Breaking: Politico Blows Matt Drudge

Drudgeico and its chief Drudgesuckers, Mike Allen and Jim Vanderheidiho, are brainlessly reporting that Eggs Drudge is linking to anti-Newton pieces. At the Memeorandum link and the Drudgeico homepage, the story is titled "The Right Drops a Bomb on Newt." The actual story is titled "Drudge, conservative media criticize Newt Gingrich," apparently due the substantial differences between whiny bitching and dropping a bomb.

So who are the conservative worthies bashing Newton? Criminals Tom Delay and Elliot Abrams (who undoubtedly would drop a bomb on Newton if he could), circus freaks R. Emmett Tyrell and Ann Coulter, and a "top conservative media figure" who "spoke on condition of anonymity to protect private conversations" and who is also an "official" of some sort. Politico inexplicably fails to note Newton is exactly the same kind of cretin that his critics are. The only explanation for the criticism is that the critics are jealous Sheldon Adelson hasn't shared his wealth with them.

John King to Newton: DO Piss On My Leg And Tell Me That It's Raining

TRENDING: Gingrich campaign admits error

(CNN) - Newt Gingrich's campaign admitted Wednesday night the former House speaker was inaccurate when he claimed his team offered several witnesses to ABC News to refute statements made by Gingrich's second wife in a controversial interview aired last week.

...

In an interview on Tuesday, King pressed Gingrich on those claims, saying ABC News insisted no such witnesses were put forward.

Gingrich said ABC's defense was "just plain baloney."

"If they're saying that, then they're not being honest," Gingrich said. "We had several people prepared to be very clear and very aggressive in their dispute about that, and (ABC News) wasn't interested."

King was lied to, first at the debate and again days later. There was no error. There was no inaccuracy. Newton deliberately and repeatedly lied to King and then rubbed King's nose in it. And King and his employer choose to endorse those lies by refusing to acknowledge what they were.

Congratulations, John. You have no credibility as a journalist, but there's a bright future for you as the managing editor of PolitiFact.

Romney, Santorum and Paul to Debate Empty High Chair

The Return of Toerag and Joey Digs

This distorted vision of the world also applies to whether Newt is allowed to ignore the facts. He does so with such conviction that, unless one knows the truth, his delivery mandates believability. Newt takes on a foe with such ferocity that Republicans, hungry for a fighting candidate, have not sought to challenge the veracity of his words. Consider his debate exchange with CNN moderator John King, who opened with a question about Marianne’s revelation.

In claiming as false Marianne’s statement that he asked for an open marriage, Newt asserted,” Every personal friend I have who knew us in that time period said the story was false.”

How could that be? Marianne has said the discussion occurred during a private conversation when they were in counseling. How would any friend know what Newt said only to his then wife?

...

Newt next claimed to CNN that “we offered several of [these friends] to ABC to prove [Marianne’s statement] was false. They weren’t interested because they would like to attack any Republican.” Only it was Newt’s statement that was false. ABC immediately refuted his assertion. ABC Senior News Vice President Jeffrey Schneider stated: “That’s just not true. His daughters were interviewed for our Nightline story last night and we sought interviews with Gingrich or surrogates very aggressively starting Tuesday morning. We would have been happy to interview anyone they put forward.”

In fact, according to ABC, the campaign said it was “going to provide somebody who would answer point by point everything” Marianne said, but “it had not done so as of” the morning of the broadcast. Has any reporter asked the campaign for the names of the people Newt claimed ABC refused to air?

Forced Pregnancy Is A Pillar of The Libertarian Movement

If you want to know what kind of libertarian/Constitutionalist Li'l Rand Paul is, he was on his way to speak at a "Right to Life March" when he was subjected to an airport screening.

(Per the Daily Choler; no link.)

Urine The Monied Class

In Brooklyn, at another church housing OWS protesters, an occupier urinated on a cross, according to Rabbi Chaim Gruber, who has angrily abandoned the OWS movement.

In a letter last week to OWS obtained by The Post, the rabbi fumed, “The Park Slope church housing occupiers was desecrated when an occupier peed inside the building and the pee came into contact with a cross.”

The rabbi also cancelled his subscription to HBO after viewing a 2011 episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm on HBOGo.

Actually, it seems the rabbi didn't abandon the Occupy Movement so much as he bored it to death.

Meanwhile, in Manhattan,

When the Rev. Bob Brashear prepared for Sunday services at West Park Presbyterian Church on West 86th Street, he noticed parts of the bronze baptismal font were gone.

In a fire-and-brimstone message to occupiers later that day, he thundered, "It was like pissing on the 99 percent."

That piss seems to be metaphorical.

The artifact vanished just three weeks after a $2,400 Apple MacBook vanished from Brashear's office. He told the occupiers that even when the 100-year-old Upper West Side church extended help to addicts during the 1980s drug scourge, no visitors touched its $12,500 sacramental instrument.

"Not even crackheads messed with that," he said.

An he began to teach them, saying: Blessed are the crackheads, for they know how to aim.

They Should've Put Him In One of Those Gray Bins and Tossed Him Onto The Conveyer Belt

(CNN) – Authorities blocked U.S. Sen. Rand Paul at the Nashville airport Monday after the Kentucky Republican refused a pat-down at a security checkpoint, his spokeswoman said.

Paul went through a scanner at the airport and set off an alarm, said his spokeswoman, Moira Bagley. He wanted to go through the body scan again instead of getting a pat-down, but officers of the Transportation Security Administration refused, Bagley said.

As he was led away in a straightjacket, Rand screeched, "If I had any junk, I would tell you not to touch it."

But Newtie Isn't One Of Those/I've Known Him All These Years

As a follow-up to the last post, ABC's Brian Ross said on the Howie Kurtz Reliable Putz Hour this morning that the only two character witnesses Newt offered to ABC News were Newton's two daughters from his first marriage.

Because ABC failed to do its journalistic due diligence, we'll never know how Netwon's daughters could affirm that Newton didn't offer to share himself with the evil-stepmom and the evil-stepmistress.

The Burden of Proof

This part of Newton Leroy's happy horseshit from yesterday's debate is particularly interesting:

Let me be quite clear. The story is false. 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. They're attacking the governor, they're attacking me. I'm sure they'll probably get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul. I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

The story, of course, is that Newton asked his then-wife, Marianne, for permission to fuck Calista while remaining married to Marianne, and Marianne said "no." Newton says that every friend who knew him and Marianne knew the story was false. That is, every friend of Newton's who knew the couple knew that Newton was banging Calista, and also knew that he didn't ask Marianne for permission to bang. Because if a friend didn't know Newton was banging Calista, how could he or she know whether Newton asked Marianne for permission to bang Calista? And how could such friends say the story was false if they didn't even know the predicate fact?

In the interest of complete fairness to Newton, ABC News should disclose the names of the several Newton friends who Newton offered up as character witnesses. Then the media can ask those friends how they know Newton never asked his wife for permission to bang. It's what Newton claims he wants, and he's entitled to no less. Because surely Newton didn't proffer his character witnesses to get ABC to kill the interview. Since those individuals would have no personal knowledge of what Newt asked his wife in private, they couldn't offer any actual "proof" to disprove what Marianne is saying.

(Of course, I don't care about Newton's peabrained urges, nor do I care what his ex-wife thinks of him. I'm more interested in the fact that Newton can blow smoke up people's asses and the SCLM just plays along.)

Master Debater

So how much did Newton Leroy pay John King for that hummer he recieved last night?

Whatever it was, it was not enough.

Follow-Up Call

Rick, it's God.

Yes, God?

You know when I called and told you to run for President?

Yes, God.

It turns out that wasn't me.

Oh?

No, it was the pain killers.

Oh?

There's this thing called "side effects."

Side what?

When you fill a prescription, do you read the sheet that they give you with the pills?

Read what?

You're still on the painkillers, aren't you?

Yes, God.

Well, then, I'm afraid I can't help you.

No?

Just drop out of the race now.

But....

Trust me.

Uh....

Gotta go, Rick Santorum's on the other line. You'll get a kick out of this one. Just wait.

The Hate Debate

If Ron Paul had wanted to win last night's FOX News debate, he would have just read from his newsletters.

P.S. to Wan Julliams: How's the FOX News gig workin' out for you?