So is ABC releasing some damaging info soon?

[muh_roads]

I am indifferent on demagogic reporting. On one hand i despise it like Paul. On the other hand I feel it is do or die time. Anything to take down candidates needs to be used. It feels dirty but this campaign has been all about avoiding the end game of inflationary collapse. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Is ABC going to release that info soon on the Grinch?

[thoughtomator]

What info? The rest of the interview?

That interview plus the debate opener was a psyop designed to generate sympathy, and it worked like a charm. There's nothing more to show.

[sailingaway]

I wondered myself if ABC was keeping the 'real stuff' since their 'block buster' wasn't more than had already been reported, years ago in Esquire. But I wasn't thinking more slimy personal stuff, I was wondering about that FBI investigation someone was posting about. And ethics stuff. The vote against Gingrich was OVERWHELMING on the censure.

[UNC08]

It's absurd. I GUARANTEE you most of those Gingrich voters were hysterical about Clinton's infidelity in the 90's. The whole thing is a load of bollocks.

[Okie RP fan]

It's absurd. I GUARANTEE you most of those Gingrich voters were hysterical about Clinton's infidelity in the 90's. The whole thing is a load of bollocks.

"Conservatives" don't care anymore. They want to see Gingrich debate Obama, that's all they care about.

If you bring up the assumption that "You probably were all over Clinton's infidelity!" they now say things like "I don't care" or "God forgives" or "I'm not sleeping with either of them!"

It's funny, and sad at the same time.

[muh_roads]

What info? The rest of the interview?

That interview plus the debate opener was a psyop designed to generate sympathy, and it worked like a charm. There's nothing more to show.

What was the debate opener again? I've been living in a shell for the past week or so. Only watched Paul's debate highlights and heard briefly about ABC waiting to release info until after SC or something...

[thoughtomator]

It's absurd. I GUARANTEE you most of those Gingrich voters were hysterical about Clinton's infidelity in the 90's. The whole thing is a load of bollocks.

I can guarantee it even more than you, since I marched to demand Clinton's impeachment with some people I know for sure are all-in backing Gingrich today, e.g. Jim Robinson of Free Republic.

[thoughtomator]

What was the debate opener again? I've been living in a shell for the past week or so. Only watched Paul's debate highlights and heard briefly about ABC waiting to release info until after SC or something...

The debate opener was CNN Host John King asking his longtime friend Newt Gingrich about the interview that was to be aired. Tube the debate, it's the very first question. If you review it you can see it's a really obvious set-up, rehearsed not spontaneous.

[ILUVRP]

nancy p. says she has 200 pages of stuff on newt when the house fined him $300,000 , i would like to see it.

[Okie RP fan]

[QUOTE=ILUVRP;4079123]nancy p. says she has 200 pages of stuff on newt when the house fined him $300,000 , i would like to see it.[/QUOTE

Didn't she say she was bluffing? Or something like that...

[muh_roads]

omg you're right. this is disgusting...lol first time I've seen it.

Not a single verbal slip-up. Definitely sounded canned and rehearsed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcYF5aNwUeI

[affa]

What was the debate opener again? I've been living in a shell for the past week or so. Only watched Paul's debate highlights and heard briefly about ABC waiting to release info until after SC or something...

debate opener = a softball fidelity question served up to Newt, who was obviously prepped and used it to criticize and mock media pundits. he turned his infidelity into a virtue to cheers.

[affa]

I can guarantee it even more than you, since I marched to demand Clinton's impeachment with some people I know for sure are all-in backing Gingrich today, e.g. Jim Robinson of Free Republic.

if the comment sections of the internet are to believed, if anyone criticizes Newt in any way the canned response is along the lines of "But YOU supported that philanderer Clinton, you libtard liberal hyporcrit!'. Which obviously need not be true, but that's the meme.

[thoughtomator]

I'm the living refutation of that meme. I have my t-shirt from the Impeach Clinton rally still to prove it.

[thoughtomator]

omg you're right. this is disgusting...lol first time I've seen it.

Not a single verbal slip-up. Definitely sounded canned and rehearsed.


Yup. Total psyop. Scripted, rehearsed, and well-executed by professional actors.

[sailingaway]

[QUOTE=ILUVRP;4079123]nancy p. says she has 200 pages of stuff on newt when the house fined him $300,000 , i would like to see it.[/QUOTE

Didn't she say she was bluffing? Or something like that...

I don't remember that at all. I had the distinct impression she was waiting for the general election.

[Okie RP fan]

I don't remember that at all. I had the distinct impression she was waiting for the general election.

Hmm... I thought I remember seeing something on Fox Nation or Drudge after that accusation that suggested Pelosi was fibbing.

[Brian4Liberty]

What info? The rest of the interview?

That interview plus the debate opener was a psyop designed to generate sympathy, and it worked like a charm. There's nothing more to show.


debate opener = a softball fidelity question served up to Newt, who was obviously prepped and used it to criticize and mock media pundits. he turned his infidelity into a virtue to cheers.

At this point, that really looks like what happened.

[ILUVRP]

i think this should worry newty .

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fstories %2F1211%2F69805.html&ei=V2AcT4vUN4riiAKL5M3xAQ&usg=AFQjCNE5px2_yU7CB42ZRTbv_IqyH6r2Vg&sig2=4UtN3Ya04dECDTeMfpJBSQ

[papitosabe]

nancy p. says she has 200 pages of stuff on newt when the house fined him $300,000 , i would like to see it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm 1998

is there a secret document she has?? or is it about whats already public info?


"The House ethics committee dropped the three remaining ethics charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday, despite finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda...

The ethics panel decided to take no further action because there is no evidence that "Rule 45" violations are continuing in the speaker's office, a post Gingrich has held since 1995. Consultant Jeffrey Eisenach's work took place while Gingrich was the GOP minority whip in 1990-91.


'The committee believes you have been adequately informed and cautioned on Rule 45 issues and anticipates full compliance in the future'

Eisenach was a paid consultant to GOPAC, a Republican political group formerly chaired by Gingrich, according to the letter.

Gingrich is paying $300,000 for the costs of an ethics committee investigation after admitting last year he made inaccurate statements during a lengthy probe into Democratic allegations that he misused tax-exempt donations. Gingrich denied the charges but submitted to a reprimand by the House."

[sailingaway]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm 1998

is there a secret document she has?? or is it about whats already public info?

She might have just been suggesting that there is a huge trove of material in the larger investigation report, and having been involved, she could get to the meat, quickly.

[HOLLYWOOD]

It's absurd. I GUARANTEE you most of those Gingrich voters were hysterical about Clinton's infidelity in the 90's. The whole thing is a load of bollocks.Don't forget the 5 bus loads of Newt supporters from Karl Rove / Russo, Marsh, & Rogers / Our Country Deserves Better PAC / PNAC / Meckler's Tea Party Patriots (AND Sponsor of the Debate).

All queued to applause and carry the unknowing of the audience.

[Student Of Paulism]

Yea, this was the most obvious staging ever. CNN could have atleast tried to be discreet about it by bringing it up in the middle of the debate, and put forth a topic about 'morals' to lead into it, rather than opening the damn show right out of the blue with it. And yes, sure, people can be like 'Well, why would CNN want to damage themselves'. Well, it doesn't damage them, that's just it. They will always have more than enough to sheep to manipulate. Newt 'going off' on John and calling out CNN is to give him credibility of a spontaneous reaction. The event was staged and Newt was obviously informed ahead of time. I also dont believe he was told what to say, he is very clever and smart, a very good thinker and speaker, knows how to word things to a tee, so no, what he said was all his own doing, he doesn't need a script.

I mean, seriously, the average moron could smell that a mile away, you dont need to be a Brzezinski-like psyop, eugenics technocrat master to be able to see what went on here.

This attack obviously came from the left with the Ex wife and failed miserably, just like Sarah Palin had said. She was definitely right about that, all it did was play right into the GOPs hands with the perfect counter attack that would make Newt felt sorry for by the sheep voters and now it makes him look like the sad and sorry victim. :rolleyes: It also possible the Ex interview was not an attack either, but also staged with collusion from both parties, ones on the left who are actually trying to bring Obama down and want him out. But one thing is for certain, the debate temper tantrum was DEFINITELY a set up. And yep, it worked like a charm, unfortunately. Sadly , i think all of that is going to propel Newt into a national surge. If Ron and the campaign don't step up their game soon, i really dont think we are going to go much farther. MSM has their anti-romney now and Romney took a beating the last 2 weeks. The establishment has their guy now, and it's Newt.

[angelatc]

She might have just been suggesting that there is a huge trove of material in the larger investigation report, and having been involved, she could get to the meat, quickly.

Sailing have you seen this stuff? http://www.dcbureau.org/201112136815/national-security-news-service/newt-gingrich-marianne-and-the-arms-dealera-buried-fbi-investigation.html

[cajuncocoa]

It's absurd. I GUARANTEE you most of those Gingrich voters were hysterical about Clinton's infidelity in the 90's. The whole thing is a load of bollocks.


Newt: Family values for thee, but not for me!