I responded to your misrepresentation, you "mistaken" paraphrase. Those words in your paraphrase were not my words, or my meaning, verbatim or otherwise. I pointed that out.joe said:I have confused? Those were your words quoted verbatim.
You can see the differences for yourself, by quoting your post and mine side by side - as you have avoided doing five times now, for reasons increasingly obvious.
I never used the term "loosely connected". That was you. You claimed I said Al Sharpton was loosely connected to his own cable TV show.joe said:So while you may not know the meaning of “loosely connected” most people do.
Of course. Not only that, I deliberately chose the name of the entity I said Sharpton is marginally connected to, for its meaning, and meant it - that, also, is not as you claim, which invalidates your entire response.joe said:So you have another interpretation for the words “marginally connected” that doesn’t translate to “loosely associated”?
When you insist on responding to your "interpretations", rather than my posting, repeatedly, after being alerted to the discrepancies and problems, a question of motive arises.
That's ridiculous. Gingrich is one of the major architects of the modern Republican Congress, and is still a central figure in backroom Republican media strategizing. Half the House owes their political stances and fortunes to his Party influence and his Partisan organization. His race baiting is central, fundamental, a continuation of Atwater and the Reagan Era, a foundation of the Fox media approach.joe said:Gingrich and Sharpton fill similar niches in their parties.
Not one Democratic Congressman owes their rhetoric, political stances, and seat in Congress to Al Sharpton's influence and power and political strategies. He's not a central or even significant influence on the rhetoric, strategies, or stances, of Democratic politicians nationally, and never has been. His race baiting, if any, is of little significance to the Democratic Party's operations in Congress or national media approach.
There is no such thing as "both sides", in this stuff - barring, possibly, gun control, no issue in US political discourse is gridlocked and polarized by equivalent cadres of irrational extremists on "both sides". Certainly not race. Gingrich's calculated and cynical race baiting is a core source of campaign organization, political power, and institutional leverage. Sharpton's, much less twisted, is entertaining a small and localized cable TV market niche.
Fox has enormous power and influence. Gingrich was part of the acquisition and establishment of that, and the continuation of it now, in defiance of Fox's obligations toward its audience and the public good, otherwise known as "the people". There is nobody playing any such role anywhere near Al Sharpton.