CBS's Rose Scolds Newt: 'Why Are Drudge and Ann Coulter Attacking You?'
On Monday's CBS This Morning, Charlie Rose hammered Newt Gingrich on the issue of the opposition his presidential campaign was receiving from some prominent conservatives: "Why are so many conservatives, including...Drudge and Ann Coulter, attacking you?" Rose also spotlighted how apparently "there are those who say that you [Gingrich] are angry and you want to get even with Romney."
The anchor started relentlessly pursued Gingrich not long after he began the interview. He asked the Drudge and "get even" questions in quick succession after getting the former House Speaker to reply to a recent comment from opponent Mitt Romney. Later, the CBS journalist pounced when the Georgia Republican raised what George Soros said recently, that "there isn't all that much difference" between President Obama and Romney [audio clip available here; video below the jump]:
GINGRICH: ...When Floridians learn that George Soros thinks that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both okay, but that Newt Gingrich is really a threat because he's a genuine conservative-
ROSE: I don't believe-
GINGRICH: I think, in the next 24 hours, things are going to change-
ROSE: I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that you think that George Soros's opinion is what's going to be at- the issue in a Republican primary in South Ca [sic]- in Florida.
GINGRICH: I think when you have a left-wing billionaire tell Europeans that he thinks Romney's just fine because he's just as much a part of the establishment as Obama, and that he can live with Romney...I think it's pretty easy to make the case- Romney is a guy who will manage the decay; he's not the guy who's going to change Washington.
Rose followed this by returning to the issue of conservatives opposing Gingrich, and dropped the name of a current MSNBC anchor into the mix:
ROSE: But I have still not come to an understanding of why so many people that worked with you are concerned about you being the nominee. This is not people from the establishment necessarily. I mean, these are people who were with you, including Joe Scarborough, Tom DeLay-
GINGRICH: Wait a second-
ROSE: And others who were part of what the revolution that Gingrich made.
GINGRICH: Look, take the case of DeLay. I can't imagine anybody in the news media is going to cite Tom DeLay. Tom DeLay represented a fundamentally different approach to authority than I did. He got in enormous trouble for it. You can argue that, in many ways, he was the architect of the 2006 disaster. I am- look, I was a very tough speaker of the House.
Earlier in the segment, the CBS anchor raised how former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been coming to Gingrich's defense, and asked, "Do you approve of Sarah Palin talking about what has happened to you as 'Stalin-esque'?"
Two weeks earlier, on the January 17, 2011 edition of the CBS morning show, Rose hinted that the former speaker should apologize for a supposedly racially-tinged comment he recently made: "I want to give you an opportunity, because the point was made...about it's better for black Americans to seek a job than it is to seek food stamps, and many people stepped forward to say, isn't that simply true for all Americans who are desperately looking for jobs?"
The full transcript of Charlie Rose's interview of Newt Gingrich on Monday's CBS This Morning, which aired five minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour, can be found here.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Rose: Tryin' to have it both ways
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:32pm.
GINGRICH: "Look, take the case of DeLay. I can't imagine anybody in the news media is going to cite Tom DeLay."
Gingrich has a point there.
The MSM has given extensive coverage to Tom DeLay and his legal troubles. They've painted him as an evil doer out to undermine democracy in Texas..
And we know that if DeLay endorsed Gingrich, Rose would ask, "Aren't you concerned that Tom DeLay -- a politician who's had lots of legal woes -- had come out and endorsed you?"
So, if why on Earth would Gingrich be concerned that DeLay doesn't support him, and why on Earth would Rose think DeLay's opinion mattered.
Coulter's endorsement of Romney says a lot more about Coulter's bona fides as a conservative than it does about Romney. She was highly critical of Bush-43, and Romney is a Bush-clone.
numbskull
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:36pm.
Evidently newticle thinks we are all numbskulls.
At every turn he is suggesting that voters can't think for themselves.
We're swayed by cheering, by silence, by outsiders, by Drudge, etc etc etc.
How long before newt is wearing a straight jacket.
AND THE REALITY IS
Submitted by reelman46 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:31pm.
The real difference between Mitt and Newt....
when Mitt got political power he built a moderate record to get along with democrats...(thus the excuses/flips, he socialized medicine and he left rated very low)
when Newt got political power he built a conservative record 2nd to none despite a "slick" democrat president...
(90% lifetime conservative rating, Welfare Reform. more jobs, Contract With America)
There is also a huge difference when describing OzBama as "In over his head" (Mitt) vs "He is an Alinsky radical"
(Newt)...thinkers know which one nails J. Carter OzBama and which is the usual Dole/McLoser sissy approach to the socialist apostles (aka democrats).
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish<
Bingo! And that's a key
Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:52pm.
Bingo!
And that's a key issue.
It's easy to be anti-healthcare now, because it's unpopular but what if some liberal issue is popular. Do you forsake conservatism and "compromise" for political reasons or do you stand on principle and go out and make the case for conservatism.
I'm for the latter, I'm not sure Romney is.
To be fair I wonder if newt is either. He said "if you seek to be a perfect minority, you'll remain a minority" I took that to mean if your views are not popular and you hold them stridently you will be principled but still lose.
but to his credit he has not forsaken the conservative line even as polls show him behind in Florida. And that encourages me.
I notice you don't
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:37pm.
Complain when everything in the entire universe is blamed by the impostor in the White House on George Bush . Oh thats right I'm in office for 3 years and it's all Bush's fault.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red
Getting harder and harder to
Submitted by cbeyer on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:34pm.
defend the Newster...isn't it! He is a trainwreck on its way down the mountain.
MUSH MOUTH COWARDS vs CONSERVATIVES
Submitted by reelman46 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:51pm.
Its a battle between the mush mouth quarter pie ole soul-selling elites that are so weak they worry about their own skins more than America and THINKING Repubs/conservatives.
After the elite (Rove) let Bush be a mute punching bag for 3 years and the elites before that gave us loser Dole and then the elites gave us McLoser...Guess who they endorsed? Now we have 15 trillion of debt and a sack full of ignored issues...so who can blame THINKING GOP voters for being skeptics? These spineless GOP ole boy clowns created the Tea Party by being gutless get-a-longs...just as the biased media created Talk Radio...can't that at least be admitted?
We have an arrogant apostle of socialist utopianism who cannot live in the real economic world or tell the truth...he cannot run on his record and is a sitting duck quacking bold lies...look at the voters in Nov 2010...they sent 730 dimdems home for a record hammering...did the elites learn from that? Nooo.
OzBama can only win by stealing it or a 3rd Party or another pantywaist...you pick it.
We thinkers want to at least eliminate the flipper pantywaist with the mush mouth record.
Forrest G. OzBama or J. Carter Obama, whichever...by any sane process, he should lose big but the media (their own 3rd party) was shocked/wrong in 1994 and shocked/wrong in Nov 2010...so the fantasy begins.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish<
Drudge?
Submitted by Fredy on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:13pm.
For several days there have been many supporters claiming Drudge was unbiased and the obvious fraudulent hit pieces on Newt were to be expected.
Now we have left wing cbs news saying Drudge is biased against Newt.
Can there be a more clear example of Republican establishment bias than what Drudge has now embedded itself into?
(pssst: Matt, there is a hot opinion piece that Newt was actually a progressive democrat over on politico! You better link to it PRONTO! Put it in RED and get the light flashing! You know, just like you did 2 days before the SC primary!)
The Drudge Distort
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:57pm.
Here's why Drudge is trashing Newt....he's all in for Romney.
The Drudge Distort
As fof Ann Coulter: her recent Christie/Romney thing has got me puzzled. She apparently loved Christie with no business experience and 18 months as Governor, over Romney, but now decides Romney's career as a businessman is what makes him the best.
“Politics makes strange bedfellows”.
Submitted by vrwc13 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 6:41pm.
“Politics makes strange bedfellows”. - Charles Dudley Warner
...couldn't be more true than during this GOP nomination process.
And from your link MB:
Odd when you consider that, less than one year ago, Coulter told a packed house at CPAC the exact opposite: “If you don't run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we’ll lose,” she said. “By the way, I warned you about McCain.” (I don’t know, maybe Ann’s now angling for a gig as Romney’s Secretary of Snark. Look for her next book: “Moderate: An Autobiography.”)
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
You forgot: Psssst: don't
Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 6:08pm.
You forgot:
Psssst: don't mention Mitt Romneys shortcomings and liberal governing record
Charlie Rose
Submitted by helomech on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:18pm.
The more I read what he says/post, the more I view him as the rest of the lib stream media: a mindless, drivel -spewing hack.
Maybe this really is about the shake up of the GOP as well as a major election. I guess sometimes, a shake up within the organization is a good thing and probably necessary to get rid of the deadwood so to speak
Shake-ups (or purges)
Submitted by ahusser on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:47pm.
While sometimes desirable.Should be done before hand in smoke filled rooms and carried out in the dead of night. Not in the limelight shined by a biased press and a fickle public. If the GOP splits the winning of the Presidency probably won't happen although sometimes coalitions can join to beat a common enemy divorce will certainly follow. I contend, and this is my opinion, without the independents and fence sitters the GOP cannot win the Presidency. It is extremely important, however, that we win back the Senate and keep the house.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Because Drudge and Coulter
Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 7:21pm.
Because Drudge and Coulter have looked at the polls in which Newt gets creamed by Obama. They're supporting the only guy who has a chance to win.
Yeah...
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:41pm.
Just like in south Carolina.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red
Pile Disturbing Alinskyite
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:46pm.
Subject says it all.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html