“We understand that you are no longer a press that is free, but one that is enthralled to its own ideologies”

The Anchoress, post Newt Gingrich’s evisceration of CNN’s John King and his cohorts in bias, reacts as only she can:

The standing ovation for Newt’s remarks were not an endorsement of his behavior — many conservatives are troubled by Gingrich’s past and character does matter to them, while other conservatives are remembering their own sins and falling back on what they know of mercy, for the time being. No, that ovation was an endorsement of Gingrich’s disdain for the mainstream media, which they share, and a declaration to that same media that their playbook is played-out. It said:

PressNotRelevant“We are done responding like Pavlovian dogs to your bells; we no longer trust you; we understand that you are no longer a press that is free, but one that is enthralled to its own ideologies and agendas. From this point on, a candidate is going to rise or fall on the substance of their ideas and abilities, not on your prosy gushes about his brilliance, or stern warnings about her stupidity. You savagedGeorge W. Bush you savaged Sarah Palin and you got away with it. You carried your own preferred, utterly inexperienced, passionate ideologue into the White House with over-effusive rhetoric and you have buffeted him from inquiry (tax returns? Hell, we’d just like to see Obama’s college transcripts!), or what you perceive to be damaging stories, but you elevated your favorite at the cost of your own credibility, and now it comes back to bite you. Because a press with no credibility has nothing to offer us. It has nowhere to go, now, except into the arms of the political machine it has loved. Just like Pravda, actually.”

The mainstream press does not want to discuss last night’s standing ovation because it shakes their worldview. They were supposed to be able to control the narrative; they were supposed to be able to corral the sheep. And last night, the sheep indicated that they’re no longer willing to be herded, no longer going to allow their own moral judgments to be exploited in a time when the nation is facing serious issues. They’ve decided they’re going to make up their own minds, thank you, about who they think is up to dealing with those issues. They’re looking at the press and saying, “Scallywags, heal thyselves!”

In my quick post after Newt’s rant, I wrote:

I’ll admit to wishing that it was someone with less baggage than Newt who could and would take the fight to a media so blatantly biased against conservative thought but I’ll also admit that Newt seems to be the best equipped at this time to do so. Battle on Newt.

Newt’s got his problems.  He’s not the perfect candidate.  And only God knows how the rest of the country might react to him in the general election but he does seem to be the candidate who is best articulating what many of us on my side of the ideological aisle are feeling.  

Whether or not the country will embrace him as an answer to Obama’s follies is undoubtedly the question of this election season.

The coming culture war
"America is so racist!"; "Everything is racist!"
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • Newt is the Honey Badger and the press is the bee hive about to be ripped apart.

  • There is no ‘perfect candidate’.  All of them have flaws, all of them have backgrounds, all of them have, at one time or another, made mistakes that the media will be all too quick to seize upon and attempt to exploit to shield their chosen one.

    My own thought is that in 2000, the media attempted to put Gore into place as Clinton’s successor.  HE had all the (to the media’s opinion) right ideas and thoughts, so they cooked up the “Bush is Dumb” narrative, and almost won it.  (Their proclaiming Gore took Florida before the polls closed in the western part of the panhandle was a brilliantly cynical move – you’ve got to wonder how many people heard that and decided not to even vote.)  But the ensuing battle over the butterfly ballot was their downfall in that election cycle – after all the counts, recounts, hanging chads, dimples and the like… Bush won the state.  And the Presidency.

    At that point, the desire solidified.  THEY were the ones who were going to decided future elections, not those dumb-ass voters.  Present the ‘proper’ information, and the sheeple would vote the way they should.  Kerry was a war hero, much more experienced than Bush was at leading… supposedly.  A look at his actual record was uninspiring at best.  Kerry was defeated, and the media took it as a slap in the face… again.  They wouldn’t make the same mistakes in 2006 – when they were able to spin the economic problems we had at the time into the worst economic period in the history of our country EVER – and got Democratic control of Congress.

    I leave it to you to decide whether that was a good thing or not.

    Then the 2008 election hit, and along came the Hillary-Obama matchup.  Hillary had plenty of baggage, Obama was fresh and new, and they could hide EVERYTHING about him except what was advantageous.   And by pushing Obama as new and wonderful and fresh – they got him elected.  McCain was old and weak, Palin was a hick as dumb as a stump, Hillary was out – Obama was in, and ‘Hope and Change’ was the meme.

    But the problem with new and wonderful and fresh is that there’s no track record.  Heck, there’s precious little at ALL on Obama’s record – not even his school transcripts are available.  In my opinion he’d been foolishly inept at best in every aspect of leadership and problem-solving, and the media’s been covering up for him – because to NOT do so would show the public that the people who were pushing Obama either didn’t have a flippin’ clue as to what he actually was, or they knew and they pushed him anyway because… 

    THEY are the kingmakers, nobody else.

    And if they don’t make the king, they’ll do their damn level best to be the ones who behead him.

    • Commander_Chico

      Too bad the press didn’t succeed in 2000 (well, they did I guess, because 2 million more people voted for Gore), because Bush was a flaming f-up.

      • jim_m

        Success is not in the winning. Success is found in skewing the results.  When (IIRC) the head of NBC news is willing o publicly state that media bias gives the dems a 5-10% advantage at the poll, I would say that the fact that Gore came so close was already a major victory.

      • davidt

        C_C you flaming f-up.

        “2 million more people voted for Gore.”

        According to the Federal Elections Commission’s Electoral and Popular Vote Summary there were 50,999,897 votes cast nationwide for Gore and 50,456,002 for Bush, a difference of only 143,895 votes, not, “2 million.”

        Furthermore, the difference between Gore’s popular vote tally and Bush’s was less than one half of one percent of the total votes cast for President, well within virtually any conceivable margin of error.

        In the real world science of statistics the popular vote of the 2000 Presidential election was a tie, not a win by Gore as so many flaming f-ups contend.

        • retired.military

          There you go confusing Chico with facts.

        • Sky__Captain

          Not to mention the small fact that the US does not elect its President by overall popular vote, but via the Electoral College.

          But Chico would be quite confused about it if anyone told him…

      • Popular vote is not the determining factor, as all but you seem to know.

      • Jwb10001

        Are you seriously trying to suggest the MSM was trying to push Bush into the white house in 2000?

      • And Gore would have done better?  LOL.  

        He’d have surrendered on 9/12.

    • AndrewX

      Along with that cute Florida ploy, there is a second half to that that is less remembered… at the very moment that they made the Florida call for Gore, there were multiple states, many Southern and Upper South, that were… ahem… too close to call!!  Of course, they all went to Bush, some by ten points or so, but of course, that was announced long after the Florida manuever was deployed. 

      Real sly, that.

  • cirby

    One of my online acquaintances was pretty happy that the “Newt’s Ex” question was asked at the debate.  I wondered why – and found out that they hadn’t seen the video, just read about it online.  I told him to find it and watch it – and he was really upset.  Newt went from being a horrible, womanizing, cheating Republican to a sorta-sympathetic persona.

    When you point out that the ex in question has previously shopped a “tell all” book that went nowhere (apparently on the advice of her lawyers), it gets worse.  When you also mention that the woman is currently working as a hairdresser?

    Yeah… not a lot of story there.  We already know he’s a jerk.  We’ve known that for 20+ years.

    Why do you think they “leaked” the interview’s subjects, while not bothering to actually show anything real (or find any corroborating testimony), right before the very important primary?

    When you manage to make people think of Newt Gingrich as a sympathetic victim, you’ve screwed up, big time.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Lets not forget, scorned wife #2, is also mistress #1.

  • 914

    Finally someone had the stage and balls to tell the shamestream to go screw themselves. That alone is worth the price of admission..

    • Olsoljer

      Sure is.  Unlike McStain, Newt has a pair (granted in the past sometimes he misplaced them) and standing up to the LSM, before the American public, in a stance which could have jeopardized his campaign, he stood up for what he believed.  You really, really think obama could stand up to him?
      (Aside to chrissie matthews, that new warm tingle down your leg?  Better check, I think it’s urine)

  • Mr Kimber

    Im going to vote against Obama…again…Newt’s not perfect…but I’ll take him. A difference b/w him and Obama is he does love our country. Obama wants to waste us.

  • GarandFan

    Yep, the MSM became whores for The One.  Sold their credibility and souls to push an ‘historic event’.  Never mind the person they were pushing has demonstrated no particular ability.

    At least a prostitute is honest about the type of work she’s engaged in.

  • davidt

    Like a wounded animal the Democrat Media Complex is going to fight tooth and nail to try to maintain its power and influence.

    As bad as its past actions have been, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

  • Guest

    Newt’s polling with women will be in single digits one month from now – Bet On It.   Too many women in this country have worked with egomaniacs like Newt. He’s the obnoxious bully who thinks he’s superior to everyone else.  His disdain and contempt  for anyone who questions him or who doesn’t agree with him will drive voters away in droves – particularly women.  Newt’s defeat in November will be epic. Trust me on this people. 

    • I’ll take that bet.  What odds, how much, and who will hold the bet?

      • Likely a drive-by – only one post registered in Disqus on that name…

        • Guest

          That’s because I just joined.    I’ll bookmark this page and come back in a month and gloat!


          • cirby

            Newt won a majority among married women in today’s SC primary race.

            He won’t do well with the “single women with kids” segment – but those tend to be Democrats anyway, so no big loss.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Too funny.

          • Guest

            I should have also mentioned that I used to read Wizbang years ago when Cassie and Kevin used to post all the time.  It just sort of fell off my radar for some reason and I just came back to visit.  I even won a Wizbang Weekend Caption contest once.  I was thrilled! (really)
            I posted under my maiden name then.

          • So how much are you willing to bet at what odds and held by whom?

          • Sorry – we get a lot of drive-bys here – one-post wonders, coming in to sling shit and then nevermore seen.

          • Guest

            Now I remember why I stopped visiting Wizbang.  People are just nastier here than other sites. I don’t feel that my comments were “slinging shit”   

          • I think it’s the abrasively superior attitude you took right off,  especially pushing the ‘Trust me on this, people’ line about how accurate YOUR preconceived notions of how Newt’s going to set with the electorate are.  

            That’s the usual MO of a shit-slinger – coming in to educate us ignorant folks who badly need their enlightened wisdom to get us out of the dark ages.

            And if we don’t accept such, then the invective is hurled.  Because we’ve got to be either determinedly evil because we won’t accept their belief system, or just too damn stupid to recognize the magnificent pearls they’ve dropped in front of us.  Either way, we’re fitting targets for their ire.

            When you posted, you had one post to your Disqus name. Again, that’s usually a sign of feces to come.As far as nastier goes – it’s quite easy to find politeness when everyone’s on the same ideological page.  When everyone agrees that Bush is teh wuRst Prsident EVAR!!!! and looks like an ugly chimp besides, the person who dares to disagree is usually banned quickly – if they even bother to post at all.

            Around here – the ban hammer only comes out when things get extreme.  Simple disagreement doesn’t trigger expulsion and erasure – you’ve got to REALLY work at it.

            You may confuse ‘polite’ with ‘echo chamber’.  That’s easy to do – but it’s ultimately quite boring.  It’s when the opinions differ that the friction starts – and we start learning from each other.  The trick is to remain polite while disagreeing.  It’s not easy.

            Time will tell whether you’re correct or not on Newt.  I’m thinking people are getting quite tired of being told by the media and political wonks who the media and the political wonks think is acceptable – and are going to start voting accordingly.

            That the media and political wonks are screaming about Newt may be a good contrarian indicator – if THEY think he’s the worst possible choice by their criteria, he may just be the best possible choice to fix the problems we’ve got.

            (Because I don’t believe the wonks actually want to have someone who will fix the problems – they want someone who will appear to fix the problem while keeping the status quo unchanged.  THEY have the influence – and if people don’t listen to them, how will they maintain it?)

            Anyhow – welcome back.  I apologize for the harsh reception, but we really didn’t recognize you.

          • I’ll start gloating now.  In South Carolina Gingrich beat Romney amongst women.

          • Guest

            Nationally he has a unfavorable rating of 60%. Good luck with that.

          • Moving the goal posts already…

          • kathysamuels

            You might want to tone down that gloating a bit…

            Women abandon Gingrich this time, by 22-point margin
            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/women-abandon-gingrich-this-time-by-22-point-margin/#ixzz1l6CNvKbh

          • And the next primary will again be different.

    • sorry but I don’t …

      • Guest

        Pay attention, people…  Newt wanted to censor the internet back in 2006. How do all of you feel about that?  It’s gonna be bad if people push this guy through just to prove a point to the media.


        • LiberalNightmare

          Yeah, and Obama wanted to censor the internet yesterday. Whos paying attention here.

          • Guest

            Obviously no one.  You’re all still on the Newt bandwagon.

          • No, we’re all on the notObama bandwagon, and many of us are also on the notRomney bandwagon. To the extent that I cheer for Gingrich it’s because his South Carolina win puts the lie to Mitzi’s “inevitability.”

          • We’re on the ABO bandwagon.

          • I’m on the ABO bandwagon.  Syphilitic Camel and Typhoid Wombat for 2012!   Why not go for the lowest common denominator?

        • Perhaps uniquely among the Presidential hopefuls, Gingrich has admitted past errors and stated intention to change course.  The same can’t be said of 0bama.

        • Perhaps uniquely among the Presidential hopefuls, Gingrich has admitted past errors and stated intention to change course.  The same can’t be said of 0bama.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Newts doing pretty good in S.C., and statistically, it cant be all men voting for him.

      • Guest

        SC is a place unto itself.  They mostly voted for someone who mirrors their own beliefs. That was the take-home message from the exit polls. 

        • South Carolina has given its GOP delegates to the eventual nominee in every presidential election year since 1980. Including Reagan and both Bushes.

          Compared to Iowa and New Hampshire, yes, it is a place unto itself — a place that knows what the hell Republican voters are looking for in a nominee.

          • Well said!

          • klaffner

            I do agree with this.  SC is an excellent bell weather for the GOP desires. 

    • klaffner

      Could not agree more Kathy. 

  • klaffner

    Any campaign that involves Newt is about Newt.  If he is the nominee, we will have a catharctic joy as he endlessly eviscerates the press and liberal thought, blah blah.  The campaign will be a constant wailing rant against the unfairness of it all mixed in with petty responses to perceived afronts.   And every news cycle taken up with that will be a news cycle that Obama escapes scrutiny.  Of course, Newt will realize this, but he will also be hopelessly unable to allow the attention to be on Obama.  He has to have his day.  He has to be the focus of attention.

    • Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination the LSM will not be reporting on 0bama’s record of failure.

      • Olsoljer

        Obama will be forced to debate the nominee in an internationally televised forum.  Gingrich would tear him a new one on a political as well as a personal level.  You are probably correct, but then, both the LSM and obama will be exposed for what they really are.
        “You can run, but you cannot hide.”

        • klaffner

          Obama will not be forced into anything he does not want to do.  I would not be surprised in the least if he decided to forego debates entirely.  If he does agree, there will only be two and they will be as early in the process as possible.  They will be tightly scripted to match his needs. 

          • Jwb10001

            Avoiding debates with the republican nominee might not be the smartest thing for Obama. They can try to tightly script a debate but I suspect the republican will have nothing to do with that.

          • klaffner

            I guess my point is that Obama’s campaign has a lot of power to shape things.  We all get ourselves into a state of rapture imagining Newt clobbering Obama in a debate. Or that there actually will be 7 three hour lincoln/douglas style debates (there won’t be).  Obama knows Newt is effective.  They will do all they can to blunt this advantage.  Up to and including deciding not to debate at all.  Or making sure they can pre-approve questions (overtly of covertly). etc. 

          • The GOP elite are dangling each of the candidates in front of the populace, one at a time, to get the sheep involved and interested.

            They’ve already decided its Romney. Wake up and smell the fix, it’s in.

          • Jwb10001

            Klaffner, I agree Obama might try to avoid debates I suspect that has a bigger down side than losing 1 or 2 maybe 3 debates to the republican. If he stumbles in a debate he can leverage his buddies in the press to better “explain”. If he out right dodges any debates the republican will hit him with that endlessly. Neither situation is good for him in any case.

      • klaffner

        Man it is tough to get a simple idea across here.  Of course the LSM will skew to Obama.  If they can.  If Newt is the nominee, it will be ridiculously easy for the LSM to ignore Obama’s record. 

        • The LSM are no longer the gatekeepers, and if they do indeed continue as they have been, they will be without credit (both literally and figuratively) in short order.

          • klaffner

            The LSM is (are?) not the gatekeepers for those of us on this board, or conservatives in general.  The LSM IS THE GATEKEEPER for independents and democrats.  Newt will provide a constant stream of negativity and rationale against Newt.  And that is all the indies and dems will see.  I guess i am saying that if you believe the LSM is not a big factor in the final victor, then, to use one of Newt’s favorite lines, we have a fundamental dissagreement. 

  • Commander_Chico

    Vote Gary Johnson.

    • Jwb10001

      Why Chico I can just stay home and have the same effect. In your case however please do vote for Gary Johnson it’s one less vote for Obama.

    • Don’t think I haven’t considered it, depending on who my choices are when my state finally holds its primary. However in November if the GOP has chosen the Newt-lear option, I’ll proudly hold my nose and vote for Gingrich.

    • Vote ABO.

    • Go right ahead.  That’ll be one less vote for Obama.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I loved the look on John Kings face after he got bitch-slapped by Newt.

    He looked like he had just been punched in the stomach.

  • retired.military

    Newt should say  “I was married to my 2nd wife for X years”  obama was a member of Rev Wright’s church for 20.  When you start asking him hard questions about that relationship I will think about talking about my 2nd marriage”

    • Yep, that’s what he should say.

  • Your assessment is exactly 180 degrees off Mr. Rice.  Newton Gingrich IS the perfect candidate for this job.  For conservatives, this election is not only about defeating The Manchurian pResident.  It is about taking the fight for liberty to the alphabet media who bought him the last election with in-kind donations, and freeing the American mind from the control of tv’s talking heads.  We’ve already have a Perfect Jesus with whom to compare ourselves and see the sin, so most of us are gut-sick of The Church of SNL & Comedy Channel, St. Matthews, St. Maher, St. Stewart, St. Letterman, and the rest of the media/celebrity saints telling us how stupid we are not to eat their leftist slop .  What Newt can do to the Marxist Media is offer them such a huge, irresistible target that they can do nothing other than try to destroy him.  Newt has the Reagan retort already written:  “Well, there you go again!”.  The goofballs are already teed-up; all Newt has to do swing, hard.

  • Pingback: Don’t Make These Myth-Takes | Daily Pundit()