The Slatest brings my attention to two fascinating items bearing on the GOP field’s new front-runner:
Newt, a.k.a. Maximus the Entertainer, said he won’t participate in any more debates if the crowd isn’t allowed to roar. “The media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate… The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”
Here’s a tip, Mr. Big Brain Who’s Written a Bunch of Books: “Media” is a plural noun. So you should say, “The media are terrified” and “The media don’t control free speech.” Just for future reference, professor.
Rush Limbaugh wants Newt Gingrich to ease up on his recent offensive against the media, warning that such theatrics may play well with some conservative voters but will only get him so far in his quest to be the next president.
Yes, that Rush Limbaugh. According to the Daily Caller, the conservative radio host took some time on his show Monday to warn Newt on his favorite debate subject. “The days of being able to keep this momentum going by ripping on the media are over. The standing ovations for taking on the media are over, or they have very short lifespan,” Limbaugh said, adding, “You can only go to the well so many times on this stuff.”
Wow. When Rush tells you to chill, maybe you’d better. Not like he’s a model of self-restraint or anything…
Related Posts
Also, the media aren’t subject to the First Amendment free speech guarantees–it’s government that cannot infringe upon freedom of speech. I can tell you to STFU without infringing on free speech rights….The State newspaper or Fox “News” are not subject to any free speech requirements. Broadcast networks have some duties, because of their use of the public airwaves, but otherwise….
What’s going to happen if an audience member responds? Kick him out? We all know how that’ll end up.
I was kind of hopeful that Newt would sense that a move toward the middle would start to squeeze Romney in the moderate zone.
But he does seem to be overplaying his hand and missing that he doesn’t need, can’t actually, move further right and win.
How did he come to blow it so quickly?
@ Mark–Either mania or, perchance, “blow”?
Newt–da bomb!
Here’s one of the hilarious situations that delights this proud liberal. Energy supplies are up, imports are way down and all the conservatives can do is squirm and make excuses. Of course the president is fully responsible for this turn of events but given the onslaught of attacks by the GOP regarding the high unemployment rate it does my heart good to see them scramble to have it both ways. Sorry GOP. You can’t blame the president for bad news and deny him credit for good news. Ain’t gonna fly. Words of “wisdom” from Darrell Issa:
“It’s just a blind accident, if in fact we are producing more oil or natural gas than in previous years, because it’s not because of any of his efforts,” Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said after the speech.
Should be “the president is NOT fully responsible …”
“Energy supplies are up, imports are way down…” bud
There is a reason why imports are down. A McClennan Financial publication dated June 4, 2010, was informative and provided reliable information for the reason.
“The truth is that oil imports to the U.S. are falling at a rapid rate, and have been falling since their peak in 2005. We are still importing more than we are producing, but that relationship is on the move in what many argue is a good direction. For the 12 months ending in March 2010 (the most recent data available from the Energy Information Administration), imports represented 62% of total oil consumption. That is the lowest percentage since 2003, and the trend is definitely downward.
The reason why is that Americans are using less oil now than they have in years. The combined effects of energy conservation efforts (better cars, less driving) and the economic depression following the housing bubble, have led Americans to use less gasoline. We get other products from crude oil, such as plastics and other chemicals, but transportation fuel still accounts for the majority of the consumption of crude oil.”
Reasonable conclusion: If imports are down, driving curtailed, and more efficient vehicles on the road, wouldn’t the natural result be an increase in energy supplies?
“Of course the president is fully responsible for this turn of events….”
If not mistaken or if some science fiction time travel event has not occurred, Obama wasn’t the president in 2005 when the trend started and has increased every year since then. The average per gallon a day use by Americans dropped from 1.28 gallons per day in 2005 to 1.17 gallons per day in 2010.
The average design cycle for a new vehicle is 3 to 6 years. Then you add a few more years for building prototypes, testing and redesign and setting up for production which adds another 3 to 6 years. Those the average time frames from concept to production and to the marketplace for a new vehicle.
Sorry, Obama is not responsible for the Chevy Volt or any of the other energy efficient vehicles available, the auto manufacturers and previous administrations are. In fact, it was under the administration of your favorite president, GWB, that the actual work on the Volt began and it was first introduced at an auto show in 2007.
So, if energy supplies are up and imports are way down, the trend started well before Obama was even a candidate for the presidency. In fact, it was in 1988 that the Alternative Motor Fuels Act was passed under a “GASP!”, Republican president, and the initiatives to cut foreign imports of oil and increase fuel efficiency continued under Clinton and Bush II and “VOILA”, today we have the Chevy Volt and other electric powered vehicles along with fuel efficient hybrids and standard models available on the open, capitalist driven market.
And it was ALL done without the benefit of one Barack Obama’s input or influence.
Facts and history can be a bitch.
Bart, you must have missed my typo correction. I fully acknowledge that Obama is NOT fully responsible for the improved energy situation. But it’s clear that liberal policies are mostly responsible, even if implemented by the obnoxious George W. Bush. (How is that for damning with faint praise).
Here’s the thing I’m trying to get at. Republicans are quick to point out ANYTHING that goes wrong whenever a Democrat is in the White House. I remember them blaming Clinton for the first World Trade Center bombing even though he had only been in office a few days. Yet George W. Bush gets no blame at all for the second WTC bombing fully 8+ months into his tenure.
Energy is a complicated issue that has many components not least of which is luck. Much of the improved situation in oil production is due simply to the fact that we’ve been spared major hurricanes in the Gulf for 3 straight years. The fracking revolution is both a bane and a curse. It’s an expensive and potentially environmentally threatening process that is yielding a significant amount of Natural Gas. But it will ultimately cost consumers money as the full costs are captured. Oil production may continue to increase for a few years but ultimately it will never approach the volume achieved in the early 1970s. No matter who is president geology will rule when it comes to energy. No amount of conservative happy talk will change that inevitability.
@bud – did miss your typo correction. However, my point remains that the energy issues that haunt this country are not the fault or just one party or president.
As for your point about Republicans blaming Clinton for the first WTC bombing, I am sure it happened. However, I don’t remember Republicans spreading the lie that Clinton was involved and actually knew about it beforehand and approved it. I find your comment that Bush gets no blame at all for the 2nd WTC bombings which did kill 3,000 people disingenuous. I have read letter after letter to editors from liberals, read some of the blogs dedicated to the idea Bush knew and is responsible for 9/11, heard liberal commentators actually claim Bush approved the attacks and had a hand in planning them. So, whatever your point was in bringing that one up makes no sense.
Truth is, neither Clinton or Bush should be blamed for either terrorist attack.
The buck always stops at the president’s desk whether it is fair or nor, that is the nature of the political world we live in.
@bud – just to clarify something. I actually enjoy the back and forth between us and do respect your views. I don’t agree with hardly any of them but I do appreciate your passion.
If the time comes when we cannot engage in a debate, heated or not and not have respect for the other person’s point of view, then we have what is going on in Washington.
Gridlock, rabid partisanship – both sides, and a breakdown of civility. In turn, the country suffers and we are the losers, both sides, not just one.
Neither side can lay claim to all of the high ground, all of the time. We need balance because this country is neither far right nor is it far left. Problem is, finding the middle is difficult and when we do find common ground, the extremists from both sides find a way to screw it up.
Just thought I would share this with you – and I am right and YOU KNOW IT!!! :_)
Why is energy conservation a “liberal” thing? It affects all Americans.