 12:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 11:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I find it very strange that any Christian would put the character of a candidate low on their criteria for picking their chief national leader.

As a Christian I believe in redemption. By all accounts Newt has put those ways behind him, repented for them, and they feel at the cross.

He did this years ago!

Forgiveness has nothing to do with trust. I could forgive you for stealing from me..but..I will NEVER trust your ass again. I refuse to vote for anyone that I can not trust. Feel free to do as you wish.

ABBO...I get it.

The only thing King did that was out of line was do everything in his power to ignore Ron Paul because his supporters give his ***** of a wife a hard time.

(01-20-2012 12:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Forgiveness has nothing to do with trust. I could forgive you for stealing from me..but..I will NEVER trust your ass again. I refuse to vote for anyone that I can not trust. Feel free to do as you wish.

Trust can be re earned and it comes with time.

Do I trust someone who (1) is fresh off the behavior, (2) has not admitted it, and (3) won't admit how awful it was? No...

But most people have been forgiven by their parents for a transgression and as adults they forgive their kids.

What a sad world where you could "NEVER trust (their) ass again" and bever be trusted again.

But feel free to do as you wish

(01-20-2012 12:41 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  The only thing King did that was out of line was do everything in his power to ignore Ron Paul because his supporters give his ***** of a wife a hard time.

You know watching the debate it seemed like he was ignored, but if you look at the speaking times, he actually had 20% of the debate time. Obviously, that is 5% below he should've received in a 4 person debate but a lot more than it seemed like while watching it.

Candidate Time Percent
Rick Santorum 22 min. 30 sec. 28.2
Mitt Romney 22 min. 08 sec. 27.7
Newt Gingrich 18 min. 56 sec. 23.7
Ron Paul 16 min. 19 sec. 20.4


http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpoliti...ebates.php

No, his question was not over the line.

What is over the line is that comparable questions were not asked of Candidate Obama (who has more than a few obvious skeletons in his closet) when he was similarly situated four years ago.

Apply the most rigorous standard to every candidate, including Newt. But also apply the same rigor to Obama.

(01-20-2012 12:58 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 12:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Forgiveness has nothing to do with trust. I could forgive you for stealing from me..but..I will NEVER trust your ass again. I refuse to vote for anyone that I can not trust. Feel free to do as you wish.

Trust can be re earned and it comes with time.

Do I trust someone who (1) is fresh off the behavior, (2) has not admitted it, and (3) won't admit how awful it was? No...

But most people have been forgiven by their parents for a transgression and as adults they forgive their kids.

What a sad world where you could "NEVER trust (their) ass again" and bever be trusted again.

But feel free to do as you wish

I guess you would trust a convicted and paroled child molester around your child using the 1,2,3 caveats?

Feel free and try and make anyone believe that you would.

(01-20-2012 01:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, his question was not over the line.

What is over the line is that comparable questions were not asked of Candidate Obama (who has more than a few obvious skeletons in his closet) when he was similarly situated four years ago.

Apply the most rigorous standard to every candidate, including Newt. But also apply the same rigor to Obama.

I agree.

So if King's offer of airtime to Newt was appropriate, was Newt's response inappropriate?