Mark Levin: Lay off Matt Drudge! The MSM hates his guts, remember?

posted at 2:30 pm on January 30, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Mark Levin Friday came to the defense of headline aggregator Matt Drudge, who, last week, took some heated criticism from conservatives for a series of links he posted that suggested Newt Gingrich was not a loyal Reaganite.

Levin, who said he knows Drudge personally and characterizes him as “a good man,” encouraged critics to remember all the good Drudge has done for the country and to allow little annoyances to slide.

“Another friend of mine: Matt Drudge.  I would encourage you to lay off Matt Drudge.  Matt Drudge has done so much good for the country, so much good for journalism,” Levin said. …

“Some days he’s got links on there that are more about one candidate than another – so be it; who cares?  He’s not some…he’s not taking sides in the election; he’s not taking sides in the Republican Party.  I know him extremely well; he’s a good man.”

“And, the mainstream media hates his guts – so, just keep all that in mind.  He provides an enormous service, I think, to us. So, I would just lay off him.”

Levin’s comments come as a refreshing reminder that, among conservatives who care deeply about this election, differences of opinion are often motivated by the same root concerns and desires. None of us want to nominate a Republican who will perpetuate big-government-style policies that render Republicans nothing but Democrats Lite. None of us want four more years of Obama.

Among those whose job it is to curate information about the candidates, the desire typically is to leave no stone unturned so as to prepare the eventual GOP nominee for the general election, in which he will face opposition researchers who don’t share the same values and concerns as conservative voters. The vetting process has been and will continue to be messy, inevitably colored by individual prejudices, unrecognized visceral reactions and the sheer inability to be aware of all the information that’s out there. The advantage to the Internet is that, once a bit of info is out there, anybody and everybody is free to respond — and does. That’s what happened in the case of “The Drudge Distort” of Newt Gingrich, as upset critics called it. In the end, something pretty close to the truth emerges — at least for those with eyes to see it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

They think Mitt’s Mormonism and Bain history will be just as easily demagogued in the general (fairly or not) as Newt’s adultery and Freddie Mac stuff.

Ok,

So, they fear the anti-Mormon bigots and the anti-capitalists more than the moral and anti-lobbyists?

Gunlock Bill on January 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

“Grab the wheel of that outa control cement mixer in which you are the passenger, he’s headed for that Mini Cooper full of toddlers!”

“But if he hits them maybe the DMV will finally wake up and take away his license. If we just let him do as much damage as possible no matter how horrific, even though we are still able at least to try to stop him before he does it, people will realize how dangerous he is…”

“But my kids are in that Mini Cooper!!!”

“What are you trying to say?”

Akzed on January 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

But that is not what we are doing. You are asking me to vote for the guy who would do more long term damage than the other guy would. You then narrow it down to the immediate moment. Great, it is like pampering your baby every moment of every day so it does not cry, only to find out later that the child is completely uncontrollable. This is the election that I choose to put my foot down and let the freaking bacy cry it out and learn that they are not entitled to absolute bliss every moment of life. While it may hurt a little bit today, when you see how she matures, pride will replace what otherwise would have been shame.

You are too weak to face short term pain for long term gain. That is fine, lots of Americans are just like you and are the reason we are at this point today. Usually we call them Democrats and welfare recipients. Today we will just call them Akzed supporters.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Newt Respects and looks for Conservative’s to back him up and knows that we are his specific base.

Right, like he respects women.

Romney sees

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

So basically, you don’t believe anything he says. So, nothing he says would make any difference to you.

But, you believe the philandering Newtron?

Gunlock Bill on January 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM

So, they fear the anti-Mormon bigots and the anti-capitalists more than the moral and anti-lobbyists?

Gunlock Bill on January 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

No. At the end of the day, they fear the only entity worth fearing in today’s America: the uninformed and easily manipulated electorate who gave us Obama.

Bill, I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised if Mitt is the nominee. You are going to witness a lot of conservative evangelicals defending the man even though they may not personally be big fans of his religious beliefs.

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I’m not going to argue one way or the other, but the fact remains that someone at Drudge decides which stories to run.

NoNails on January 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM

First Rush, new Levin. Everyone’s seeing the writing on the wall. It’s gonna be Romney, so let’s man up and get Obama out of office!

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Some of you are willing to “sit this one out” and take your chances with 2016?

When the republican establishment is using every power at it’s disposal to FORCE us to vote for their Gun-Grabbing, Big Spending, Socialized Medicine Supporting, Profligate spending,Global Warming Alarmist Mitt Ken-Doll Romney, you are damn skippy I will sit out.

Obama is all those things too i you need to be reminded and WORSE – but at least our RePubic squishes like Mitch and Cry-Baby have to pretend to OPPOSE Obama…

…Dear Christ in Heaven I can’t imagine what those RePubic squishes in our congress would willingly do with a democrat like Mitt Romney in office – you see, Cry Baby does not have to pretend to disagree with a liberal in Elephant’s clothing.

If Santorum is the nominee, I will swallow my vomit and vote. If Newt is the nominee, I will stay home. If it’s the liberal Mitt Romney that the establishment Rockefeller RINOS force on us, I’ll use my vote as a WEAPON to HURT them, and continue to prepare my family for the hell that will follow.

If we can’t save this nation, I’ll settle for revenge.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM

You are going to witness a lot of conservative evangelicals defending the man even though they may not personally be big fans of his religious beliefs.

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Evangelicals for Mitt

Flora Duh on January 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Bill, I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised if Mitt is the nominee. You are going to witness a lot of conservative evangelicals defending the man even though they may not personally be big fans of his religious beliefs.

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM

You get me wrong. I fully expect that to happen.

I just get tired of the nattering nabobs of negativity that have no real basis for their fears.

Gunlock Bill on January 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

What I really need Newt to tell me is:

How’s Nancy Pelosi in bed, or in the restroom or wherever you guys got to know one another?

NoDonkey on January 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Akzed on January 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I have actually caught myself using that line (original form) when some moron cuts me off in traffic and is – you guessed it – on his/her cell phone…

affenhauer on January 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

None of us want to nominate a Republican who will perpetuate big-government-style policies that render Republicans nothing but Democrats Lite.

Actually, I’m pretty sure there are quite a few Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum supporters floating around out there.

EddieC on January 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

So basically, you don’t believe anything he says. So, nothing he says would make any difference to you.
But, you believe the philandering Newtron?
Gunlock Bill on January 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Exactly. I do not believe anything Romney says, not without proof, and that means any future actions based on today’s word has 0 value to me.
He could say some things to make a difference to me. He could, for example, come out and admit he is a progressive that wants to accomplish what Obama accomplished, but that he can manage it better than Obama, and once elected president, he would change his party affiliation to independent. Of course, I think in order for me to believe he would change party affiliation, he would have to back it up with a perfectly sealed contract that puts his entire family’s wealth on the outcome. I would then vote for him.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Drudge is my first news page of the day every day. I have not noticed any slant in his links. I think this particular cat fight is ridiculous.

YehuditTX on January 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

First Rush, new Levin. Everyone’s seeing the writing on the wall. It’s gonna be Romney, so let’s man up and get Obama out of office!

P*ss off.

I won’t vote for that man if Obama himself was standing with a .357 in his hand to my daughter’s temple threatening to shoot if I didn’t cast my vote for Mitt-Doll.

NEVER.

I actually hate that man worse than Obama – our Marxist in chief does not bother to hide what he is.

Mitt Romney is a gun grabbing, big spending, socialized health care pushing, liberal judge appointing, global warming proponent, who “says” he is something he’s not.

Not to mention his stance of abortion, which is reprehensible.

But the final straw has been how Mitt drug this entire primary into the gutter. He started this crap, and his hatchet-men, cronies, pundits, and PACS have been going into high gear.

So there is no republican unity anymore. You “mushy-moderates” have determined – and told us “trog-conservatives” that you don’t want and need our votes. That we are outliers, and more.

Oh so much more.

So, you can get your wish.

And we will start looking for a new party.

Give Millard Fillmore my regards RNC.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

You’ll note Mark and Rush pivoting a bit here. That’s what you call the, holy crap, the guy we’ve been killing is leading the guy we’ve been backing (without saying it) by 20 points. We can’t be wrong here, so let’s try and re-position ourselves to save face.

AYNBLAND on January 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Flora Duh on January 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

;)

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

The “I’ll sit home” crankypants “conservatives” are all in on that one.

NoDonkey on January 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Which is worse – those you disdanin or the I’ll vote for the guy I can’t stand to get rid of Obama?” Someone explain to me why the guy who people didn’t even think was better than McCain last cycle is suddenly someone we’re supposed to rally around.

Conservatives must be as stupid as the insiders think we are – we keep allowing them to sucker us in under the guise of “Our selected guy is better than the Dems guy, our guy is electable because we won’t support a conservative.” And conservatives still act surprised that the party treats them and their positions like trailer trash. Keep voting for the insiders’ candidate and we’ll keep getting the insiders’ candidate.

katiejane on January 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

The supposed fact that you “know someone” is hardly a good basis for discounting the tactics used in a pressured moment.

To me it seemed obvious that Drudge put up a wealth of anti-Gingrich headlines, that lingered a lot longer than his headlines usually seem to, and I’m glad he did. The stakes in the Florida primary are far too high: The objective is to get rid of Obama, and Mr. Gingrich could have messed it all up had he won Florida. I just don’t care about MA healthcare or 1994; I want a viable, eloquent and intelligent candidate who’ll be accepted by the country as a whole in order to get rid of one of the worst curses America’s ever had.

While I’m thinking about it, my guess is there could be an excellent opportunity to launch a site using Drudge’s simple format that would focus solely on exposing the leftists–a site dedicated to providing links that explain their corruption, destructiveness and extreme lack of decency and common sense. There would be no end of material, and links to the great blogs could be included. There really is no need for so-called “balance” and “fairness”; those become irrelevant when one of the sides is populated by destructive anti-American fanatics. No, what is needed now is to fully expose left-wingism on a daily basis as part of the news cycle. There is a great deal of material there that’s not getting sufficient exposure on the radio or in the blogs. The leftists are, after all, out of control. They must be exposed comprehensively, each and every day.

Allendundit on January 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Having Mark Levin vouch for your integrity is like having Charles Manson testify you’re nice to kittens.

Drudge is better off just letting the Newties throw their hissy fits. Most of them didn’t really drink the Kool Aid, they were just looking for a suitable Not Romney and took a wrong turn into Gingrich.

I hope they wake up before he stabs them in the back as he has so many other conservatives. Perhaps they were still in diapers when conservatives threw Newt out of the Speaker’s chair, and never wondered why so few of his former colleagues have endorsed him.

If his time as Speaker was so successful and Reaganesque, wouldn’t his old chums be lining up behind him?

Adjoran on January 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Conservatives must be as stupid as the insiders think we are – we keep allowing them to sucker us in under the guise of “Our selected guy is better than the Dems guy, our guy is electable because we won’t support a conservative.” And conservatives still act surprised that the party treats them and their positions like trailer trash. Keep voting for the insiders’ candidate and we’ll keep getting the insiders’ candidate.

Exactly. People are waking up. At church, this feeling is pretty much in the majority, and people are HUNGRY for a new party, as it’s become obvious that the RePubics in the establishment don’t give a lick about anyone outside of a city or more than 100 miles from a coast.

They are embarrassed by such people, and would just rather all the stupid hayseeds shut up and go away.

Why else would they want to declare this election “over” after less than 10 states?

I look at the republicans anymore, and, I say to myself, beyond a few like DeMint, they just are not “US” anymore.

In fact, the lines are blurred more and more, and when I look at Newt and Romney, I have a hard time telling them from the blue-dog democrats.

They are out of their damn skulls if they thing me or my family will support them running candidates like that.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM

In the end, something pretty close to the truth emerges — at least for those with eyes to see it.

No, that rarely happens. In fact, I am amazed at the amount of information I am still learning even though I follow the news very closely. Never underestimate the ability of the media to obscure the truth. That is what the alternative media is supposed to counter.

Bill C on January 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Having Mark Levin vouch for your integrity is like having Charles Manson testify you’re nice to kittens.

Mark Levin is one of the best constitutional scholars around, and his legal action group has been at the FORFRONT of opposing Obamacare. Google landmark Legal Foundation.

His legal group has done tremendous damage to life-sucking parasites like the NEA. He’s been a THORN in the side of the Holder justice department – while other talk show hosts bloviate, Levin actually litigates against the growing leviathan that is the federal government. These actions are the actions of a man that should be equated to a SERIAL KILLER when it comes to an endorsement in your mind?

Really? This is your attitude is it?

Your attitude and views, ROMBOT – are exactly why your man, who will be abandoned by large tracts of the base, will loose. They are exactly why the RNC is tearing apart like the Whigs.

I won’t cry for Mitt Romney. And I won’t cry for the RePubics replicating the failings of the 1850′s and seeding their own destruction.

Your RINO Big government values are so different from mine and those of the conservative base that we can scarcely even identify you as an American – let alone as a member of the conservative party.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I hope they wake up before he stabs them in the back as he has so many other conservatives. Perhaps they were still in diapers when conservatives threw Newt out of the Speaker’s chair, and never wondered why so few of his former colleagues have endorsed him.

If his time as Speaker was so successful and Reaganesque, wouldn’t his old chums be lining up behind him?

Adjoran on January 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Every time Reagan had a great new plan, there were dozens of (R)s there to attack him and tell him how change like that would not be possible.
These same old legislators were around when Newt was the Speaker. Why was Newt kicked out? Well, since it was shortly after completing most of the Contract with America, and the dismantling of the welfare state, and the fact that they were not conservatives, but big government it is my turn to controll things politicians, I would argue it was because Newt cut their power.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Drudge adds nothing to the discussion IMO. I’ve never understood what the big deal is about some guy who posts links to real news/opinion pieces 99% of the time.

TheHonorableJohnSchwartz on January 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

astonerii – Newt is not my guy.

That being said, I remember man many RePubics who stopped Reagan from getting decent budgets through. These Republican Moderates were to blame for stopping the dismantling of the horrible Department of Education – a department that now has it’s own God-D*&^ed swat teams.

I clearly remember the names of these obstructionists – these Mush’s that stood in the way of substantive change – none of those names were Newt.

This does not excuse the things Salamander did wrong – and there are plenty of them.

But a roadblock to Reagan, he was not.

But that’s not the kind of info you’d get from Micheal Dukakis supporters, like, oh, say The Grinch of Fox News.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM

If Santorum is the nominee, I will swallow my vomit and vote. If Newt is the nominee, I will stay home. If it’s the liberal Mitt Romney that the establishment Rockefeller RINOS force on us, I’ll use my vote as a WEAPON to HURT them, and continue to prepare my family for the hell that will follow.

If we can’t save this nation, I’ll settle for revenge.

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I feel your pain, man, but you gotta keep reminding yourself: how much worse will things be if Comrade Zero doesn’t have to worry about re-election? As tough a choice as it is this time — and not in a good way — ABO is the way to go. Worst case, we cycle through a bunch of one-termers (who will have re-election in the back of their minds) until someone decent works their way in…

affenhauer on January 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

What was that sound…Levin’s book sales hitting the basement floor!

aposematic on January 30, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I guess I can forgive Drudge this time as long as it doesn’t become a pattern. Just so everyone, including Levin, knows that all people have the right to turn off a radio or TV and not read a newspaper, or in this case, a website.

lea on January 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I guess I can forgive Drudge this time as long as it doesn’t become a pattern. Just so everyone, including Levin, knows that all people have the right to turn off a radio or TV and not read a newspaper, or in this case, a website.

lea on January 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Sure they do. After all, if they didn’t have the right not to be informed they wouldn’t be Democrats right? Or Newtonians which is nearly the same thing.

Snake307 on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I feel your pain, man, but you gotta keep reminding yourself: how much worse will things be if Comrade Zero doesn’t have to worry about re-election? As tough a choice as it is this time — and not in a good way — ABO is the way to go. Worst case, we cycle through a bunch of one-termers (who will have re-election in the back of their minds) until someone decent works their way in…

affenhauer on January 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM

If Obama can break the constitution consistantly, we no longer have a nation. So arguing that, well Obama, without a congress to back him, will be worse than he is today, is an argument of futility. We either have a republic where the president is limited in power or we do not. Better to know about it today rather than wait a few more decades and learn it after the dictatorship has gained more of a footprint in power which the military would not stand against, as it becomes a part of that dictatorship.

Heads I win the argument, tails you lose the argument. If I cannot get a presidential choice that credibly would bring our nation back towards constitutinal limited government, then I am willing to face the consequences of forcing it the other way fast enough to bring about the change while I am young enough to make a difference.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Sure they do. After all, if they didn’t have the right not to be informed they wouldn’t be Democrats right? Or Newtonians which is nearly the same thing.

Snake307 on January 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Be informed such as being told what to think or who to vote for? I prefer to listen to the speeches and candidates themselves on CSPAN or in person with no commentary or spin. Too many people are getting their info from google, talk radio and the news and then claiming to be experts. Opinions are not facts.

lea on January 30, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Newt was ousted by the conservative congressmen who came to Washington in 1994. Newt was the establishment and he wanted to go along with Clinton and raise taxes in 1997. Eleven House members, who were really the first TP members, would not renege on the Contract with America.
Led by Steve Largent, they were eventually successful.

If I hear one more time that the establishment got rid of Newt, I will vomit. Newt was the establishment and he was throwing the Contract with America and conservatives under the bus.
I am so tired of the lies used to change Newt’s history.

fight like a girl on January 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM

… We either have a republic where the president is limited in power or we do not…

I haven’t seen anybody hold him to any limits as it is, but I’m sure a lot of that has been a matter of simply testing the waters. And, the truth of the matter is, Congress does seem to generally back him, lip service to constituencies aside…

…after the dictatorship has gained more of a footprint in power which the military would not stand against, as it becomes a part of that dictatorship…

I expect that issue to be solved one way or another before it gets to that point…

affenhauer on January 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Exactly. I do not believe anything Romney says, not without proof, and that means any future actions based on today’s word has 0 value to me.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM

So, you have a predisposition to believe that Romney is a liar.

Why?

Did you know this,

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2008/01/vanderbilt-poll-explains-why-romneys-flip-flopper-label-sticks-political-scientist-says-anti-mormon-bias-finds-cover-58319/

??

Gunlock Bill on January 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

“Matt Drudge has done so much good for the country; so much good for journalism…”

I beg to disagree. He’s just a modern day Walter Winchell. He’s grossed me out a number of times with certain links, and those flashing beacons I find annoying. Never go back to his page.

rickv404 on January 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM

SilverDeth on January 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

No problem. I’m happy to see the Republican Party purged of the unhinged. Wackos belong in the other party. They always have.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 5:08 PM

So, you have a predisposition to believe that Romney is a liar.

Why?

Did you know this,

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2008/01/vanderbilt-poll-explains-why-romneys-flip-flopper-label-sticks-political-scientist-says-anti-mormon-bias-finds-cover-58319/

??

Gunlock Bill on January 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Good to know. You know what else scientist know? People who charge others of prejudice are very likely to be projecting their own inferiority onto others so that are not forced to face their own inner demons. Since you went right out there and attacked me as a bigot with no evidence at all to corroborate that charge, you know what this means?

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Oh and by the way. Since they love to moan about how whiny Newt is for complaining about the attacks.

Care to explain to me how the man who controls a large part of the news needs to be defended against attacks by people like me? Why the hell can’t the powerful Drudge defend his own nearly indefensible actions?

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 5:38 PM

The establishment is ALWAYS saying “now is not the time for a protest vote- everyone fall in line, the important thing is to beat Obama”- well, I, and millions like me, are sick of that. I’d rather go down in flames with a candidate like Sharon Angle in Nevada than live with a Mike Castle in Delaware. Things need to change, fundamentally, and we’ll never get there by rewarding candidates like Romney. There comes a time to take a stand, and that time is now. We made a good start purging the party in ’10, let’s continue, let’s not go back. The establishment must be punished for pushing a candidate like Romney on us, even if it means losing to Obama. It’s worth it, in the long run. The country will survive obama for 4 more years, as bad as that may be. It’s not unlikely that even should a Republican win in ’12, he will be unseated in ’16 by Hillary.

babygiraffe on January 30, 2012 at 5:41 PM

and I meant to add, I don’t care what drudge has done in the past (his utility to the GOP is debatable, if you ask me, he is out to promote himself first and foremost, not the party)if he is not on the side of the right and the Tea Party, he’s part of the enemy, and I, for one, will _not_ give him a pass. He ought to be laying off Newt and piling on Romney wherever possible. Romney is the enemy, he would be bad for the party and bad for the country and I’m far from sure he’s not the most liberal candidate in my lifetime for the GOP.

babygiraffe on January 30, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Yeah but, AP, Rueters and other MSM stories are linked on his site. Are you sure they hate him?

jake49 on January 30, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Yeah but, AP, Rueters and other MSM stories are linked on his site. Are you sure they hate him?

jake49 on January 30, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Anyone can link anything they want to if it’s not behind a paywall. The presence of those links isn’t reason enough for them to admit that they owe him anything (which I actually believe they do, but that’s just my opinion).

gryphon202 on January 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM

The establishment is ALWAYS saying “now is not the time for a protest vote- everyone fall in line, the important thing is to beat Obama”- well, I, and millions like me, are sick of that. I’d rather go down in flames with a candidate like Sharon Angle in Nevada than live with a Mike Castle in Delaware. Things need to change, fundamentally, and we’ll never get there by rewarding candidates like Romney. There comes a time to take a stand, and that time is now. We made a good start purging the party in ’10, let’s continue, let’s not go back. The establishment must be punished for pushing a candidate like Romney on us, even if it means losing to Obama. It’s worth it, in the long run. The country will survive obama for 4 more years, as bad as that may be. It’s not unlikely that even should a Republican win in ’12, he will be unseated in ’16 by Hillary.

babygiraffe on January 30, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Exactly, and the Establishment is afraid we will not fall in line. They say if I don’t vote for Romney, it’s a vote for Obama. So, if I vote for Obama, is that like 2 votes for Obama? Hmmmmmm. Not sure if I would go that far, but what better way to make a statement than during this election.

lea on January 30, 2012 at 6:28 PM

babygiraffe on January 30, 2012 at 5:41 PM

The more of us who are vocal on this, the more others will feel as if they will not be forced to vote against their conscious. They can attack me all they want. But I know that history shows if we elect Romney, in 4 to 8 years it will be automatic that the Democrats get a new Obama, Pelosi and Reid, even if the names change, their politics will be the same or even more extreme. In the mean time, Romney will just manage the decay of our nation somewhat better than Obama.

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Bill, I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised if Mitt is the nominee. You are going to witness a lot of conservative evangelicals defending the man even though they may not personally be big fans of his religious beliefs.

Kataklysmic on January 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Exactly. Let’s see, a patriotic Mormon, or…

President Obama who despises what makes America great, and is either lying about his Muslim roots, (the lie is the problem) or he is a member of an anti America radicalized church with the hateful Reverend Wright. It’s one or the other for Obama.

scotash on January 30, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Conservatives must be as stupid as the insiders think we are – we keep allowing them to sucker us in under the guise of “Our selected guy is better than the Dems guy, our guy is electable because we won’t support a conservative.” And conservatives still act surprised that the party treats them and their positions like trailer trash. Keep voting for the insiders’ candidate and we’ll keep getting the insiders’ candidate.

katiejane on January 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Yep, just like last time. And we lost big. It’s sort of like a bad marriage. Sometimes it takes going through some bad to get to the good. I remember reading post after post about how we weren’t going to ever let this happen again, when we got McCain. Some things never change.

wi farmgirl on January 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM

The Drudge Report’s motto should be ‘I link, you decide’. My take on the anti-Newt theme from Friday was that it appeared there was an orchestrated campaign to take out Newt. Drudge was merely reflecting the event as it was happening. I am not really a Newt supporter, but I immediately became suspicious of it. (and not so much suspicious of Drudge).

painfulTruthDisciple on January 30, 2012 at 7:44 PM

You know what saddens me is Tina Korbe defending Romney SHILLS Matt Drudge and Mark aka Fredo Corleone Levin…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I also read the Drudge Report and believe they hammered Newt up until yesterday, now today they have a few anti-Romney posts. I might as well read Politico if I want bias news reports. Drudge better get square or I for one won’t click there again.

MJZZZ on January 30, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Anti-Romney people – I’m not talking about people who prefer another candidate, as I do (Santorum), but those who are truly anti-Romney, claiming they’re “conservatives” and yet arguing they’d rather have a 2nd term for Obama – are loathsome. Seriously hateful creatures.

And those who blindly cling to Gingrich (not to be confused with those who do so with open eyes) are no better than the Obama zombies. This includes almost everyone attacking Drudge for supposedly “smearing” him, and absolutely everyone who thinks Gingrich is a conservative, and not the FDR-loving Progressive that he truly is (as he has proven time and time again over the years, on video, both decades ago and less than a month ago).

CanofSand on January 30, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Anti-Romney people – I’m not talking about people who prefer another candidate, as I do (Santorum), but those who are truly anti-Romney, claiming they’re “conservatives” and yet arguing they’d rather have a 2nd term for Obama – are loathsome. Seriously hateful creatures.

And those who blindly cling to Gingrich (not to be confused with those who do so with open eyes) are no better than the Obama zombies. This includes almost everyone attacking Drudge for supposedly “smearing” him, and absolutely everyone who thinks Gingrich is a conservative, and not the FDR-loving Progressive that he truly is (as he has proven time and time again over the years, on video, both decades ago and less than a month ago).

CanofSand on January 30, 2012 at 8:29 PM

How did we go from 2000 to 2008 when we started that time frame off with nothing but republicans controlling the government? How did we drift so far to the left in that time frame? What kind of politician has to be in office in order to be republican and end up giving us the legislation they did in that time frame? How is that the republicans, after being handed a moral victory in 2010 and being told we are done with the big government you support went from using every tactic available to block legislation to a lame duck session that accomplished more in a few short weeks than it did in the previous months? How did that happen? What kind of politician was elected into office that would vote the citizens rights away?

Now you are telling me that loathsome and hateful because I refuse to be part of the cheering squad as you try and elect a politician that will squander my rights away?

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Mark aka Fredo Corleone Levin…

apocalypse on January 30, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I voted for Reagan in 80 and 84, but he’s the only Conservative I’ve ever voted for…because in the deep blue where I live there has not been another conservative candidate on the ballot for any office.

So once again I’ll vote for the lesser of two evils, sit it out if your conscience demands it, but you can be certain of this; if Obama wins, there will not be another Presidential election in any of our lifetimes.

halfbaked on January 30, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Now you are telling me that loathsome and hateful because I refuse to be part of the cheering squad as you try and elect a politician that will squander my rights away?

astonerii on January 30, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Thanks for the straw man. Any more absurd loaded questions you want to ask, or are you going to actually address my point?

CanofSand on January 31, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2