The unfair and unbalanced network jumped all over Newt Gingrich today for (correctly) calling Mitt Romney a liear (apparently because Romney disclaimed responsibility for the vicioius negative ad campaign against Gingrich, when the Ropmney campaing was obviusly behind it, even if the "dirty work" was done by a "Supter PAC" supposedly outside of any Romney control).
What is my problem with this, such that it again confirms my continually more unfavorable view of the unfair and unbalanced network? My problem is how MUCH teh unfair and unbalanced network made of the word "liar". Romney called Gingrich "zany", among other pretty vicious things (directly out of Romney's mouth, and NOT just in negative ads).
In what universe does the unfair and unbalanced network regard "liar" as WORSE than "zany"? Not in my universe, or any universe I know about. But the unfair and unbalanced network--hpocrites that they are--merely sort of chuckled over 'zany", but regarded "liar" as some sort of crime against civility. This is also the same network which hardly blinked an eye--just like CNN, as this is "CNN light"--at the really vicioius Romney negative ad campaign against Gingrich.
See my previous article, where I sugggest that the ost significant thing to come out of Iowa, beyond Santourm being in positon to becomine the conservative alternative to Romney, is a pssible GingrichVENDETTA (blood feud) against Romney. The unfair and unbalanced network idea that Romney has destroyed Gingrich without consequences to himself, just shows how stupid the peole of that network really are. Gngrich, of course, made the same mistake as to Ron Paul, as has the GOP estalbishment, but Gingrich at least had the excuse that Paul also conducted a visous negative ad campaign against Gingrich in Iowa.
Nope. You should contiue to BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. It is not worth watching. No insight. No intelligence. No facts. No "journalism". No honesty. No worth. Hey, you should be proud of me. I did not even use the word "LIAR" to describve them, although I was tempted. And n yes, I picked up this "liar' hypocrisy from my usual BRIEF SURFING. I did, however, exceed my alotted daily total of two minues because I wanted to get a mroe extensive view of the reaction of the farious networks to the Iowa electin, even though the exact result of the election (especailly as to the "winner") had NO MEANING. I watched CNN at least as much, as usual these days, and rally saw no differnce in coverage (excpet CNN may have been slightly BETER in avoiding things like sugggesting that the WINNER had any meaning, even when we are only talking aobut a few votes either way).