PDA

View Full Version : Gingrich protected by 'liberal media' bias



Soflasnapper
01-23-2012, 05:54 PM
Not now-- during the impeachment imbroglio.

His trysts with Calista were known around town, even making it to the 'Washington Whispers' column, with the tease 'who's that attractive woman sharing breakfasts with the Speaker?'

Now think of how juicy a target he presented the 'liberal media' at that time. Leader of the impeachment effort, he himself was engaged in an extra-marital affair, WITH A SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEE (she worked in the House as a staffer somewhere).

A 'liberal media' worth its salt would have outed that arrangement mid-stream, wounded the hypocritical Gingrich very early on in the process, and all with him, the move to force impeachment in the House.

WHAT IS THE ANSWER FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T DO THIS???

"Because they are 'the liberal media'" flies in the face of reason.

eg8r
01-23-2012, 06:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A 'liberal media' worth its salt would have outed that arrangement mid-stream, wounded the hypocritical Gingrich</div></div>What exactly is hypocritical about a man dating his subordinate while trying to impeach a man that perjured himself?

eg8r

Qtec
01-23-2012, 07:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What exactly is hypocritical about a man dating his subordinate </div></div>

LOL. How about at the same time he was going after BC about lying about his affair with ML, Newt was lying about his own affair to his wife, before he proposed having a 'swinging' marriage of course..

Q

Soflasnapper
01-23-2012, 07:17 PM
That's a fairly good point and question.

But remember, we are talking about a lying propagandistic supposed 'liberal media' that wouldn't care less about such niceties of fact or exactly how parallel was the case, if they could make any colorable claim and muddy up the waters. (Cf: how the media made a supposed anti-Israel, destroy Israel matter out of Obama's simple restatement of the 32 year old US policy which Netanyahu had already agreed was his plan as well, and has since reaffirmed.)

And it would have been easy to gin up, as it was indeed the sexual affair that was as much the real problem in the Clinton case as the lying, in terms of moral objections. It was the reason FOR THE LIE, obviously, and much of the early condemnation was on the predicate act, not the legal denouement in the deposition in the civil lawsuit.

Moreover, Newt was already in bad odor, with his party, and with the country. His intemperance and unsteady personal pique-driven 'leadership' was widely blamed even in the party for Clinton's political resurgence and his re-election, and with the loss of a half-dozen House seats in the mid-terms, when they'd expected instead to win 20 or more to pad their majority. Newt had ALREADY HAD A COUP attempted against his leadership at that point, led by Armey and Paxson from within the House leadership team.

Newt took the lame duck House AFTER the surprising mid-term reversal to impeachment hearings, precisely because with the losses, after the seating of the next Congress, he wouldn't have been so likely to get those hearings at all, or to get the majority votes necessary (they failed to pass 2 of the 4 articles of impeachment as it was).

So, to little notice, Newt had more than worn out his welcome, as his resignation before the seating of the next House and the Speaker election showed.

Had the media at that time exploded a feeding frenzy on this matter at that time, post-election but pre-impeachment, he could not have sustained a credible push to get impeachment, or at least, there would have been a sh!tstorm to get it through.

Instead, we saw a complete blackout of any of this information, and not a single person in the media reported it.

eg8r
01-24-2012, 08:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And it would have been easy to gin up, as it was indeed the sexual affair that was as much the real problem in the Clinton case as the lying, in terms of moral objections. It was the reason FOR THE LIE, obviously, and much of the early condemnation was on the predicate act, not the legal denouement in the deposition in the civil lawsuit.
</div></div>The public uproar about the infidelity was nothing compared to the uproar over the coverup/lies. I am not discounting your idea but I think at that point in time there just was not enough time in the day for a second "huge" story. This happens to this day. During the Casey Anthony trial that was all you heard about even though there were other more pressing matters in the news.

Surely you can understand the public considers an impeachment trial much more interesting than a story of infidelity. Sure it is ironic that Newt was also cheating on his wife at the same time but in a perfect world that would never be better than a second fiddle compared to an impeachment trial.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Moreover, Newt was already in bad odor, with his party, and with the country. His intemperance and unsteady personal pique-driven 'leadership' was widely blamed even in the party for Clinton's political resurgence and his re-election, and with the loss of a half-dozen House seats in the mid-terms, when they'd expected instead to win 20 or more to pad their majority. Newt had ALREADY HAD A COUP attempted against his leadership at that point, led by Armey and Paxson from within the House leadership team.
</div></div>This is further proof that it would have been a non-story anyways. In your opinion the Reps already did not like him so what would the liberal press gain by going after a dying duck? I think the media saw him for what he was and any allegations against him in the media would have never gone anywhere considering the already newsworthy scandal/impeachment.

eg8r

Qtec
01-24-2012, 10:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The public uproar about the infidelity was nothing compared to the uproar over the coverup/<span style='font-size: 14pt'>lies.</span> </div></div>

BS. Both Willard and Newt have made false statements and accusations in this campaign.

What happened to Clinton is exactly what Newt is now complaining about.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"OK, so I cheated on and divorced two wives, so what?"</span>

Q

eg8r
01-24-2012, 10:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What happened to Clinton is exactly what Newt is now complaining about.

"OK, so I cheated on and divorced two wives, so what?"
</div></div>Did Newt get impeached somewhere along the way? There differences are astronomical.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-24-2012, 11:40 AM
I'm wondering if you were of an age to be paying close attention at the time? I ask because I was, and did, and I don't think you're remembering it correctly.

First of all, there wasn't much of an uproar in the public, which 2-1 said not to impeach him over any of it.

The 'hook' of the story was the SEX (which still has Rush calling the Oval Office 'The Oral Orifice'), and that was what got people's attention (complete with pornographic details courtesy of a strange man, Kenneth Starr). It's what made the report an internet sensation, crashing servers widely and making for extremely slow downloads in the world of that day. What about the cigar involved a lie? Pure titillation, plain and simple. Sure they dressed it up as about perjury, to try to make it serious and high crime.

So a RELATED story about SEX! would have been right in the wheelhouse of the media and the public, as a subchapter plot-twist in that whole tawdry scandal.

It wouldn't be a different scandal, but a development in the then-current one, and it would have seen the throngs of reporters who had been clamoring around Clinton or Lewinsky wherever they went mobbing Gingrich.

And again, even if what you say were more correct than I believe, a far-left liberal mainstream media that allegedly hates Republicans, loves Democrats (even conservative Southern Democrats), especially allegedly loved Clinton (CNN = Clinton News Network ring a bell?), WOULD HAVE TRIED TO MAKE IT A STORY ANYWAY. Done their best at the attempt.

Democrats and the left HATED GINGRICH (for good reason, as the Republicans who later joined that hate group against him could attest), and if the media were all that (way left wing, in the tank for Democrats and Clinton), they would have made even a flawed or irrational or silly attack against Newt, let alone a slam dunk provable case of adultery with another government employee his subordinate.

He was reported having 'early morning breakfast' with a woman not his wife. That young woman was Calista. Where were the attack dogs, stake out reporters ala Gary Hart and the Miami Herald?

IN THE TANK FOR GINGRICH AND THE GOP, AND DOWN WITH THE IMPEACHMENT FORCES, that's where.

eg8r
01-24-2012, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm wondering if you were of an age to be paying close attention at the time? I ask because I was, and did, and I don't think you're remembering it correctly.

First of all, there wasn't much of an uproar in the public, which 2-1 said not to impeach him over any of it.
</div></div>I was at the University of Florida at this time. I remember it quite well. I believe that you were at the time probably engrossed with liberal media and only remember what you want. As far as my college campus, he was thought of as a joke. They laughed every time he was brought up as an idiot that tried to lie his way out of what they thought was worthy of a high five. He became a laughingstock on campus at that time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">especially allegedly loved Clinton (CNN = Clinton News Network ring a bell?), WOULD HAVE TRIED TO MAKE IT A STORY ANYWAY. Done their best at the attempt.
</div></div>This is where we disagree for sure, correct memories or not. I don't think they really cared. They were covering the story Americans were dying to hear about. I don't see them wasting their time trying to make it as big of a deal by trying to run it at the same time effectively trying to compare the improprieties of the two men.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-24-2012, 01:11 PM
If you're saying the mainstream media didn't pursue Gingrich out of journalistic concerns, that is not how they work.

They love sensationalism, and the more, the better. And they hold grudges, and play favorites at the same time.

Clearly enough, Clinton was not enough of a favorite to be spared the grilling, and Gingrich not enough of an enemy to get the same treatment at a time when it could have made a difference.

Which turns the standard analysis of liberal bias in the media on its head, in my view.