View Full Version : Newt Gingrich Attacks John King

01-20-2012, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Newt Gingrich Attacks John King for Asking About Ex-Wife

If you can say one thing for Newt Gingrich, it's that he knows how to work these Republican debate crowds. When asked by CNN's John King about the interview with his second wife that's due to air on ABC tonight, Gingrich tore into John King. He's got that pearl clutching down pat here. </div></div>

link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/newt-gingrich-attacks-john-king-asking-abo)

The daily show,s take on it. funny (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/daily-show-newt-gingrich-freaker-spouse)


01-20-2012, 12:26 PM
wow i saw that last night what an arseHole. after the way he went after the greatest president of the last 45 years for his infidelities, he has the freaking nerve to cry about it for some cheap arse applause.

BTW that Daily clip was Fu@king funny as hell!


01-20-2012, 12:31 PM
What, Newt played the 'righteous indignation' card????

SOOOO predictable, and lame.

It's the classic recourse, as patriotism is said to be the last refuge of a scoundrel. In fact, I predicted it privately, in just those words, as the obvious go-to play. (The 'I've met Jesus since then' card was already played, and unavailable.)

Smart, in terms of his target audience, though, I'll admit.

01-20-2012, 02:24 PM

The left bashes Newt over what they shamelessly defended Clintoin and Edwards doing?

01-20-2012, 02:37 PM
Well, of course, and as per usual, you have this entirely incorrect once again.

Neither Clinton nor Edwards asked his wife to tolerate their affairs, and still less, to have an open marriage where that was routinely allowed by mutual consent. So 'the left' could not have defended that same action from those two men, as that same action didn't occur.

I know of no one who defended Edwards, as his wife and their purported love story were too sympathetic, and his cheating on her when she was so gravely ill was considered a grave moral transgression. Once that was out in the open, he was a hated person who could never again win elective office.

'The left' NEVER was a backer of Clinton's. He was always hated by them as a turncoat triangulator, a right to work guy, a capital punishment supporter, and someone whose free trade positions were anathema to the largest power block of the left, the trade unions, and hence, to the majority of Democrats in the Congress.

They perhaps did support him, in the sense that they either felt what he did was personal, and not worthy of impeachment as it didn't rise to the level of a high crime, or that his enemies were so bad, that they had to defend him against removal.

And, as we may remember, they proposed a sweeping Congressional sanction of a vote of reprimand or censure, which would have stated that what he did was reprehensible. This was so much the position of 'the left' that Gore picked its main author and pusher, Joe Lieberman, for his VP.

01-21-2012, 02:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, of course, and as per usual, you have this entirely incorrect once again. </div></div>

..and I was beginning to think I was the only one who noticed! LOL



01-21-2012, 04:01 AM
That was simply precious.

01-21-2012, 12:35 PM
Precious = irrefutable.

King's question could hardly have been more neutral: 'Would you care to comment on this?'

Arguably, the similar question to Clinton on 60 Minutes concerning the Gennifer Flowers allegations prior to NH primary was tougher (and subject to a far lengthier discussion in that one-on-two setting).