ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
All that faux outrage at the "lie" Newt says was perpetrated by ABC that got so much applause at CNN's SC debate?
South Carolina Debate 1/19/12
Quote:
"Now, let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false," Gingrich said last Thursday night in the debate. "Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested, because they would like to attack any Republican."
All that residual indignation still going on in interviews a week later?
Interview with Univision 1/25/12 AM
Quote:
"You blamed the media for posing the question. Isn't that a fair question about your character?" Ramos asked.
"Sure," Gingrich said, in an answer that was newsworthy all by itself, since he avoided the same question from The Huffington Post in South Carolina last Friday. "And the answer is, it's not true. We offered several witnesses to ABC who said it was not true. ABC did not want any of the witnesses."
"ABC did a one-sided story, wanted no rebuttal, wanted to run it two nights before a primary, and we fought with them for several days over it, and just said, 'Look, give us equal time.' Okay?" Gingrich said. "Because it's a lie; it's not true."
Well, guess what? Gingrich is right. There was a lie. A whopper of a lie. And, according to his own people, Gingrich owns it.
Wednesday 1/25/12 PM
Quote:
After nearly a week on the defensive, CNN's John King reports tonight that Newt Gingrich's claim about offering witnesses to ABC News in his defense — to rebut the network's interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich — was not true.
"Tonight, after persistent questioning by our staff, the Gingrich campaign concedes now Speaker Gingrich was wrong — both in his debate answer, and in our interview yesterday," King said on tonight's edition of John King USA. "Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond says the only people the Gingrich campaign offered to ABC were his two daughters from his first marriage."
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
To quote my buddy Walt Scott, "what a tangled web we (he?) weave when we first practice to deceive." This shocks you how??????
LOL Not shocked at all.
So not shocked that I even understand how and why politicians (and everyone else, for that matter) sometimes lie about really big things - I am a bit awed, however, when people routinely lie about mundane, worthless things which can be easily fact checked.
If you're going to lie, you should probably make sure the lie is very well worth it - otherwise you run the risk of needlessly branding yourself a "liar," over some small insignificant nothing and the reputation will follow you forever.
What possible difference would it make to anyone, friend or foe alike, if Gingrich offered no one or 27 people to rebut Maryanne's story? What was his goal in saying he'd offered rebuttal witnesses other than his daughters? What did he hope to accomplish by such a silly lie? Did he hope to make himself look good? To make ABC look bad? Why double-down and repeat it a week later when you know people are checking into it and you're going to get caught in a big ole whopper?
Does he think the American public is so stupid that they'll believe anything he says not only in the utter absence of concrete proof but in the face of actual evidence to the contrary?
Or is Gingrich one of those narcissistic individuals who actually believes his own spin and thus is incapable of ever telling the truth simply because he does not recognize it?
Either way, scary stuff in an ordinary man, even scarier in a president.
Last edited by Mrs.PatsFanInVa; 01-29-2012 at 11:29 AM..
Yea, but somehow when the Republican Politicians do it.. somehow it is ok.
Kennedy, Clinton and Edwards fool around it is terrible, need to bring it every day... Gingrich gets married and has innumerable trists it is ok, because he is Catholic.
What a f..ed up world this has turned into.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
Kennedy, Clinton and Edwards fool around it is terrible, need to bring it every day... Gingrich gets married and has innumerable trists it is ok, because he is Catholic.
Personally, I think every time someone brings up Newt's past sexual indiscretions it does Newt a favor. The fact is, no one really gives a damn.
Far more important is the stuff that's being ignored in favor of ranting about his bed partners....like his grandious dreams of a Space Colony and how he plans on paying for it. Or his plan for the economy which will cause a huge deficient right off the bat. Or his serial lying and his inability to tell the truth or remember the past as it really happened. ("When I was Speaker of the House we had a balanced budget 4 years in a row.") Or his years as a historian/lobbyist for Fannie/Freddie. His plans to put 10 year olds to work. His plans to abolish SS and Medicare.
In other words, the list is endless, the stakes are high and the fact that he's been married multiple times is probably the most irrelevent item to harp upon - and he knows it which is why he keeps it alive by his intense posturing whenever it's brought up.
Personally, I think every time someone brings up Newt's past sexual indiscretions it does Newt a favor. The fact is, no one really gives a damn.
Far more important is the stuff that's being ignored in favor of ranting about his bed partners....like his grandious dreams of a Space Colony and how he plans on paying for it. Or his plan for the economy which will cause a huge deficient right off the bat. Or his serial lying and his inability to tell the truth or remember the past as it really happened. ("When I was Speaker of the House we had a balanced budget 4 years in a row.") Or his years as a historian/lobbyist for Fannie/Freddie. His plans to put 10 year olds to work. His plans to abolish SS and Medicare.
In other words, the list is endless, the stakes are high and the fact that he's been married multiple times is probably the most irrelevent item to harp upon - and he knows it which is why he keeps it alive by his intense posturing whenever it's brought up.
I think they do, what has been downplayed are all of the episodes in between the marriages.. this guy was dropping trou in many places.
There are a ton of skeletons in this closet, that will come out during the regular election.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
I think they do, what has been downplayed are all of the episodes in between the marriages.. this guy was dropping trou in many places.
What "in-between?"
One thing I'll say about Newt is he never wasted any time.....he had the new one all ready to replace the old one. From what I understand his affairs were long-term, only when he was sure they'd marry him did he leave the former wife. I think the time between each divorce being finalized and the new marriage taking place was a matter of weeks or months.
Newt's Story Neutered by Campaign Spokesman
Linear Mode
